Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#214 04/03/00 07:32 PM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
I have many pet peeves when it comes to "non-standard" English; e.g., irregardless, flustrated. But I fell into the habit long ago of using 'begging the question' for 'inviting the question'. It may be "wrong", but it's readily understood in context (as opposed to the correct sense of "petitio principii"). Best of all, it BEGS rather than just inviting!


#215 04/03/00 10:16 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
J
newbie
Offline
newbie
J
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
Goodgold,

Judging by your interest in semiotics perhaps you will find this definition for a word to be as exquisitly succinct as I have.

"[A] word is the synthesis of a concept, an utterance, and a syntactic role." --George A Miller, from _The Science of Words_


#216 04/04/00 06:33 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
I doubt wether expressions like "to beg the question" have ever been "tested in the crucible of demotic idiom". Its direct latin ancestry points to a well-known function of words, which is not often mentioned in a discussion like this one: to mark, signal and distinghuish the turf of (former) elite corporations, like logicians and lawyers in this case.
Best regards
Werner Sieber


#217 04/05/00 06:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
J
newbie
Offline
newbie
J
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
Hello WSieber,

In otherwords, such expressions as "beg the question" are part of an elitist panoply, intimidating the uninitiated by their recondite obscurity, while providing a sense of security and superiority to those within the exclusionary group or society to which such locutions are a part. It's a good point, and as you point out, one often overlooked by the lexicologist. Perhaps this would fall under the subject of psychology. Fortunately, society seems to be more cognizant of affected behavior, and of "costume language", and better speakers and writers disdain the verbal poseur. It's all part of the ongoing democratization of language. Such expressions are likely to remain accepted and even necessary within their respective cliques, but are increasingly shunned when encountered outside. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing "beg the question" relegated to the arenas of law and logic, and expelled from general communication. What's wrong with "evades the question"?



#218 04/06/00 03:30 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 4
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 4
Jeff,

To paraphrase Gertrude, a word is a word, is a word; and a concept is a concept, is a concept. To define one in terms of the other is to engage in a form of circular logic that is nonsense. To use the two words to define each other is the only possible logic. As I originally posted, words represent concepts but they are not concepts themselves.

Jeff, you get a merit badge for vocabulary, but you also get a demerit for gratuitous flaunting. The purpose of posting here is to communicate ideas, foster understanding and stimulate further inquiry, not to obfuscate the subject under discussion.

To contine: a concept is a philosophic and psycho-neurologic predicate used to explain observed phenomena and described by other words. The essence of the scientific method is the identification of similarities and differences. (See: nomenclature and taxonomy)


#219 04/07/00 02:16 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
J
newbie
Offline
newbie
J
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
My good Goodgold,

Who’s Gertrude?

And why hold me to account for something someone else said? If you don’t like Mr. Miller’s definition of a word, go tell him, but I think you may find him a more formidable target than me. However, for some of us common folk, his definition is nothing short of sublime, and that’s a philosophic-psycho-neurologic predicate too, Mr. Big-word.

I am accused by some on AWAD, of gratuitously flaunting my prodigious vocabulary. To that accusation I plead guilty as charged. I’m sorry, but I just can’t resist offering up those zingers. How else, besides using them, can one expect to consign these wondrous locutions to memory? After all, one doesn’t come by a prodigious vocabulary by osmosis.

Some people collect coins or stamps or traffic citations. Me, I collect words. They’re free, don’t take up space, and are easy to haul around. They don’t depreciate in value or molder with age. Each one has a history behind it, and is a tile in the mosaic of our language, the coin of the accumulated knowledge of humanity.

Please see my bio. You too, Anna. Therein I profess openly to being a lexiphanicist (see definition below), so thank you for alerting the world and further disseminating my nepharious notoriety. Nobody is twisting your arm to read my pedigogical profferings. You are quite welcome to simply skip over my postings whenever they become too burdensome for you. It does seem to me, however, that there are a few of us linguaphiles out there, who’s blood quickens when confronted with an unfamiliar word. After all, the name of this site is wordsmith.org, isn’t it?

I have lexiphilia so bad, I carry a copy of MW10 in my car. I have a long commute and one never knows when Jerry McChesny or Linda Wirtheimer is going to spring another corker. (Yes, I thrive on NPR.) User Tsuwm has a whole web page devoted to verbal esoterica (see his bio) and a mailing list of eager subscribers, fitfully awaiting each day’s “worthless word”. So why do some of you feel impelled to curtail other people’s fun? If you don’t like looking up them hard words, whatcha doin’ here fer, anyhoo? Why doncha hang out in one o’ them thar chat rooms ya keep pinin’ fer, where the mean IQ is minus 20?

Anna, I posted that editing hint a second time under “announcements”, because I felt that was a more appropriate place for it. Had I known you would whinge over my posting it twice, I would have removed the original. Reconsidering however, I can’t imagine anyone else being vexed by my oversight, so what’s the harm? However, out of deference to your ladyship, I do promise not to double my postings in future. I'll double my fun, instead. And just for you, I’ve tried to keep the tone of this posting a bit more informal. Just don’t let me hear you accuse me of being unreasonable. Call me a palavering pedant, with a pertinacious penchant for polysylabic polysemic pronouncements, but don't call me late fer dinner. :-)

Okay, who’s next?
------------------------
Footnote:
Lexiphanicism \Lex`i*phan"i*cism\ (-[i^]*s[i^]z'm), n. The use of pretentious words, language, or style.

‘lexiphanicism’, for those who may not know it, is not likely to be found in your typical desk-top Webster’s. The only dictionary I could find on the WEB that lists the term is Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), found at http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster. Dispite its age, this reference is especially helpful with these delectable old recondite greco-latinate words. Keep that URL handy. You’re likely to need it with me around. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Gawd, I love this stuff. Mike, I love your self-description. You will get a post or a personal from me tomorrow, or Monday. I have this software engineering job to hold down, and they keep interrupting my verbiphagous gluttony with demands for more work.



#220 04/07/00 03:18 AM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
jeff,

I give your vocabulary a 73, but you can't dance the tarantella to it (hi Anna). your spelling, however, still sucks... it's "nefarious", you gormless twit!

-tsuwm


#221 04/07/00 08:44 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
Jeff,
Commons tend to be rendered unusable through overuse by a minority (the well-known dilemma of the commons). A forum is a modern type of commons. Against chronic logorrhea I advise a diet rich in natural fiber :)


#222 04/07/00 02:30 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
J
newbie
Offline
newbie
J
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 39
tsuwm,

'Nefarious' is correct. Just checking to see if anyone is awake out there. It's nice to know you're reading, and I'll get to work on my low vocabulary score, right away. I'll try to find time for a more prolix post later. :-)

Jeff




#223 04/07/00 05:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
J
jmh Offline
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
J
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
I was wondering what the original point of all this was. Have we decided:
(i) Lots of people use "beg the question" in a way which differs from it original useage.
(ii) Some people dislike this useage.
(iii) It has become increasingly acceptable and it is making its way into the dictionaries.
(iv) It illustrates the point that language is not static.
(v) We like language to change but only in ways that we like.
(vi) I'm beginning to see why I studied maths and not english, 1+1=2, end of story (unfortunately I discovered that I'd underestimated the number of possible answers to that question too).

Next question!


Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,580
Members9,187
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Karin, JeffMackwood, artguitar, Jim_W, Rdbuffalo
9,187 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 332 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
wofahulicodoc 10,713
tsuwm 10,542
LukeJavan8 9,931
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5