Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Bryan to beg the question - 03/15/00 08:46 PM
Is anyone else sick and tired of people misusing the phrase "to beg the question" as if it meant "to raise the question"? The phrase was misused this way in a recent issue of Newsweek. I wrote them a letter about it and got a reply: the respondent cited Fowler, which he misinterpreted as support for the article's usage!!

Posted By: tifarmer Re: to beg the question - 03/16/00 04:36 PM
Yes, indeed. I fear that the problem you identify may run rather deep--beginning the writer's (or speaker's) inability to recognize petitio principii as a logical fallacy. Bryan Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage" contains a well written article on the subject that notes not only "inviting the obvious question" but also "evading the issue" as mistaken uses.

Posted By: copyboy Re: to beg the question - 03/17/00 08:11 PM
I too have objected to this usage, so I wrote to Merriam-Webster. They said it is not in the dictionaries yet "because it is too recent." But they added, "Given the standard sources in which this use of the phrase appears ... it is highly unlikely that any dictionary would recognize it AS ANYTHING BUT STANDARD when they get around to entering it.

Posted By: mikstu Re: to beg the question - 03/22/00 02:31 PM
Bryan asked -Is anyone else sick and tired of people misusing the phrase "to beg the question" as if it meant "to raise the question"?
I am. This phrase seems to be misused in the sense of "Requires that the question be asked", as well.

Posted By: whalemeat Re: to beg the question - 03/27/00 08:22 AM
Bryan, I wonder if this particular battle isn't lost when the editorial staff at a journal with some pretensions like Newsweek can make such a horrible blue and then cite the Fowler boys in defence.

I reckon the decline in journalists' use of language started when proofreaders (and to some extent knowledgeable subeditors) were largely dispensed with after the introduction of electronic systemsto the print media. No proofreader would have let that through. And of course the rot quickly spread to TV and radio journalism.

I'm faily tolerant about some 'errors' but what makes me sad about those like 'beg the question' is that they rob English of a way of directly expressing an idea that can only be replaced with some clumsy, convoluted trip around the block.

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 03/29/00 11:36 PM
[ Re-edited to replace "descriptionist" with "descriptivist". --Jeff ]

Hi Bryan,

I have consulted _The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage_ (3rd and latest edition of this venerable work), to verify Newsweek’s claim. I regret to inform you that it seems to me that Fowler’s does indeed mention that this questionable usage of “beg the question” has become standard usage. What is standard usage? According to the linguistic descriptivists, of which Fowler’s editor, Robert Burchfield, is a leading exponent, standard usage is essentially common usage. According to these good folks, grammar and lexicon wait for no man to pronounce them legal, and no one has ever been able to hold them in stasis in order to “preserve” their current state of “excellence”. Burchfield, who by the way is the recent editor of the _Oxford English Dictionary_, Second Edition, and as such, ought to garner a certain degree of credibility, points out that even Samuel Johnson, around 1750, eventually came to realize that language is a dynamic phenomenon, and that even the French and their national academy were unable to halt the changes which necessarily must occur in any living language. It is that word “living” which is all important. To the descriptivist, this dynamism in language is a continual source of wonder and fascination.

In the complilation of the “New Fowler’s”, many thousands of citations from current language sources were collected, and computerized. This database provided scientific evidence supporting the book’s findings. Dr. Burchfield evidently found enough evidence to convince him that this new usage of “beg the question” had become standard.

Rather than bemoan the “corruption” of this particular idiom, we might try to keep in mind that many of the words and expressions we use today are “corruptions” of their previous forms or meanings. Nearly all the words we employ today have evolved from earlier forms, and in the process acquired new or sloughed off old meanings. Burchfield in all his linguistic wisdom, has assured us, in his preface to Fowler’s, that our beloved native tongue is quite healthy, and will undoubtedly withstand the onslaught of the unprecedented change it is currently undergoing, as it keeps pace with the needs of the people to express new ideas, and becomes ever more efficient in doing so. As for “beg the question”, we will just have to adjust to the fact that this collocation now seems to have acquired more than one sense, and that the audience is no longer at liberty to beg the question, what is meant by its use? The audience has a responsibility to interpret it correctly, assuming that the context offers enough clues as to which sense is implied, while the communicator is responsible for providing the necessary clues to insure correct interpretation. In practice, this is almost always unconscious.


Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 03/30/00 12:17 AM
Hello tifarmer,

Your quoting Garner’s “Dictionary of Legal Usage” is interesting, and I thank you for doing so. However, that book strikes me as inappropriate in this case. Newsweek is a publication with a very broad and general audience, therefore, the magazine's contributors are not likely to be dealing with the concept of petitio principii in any legal sense. All the general dictionaries I consulted listed under ‘beg’ or “beg the question” the less specific sense of evading or sidestepping, most also included the sense of assuming as proved the very thing being argued. The excellent _Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage_ explained that the phrase “beg the question” is a direct translation of the Latin “petitio principii”, and discussed its stricter sense as it is used in the fields of logic and law. As for the questionable sense of “inviting the question”, see my reply to Bryan’s post.




Posted By: Bryan Re: to beg the question - 03/30/00 04:56 PM
I'm sorry to hear that the "linguistic descriptionists" have kidnapped Fowler! LOL

I agree that language changes, and that this is a source of wonder, and also often of improvement. But not every change is a good one, and there's nothing wrong with opposing a change for the worse, especially when there is still a chance to turn the tide against it.

I don't know much about current trends in linguistics, but "linguistic descriptionism" sounds like a psuedo-scientific effort to be evaluatively objective. In reality, every dictionary and manual of usage is normative. (We wouldn't need them if they weren't.) The descriptionists seem to have taken as their norm something like majority usage (or more likely the majority of written sources, or written sources that were in their database, or ...) and based their norm on that. I prefer to use a norm that weights more heavily the usage of those who are acknowledged to be good writers and eloquent speakers.

Oh, and I have contributed to several dictionaries and encyclopedias, so I "ought to garner a certain degree of credibility" myself. ;-)

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 03/31/00 08:48 PM
Hi Bryan, and thanks for responding. It seems we find ourselves facing each other across the traditional divide of lexicography, i.e. prescriptive vs. descriptive. I agree with you that our general English language dictionaries are “normative”. Even in these breakneck paced times, our language is still evolving very slowly, and so the snapshot of the language, as represented by the dictionary, remains de facto normative without actually striving to be. All modern dictionaries take the descriptive approach, reporting the language as it is actually used, and not as some elitist editor and his staff may arbitrarily decree to be standard. This is true of the American Heritage Dictionary, as well as the others, in spite of Heritage’s prescriptivist posturing.

Language is fundamentally a democratic phenomenon. Attempts to control it have always failed, miserably. The success or failure of any neologism is always tested in the crucible of demotic idiom. If a change is found to be useful, or attractive to the general speaker, it will continue to be used and eventually become standard. If not, it will have a shorter life. Ultimately, there is little anyone can do to control this process. Indeed, it is now felt that little need be done no matter how offensive or barbaric a new linguistic change may seem to the dons of academia or their proteges, who are usually inadequately informed to judge such a change objectively from within the context of their personal linguistic experience. The lexicographer’s role is therefore to remain steadfastly objective and to simply report how the language is being used by the general population. After more than two centuries of increasingly descriptivist dictionaries, this principle is now all but apodictic within the linguistic community. Unfortunately the lexicographer is often criticized and sometimes vilified by disgruntled people who feel passionately about their language, and insist that the dictionary use its influence to extirpate these barbarisms. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the experience of editor Philip Gove as portrayed in _The Story of Webster’s Third_, by Herbert Morton, which I found absorbing.

On the subject of language evolution and the natural laws that govern it, I would also recommend a little book by Charleton Laird, called _The Miracle of Language_. These books may be out of print but may be found through on-line used book sources (such as abebooks.com) or with the help of your local bouquiniste. Beware of other books with the same title as Laird’s. I would be interested in learning about your experiences Bryan, as a contributing lexicographer, e.g. which dictionary, when, etc. Would anyone care to comment on the new _Encarta World Dictionary of English_? In my opinion, it represents a new low in scholarship and lexicography, however boldly it parades the ephemera of the modern lexicon.


Posted By: goodgold Re: to beg the question - 04/02/00 08:59 PM
Much of this discussion can be rendered irrelevant once one realizes that words represent concepts, they are not concepts themselves, even in linguistic discussions. In order for a speaker and a listener to communicate effectively it is required that they share the same conceptual referents. Dictionaries provide a means of discerning the possible referents for any given word. Wars have been started and dinner parties ruined by misunderstandings. One man's nigger (as cheapskate) is other man's racial slur (as unworthy person, usually, but not always, black, negro, colored, etc.) to use a particularly odious, by politically correct standards, example.

Lexicography is forced to use descriptive definitions if its products are to have any value. There is no point in stating what a word ought to mean to persons who are already using it to mean something else. This defies common sense, semantics, logic and inhibits productive intellectual endeavor.

Should there remain any question about the difference between words and concepts, a study of sign languages, iconography and hieroglyphics should set things straight. (See also, pictograph, ideograph, symbol)

Next time, class, we'll take up syntax, declensions, mood and conjugations. NO! Leave your condoms at home!

Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 04/03/00 07:32 PM
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!

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/03/00 10:16 PM
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_

Posted By: wsieber Re: to beg the question - 04/04/00 06:33 AM
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

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/05/00 06:50 PM
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"?


Posted By: goodgold Re: to beg the question - 04/06/00 03:30 AM
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)

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/07/00 02:16 AM
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.


Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 04/07/00 03:18 AM
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

Posted By: wsieber Re: to beg the question - 04/07/00 08:44 AM
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 :)

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/07/00 02:30 PM
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



Posted By: jmh Re: to beg the question - 04/07/00 05:18 PM
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!

Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 04/07/00 06:22 PM
Jo,

It sounds to me like you're begging the question. 8 )

In the interests of providing some clarity in regard to "correct" usage, here's an example as provided by columnist James Kilpatrick:

"Suppose that a young man from a prominent family is charged with raping a young woman in Palm Beach. A friend of the woman asks what punishment should be imposed upon the defendant, thus begging the question of the defendant's guilt."

Some usage guides recommend that the phrase be avoided altogether, since logic is no longer a typical course of study (or a typical capability ;).

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/08/00 12:58 AM
Perspicaciously and perspicuously propounded, Mike. Jo is right to bring us back into focus. I also sense that she feels the topic has now been covered sufficiently. After your astute summary, I feel we have achieved closure, and could all do with a fresh topic upon which to masticate. I have some ideas but will leave them till Monday. I need to get a life. See y'all then.



Posted By: Lady Re: to beg the question - 04/08/00 03:16 AM
Jeff, just wanted to post that I did find the word lexiphanicism in my Abbott's Webster's dictionary that my father gave to me. I enjoy reading your posts with a few dictionaries in front of me!

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/10/00 03:41 PM
Greetings gracious Lady,

Thanks for your kind words. I'm sure the plaintive moans can now be heard in response to your post as the supercilious defenders of the board denounce you for encouraging the pleonastic and miscreant denizens of this fair venue.

Heed not fair lass,
their rueful plaint,
for such as they
all joy would taint.

Posted By: Jackie Re: to beg the question - 04/12/00 12:35 AM
How many questions (and replies) does it take to
beg a question? HAVE MERCY ON US, O PHILES!

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/12/00 12:48 AM
You are begging the question: "Why do I post if I want this thread to end?".


Posted By: wsieber Re: to beg the question - 04/12/00 05:17 AM
A beggar cannot be a chooser. This apparantly also applies to questions.

Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 04/12/00 02:14 PM
beggar off!!

Posted By: copyboy Re: to beg the question - 04/12/00 09:59 PM
Jeff: Were you testing us in your April 6 posting when you wrote "WHO'S blood quickens" instead of the correct WHOSE?
(Probably just a typo, the kind I make.)

Posted By: jeff Re: to beg the question - 04/12/00 10:17 PM
Hi Copyboy,

You are gaining an editor's eye, eh? Nope, I didn't plant it. It's just another case of my being all too human, or maybe Mike's rite, and i'm reelly a gormless twit. 8^O

--Jeff

Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 04/13/00 02:31 AM
jeff,

I'm working on a change of attitude; perhaps 'fastuous gump' fits you better?! [note interrobang, suggestive of rhetorical question]

regards,
mike

Posted By: jmh Re: to beg the question - 04/13/00 06:41 AM
Just to let you know that there are now more than 30 postings on this subject. I'm getting a sense that it is becoming more like a soap opera than a television drama serial. A drama serial has a beginning a middle and an end. A soap opera just keeps going on and on ... and on ... and on.

I have ignored previous calls to stop posting on as I think we have now entered a new stage - where people ramble on forever about things which are increasingly irrelevant to the original subject (just like a soap opera).

We now must surely hold the record of the largest number of postings on this site, so feel free to carry on and on ... and on ... and on ...

Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 04/13/00 12:26 PM
jo says we've become "increasingly irrelevant to the original subject".

three (3) responses leap to mind:

1) your point being?
ii) I beg to differ!
c) can't you see the irony?!

...most of these, perforce, are irrelevant to the original subject.

Posted By: mikstu Re: to beg the question - 04/13/00 01:25 PM
Hey, Jeff-Enuf.

Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: to beg the question - 04/13/00 02:54 PM
This board is a chat room, albeit slo-mo.
yours truly,
the newbie,
a stranger no mo'



Posted By: jmh Re: to beg the question - 04/14/00 08:23 AM
Tsuwm
Do I see the irony? Is the Pope a Catholic?

Posted By: wsieber Re: to beg the question - 04/14/00 10:38 AM
The failure of all the experts to have the last word here is due to the inherent circularity of the original subject.

Posted By: Philip Davis Re: to beg the question - 04/15/00 03:47 AM
If I mention the branch of chemistry concerned with the fermentation processes in brewing is that the last word?

Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 04/15/00 12:13 PM
you should at least be on the last page!

(zymurgy is currently the last word in my wwftd dictionary, but I have considered zythum (from zythos, a Latin word for beer). http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/


Posted By: Jackie Re: to beg the question - 04/17/00 03:18 PM
Oh, my gosh, I have laughed for the last five minutes!!
I had sort of hoped my hint NUMERO-SO postings ago might
give everyone paws for thought, but several had to keep
digging, I see. I wondered how long it would be till others noticed the irony of the excess number of beg-the-question responses! Jo, this is definitely getting sudsier by the posting! At least the soap can wash away the dirt
dug up w/ our paws so this doesn't become a festering wound!

Posted By: jmh Re: to beg the question - 04/17/00 05:34 PM
word

Posted By: patatty Re: to beg the question - 11/27/00 09:30 PM
Sorry I'm so (re)tardy in responding. Been away too long.
What do you think about this recent AWAD - does #2 come close to begging the question?
CTTOI, #1 might be of interest to Mardy the Chiasmus maven.
AJC

hysteron proteron (HIS-tuh-ron PROT-uh-ron) noun

1. A figure of speech in which the natural or rational order of its
terms is reversed, as in bred and born instead of born and bred.

2. The logical fallacy of assuming as true and using as a premise
a proposition that is yet to be proved.

[Late Latin, from Greek husteron proteron, latter first : husteron, neuter
sing. of husteros, latter, later + proteron, neuter sing. of proteros,
former.]


Posted By: tsuwm Re: to beg the question - 11/27/00 09:59 PM
isn't chiasmus different from hysteron proteron, in that the former is the reversal of phrase elements; e.g., born under one law, to another bound... (as opposed to reversal of natural order in "born and bred")

© Wordsmith.org