5 ms·

It is better to think of language in the same way we think of maps. Yes, the borders change over time. Yes the map, even a few years ago looks different, but if

by scoofy 11y ago

It is better to think of language in the same way we think of maps. Yes, the borders change over time. Yes the map, even a few years ago looks different, but if you start talking about Kashmir you're going to start a lot of fights, and if you say that Paris isn't necessarily in France, people will think you're a lunatic. As it stands, i don't care how you say the plural of octopus, but if you say something "begs the question" that better end your sentence, you plebe.

scott_s 11y ago
I've declared defeat on "begs the question". The original meaning (a logical fallacy where the premise for an argument assumes the conclusion) is just not known to enough people, and the modern (mis)use just sounds too close to what the words mean in isolation. I've also mostly given up on "literally", which I think is worse, because it's now coming to mean its opposite.
- mturmon 11y ago
  Bryan Garner, author of an excellent and well-regarded dictionary of English usage (famously reviewed at great length by DFW in Harper's), coined a term for such transitional constructions: "skunked words". The idea is that there are two groups of people, one holding to an original meaning, and one with a new usage. Sometimes the new meaning can be directly opposite the original meaning (e.g.: nonplussed), or just different (e.g., hopefully). So, writers who wish to be understood cannot use "nonplussed," because readers will not know what is meant. A skunked term. A longer explanation: http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.html http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.htm...
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Another example: "That's so bad!" meaning "That's awesome!" If I can go on a tangent about poor terms...contranyms will throw people for a loop if they are unaware of one of the meanings. Or worse, if the sentence is constructed in a way meant to cause confusion. "I would be bound for Chicago if I wasn't bound to this chair." [0] "It is transparent that the transparent man cannot be seen." [1] "Three people are left after five left." [2] "If we go back two weeks, when Tom came back, we decided to push the date back three weeks." [3] [0] I would be moving towards Chicago if I wasn't unable to move from this chair. [1] It's visible to anyone that the invisible man cannot be seen. [2] Three people remain after five departed. [3] If you go into the past two weeks, when Tom returned, we decided then to push the date further by 3 weeks. I had fun writing those.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > it's now coming to mean its opposite As long as by "now" you mean, "over the last several hundred years": My daily bread is literally implored I have no barns nor granaries to hoard; John Dryden, The Hind and The Panther (1687) Every day with me is literally another yesterday for it is exactly the same. Alexander Pope, Letter to H. Cromwell (March 1708) His looks were very haggard, and his limbs and body literally worn to the bone Charles Dickens, Nicholas Nickleby (1839) If we were not perfectly convinced that Hamlet's Father died before the play began, there would be nothing more remarkable in his taking a stroll at night, in an easterly wind, upon his own ramparts, than there would be in any other middle-aged gentleman rashly turning out after dark in a breezy spot -- say Saint Paul's Churchyard for instance -- literally to astonish his son's weak mind. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (1843) He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies. Frances Brooke, The History of Emily Montague (1769) I look upon it, Madam, to be one of the luckiest circumstances of my life, that I have this moment the honour of receiving your commands, and the satisfaction of confirming with my tongue, what my eyes perhaps have but too weakly expressed — that I am literally the humblest of your servants. George Colman and David Garrick, The Clandestine Marriage (1766) Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet. James Joyce, The Dead (1914) that he had shared her bedroom which came out in the witnessbox on oath when a thrill went through the packed court literally electrifying everybody in the shape of witnesses swearing to having witnessed him on such and such a particular date in the act of scrambling out of an upstairs apartment with the a ssistance of a ladder in night apparel... James Joyce, Ulysses (1922) And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom wasliterally rolling in wealth. Mark Twain, "The Adventure of Tom Sawyer" (1876) All colors made me happy: even gray. My eyes were such that literally they Took photographs. Vladimir Nabokov, Pale Fire (1962) Literally, I was (what he often called me) the apple of his eye Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre (1847)
  - tripzilch 11y ago
    Just goes to show this Nicholas Nickleby person couldn't write their way out of a wet cardboard box if their life figuratively depended on it--and by figuratively I mean literally, except more intense. (try and disagree with me, some of my words mean the opposite of what I intend)
- mediascreen 11y ago
  Most people who use literally "incorrectly" knows very well what it means, but use it hyperbolically. As in "I will literary kill the next person who misuses the English language". "I will figuratively kill the next person who misuses the English language" doesn't really convey the same sentiment...
- Jun8 11y ago
  Somewhat related: There are words that are their own antonyms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym). A better example is nice, which started bad (meaning "foolish" or "silly"), achieved a positive meaning in 18th century and on it's way down again ("How's my coding? It's nice.") Full story and some other interesting examples are here: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/change-in-word-meanings/ http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/change-in-word-me... OK, can't help it, another interesting example. The word slut, of unknown origin, was first applied to men and then generally applied to kitchen maids with a mild negative meaning of slovenliness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slut http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slut). There are other words starting with sl- that made a similar journey but are now fell out of use, e.g. slattern and slammerkin
  - craigds 11y ago
    A common, very confusing one of these is 'granular', which means both 'fine-grained' and 'coarse-grained'. I swear someone uses the word 'granular' about once every fortnight and I almost always have to ask what they mean because it's not usually obvious from the context.
sparky_z 11y ago
Honestly, I'm a pedant about most language rules, but the "begs the question" rule is just dumb. There's no reason why a phrase can't have a very specific technical meaning in a particular jargon (debate theory) while also having a different, more literal meaning when used colloquially. If the manager of a football stadium told you he was moving the goalposts to have them cleaned, you wouldn't reply, "Actually, Moving The Goalposts[0] is a type of logical fallacy. You should say 'transporting the goalposts.'" [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts Also, the colloquial meaning of "begs the question" doesn't always have a good alternative. Sometimes, a situation doesn't just "raise the question" like some tired bureaucrat raising his hand in a meeting. Sometimes, the question is too immediate and obvious to just be ignored. It's the elephant in the room. It cries out to be answered. It begs. Allowing "begs the question" doesn't degrade the expressiveness and utility of the language, it improves it. This is unlike, for example, the misuse of "literally" (which results in there being no easy way to indicate that a statement should not be interpreted figuratively).
- SilasX 11y ago
  >Allowing "begs the question" doesn't degrade the expressiveness and utility of the language, it improves it. This is unlike, for example, the misuse of "literally" (which results in there being no easy way to indicate that a statement should not be interpreted figuratively). Then it's kinda strange that the very same people who are promoting this non-prescriptivism are also rolling their eyes at the "literally-misuse-objectors" and dismissing their complains as baseless for the same reason.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It does degrade the expressiveness and utility of the language, because when someone says "begs the question" you have to guess at what they find objectionable about the argument. And you can't use the term yourself without the risk of ambiguity (which is sad, because it's a short pithy phrase that refers to a concept that requires a lot more words to describe).
  - sparky_z 11y ago
copsarebastards 11y ago
...and I'll think less of you for having that opinion. A lot of people will just stop talking to you if you choose to behave that way. It's hard enough to communicate with a listener who is trying to understand what you're saying. If the listener would rather get hung up on rules which have no basis except in collective usage than listen, I simply can't be arsed to talk to them most of the time. Also, analogies provide explanation, not proof. You've not provided any justification for your opinion with your map analogy, you've just over-explained your opinion which everyone already understood.

by scoofy 11y ago

scott_s 11y ago

I've declared defeat on "begs the question". The original meaning (a logical fallacy where the premise for an argument assumes the conclusion) is just not known to enough people, and the modern (mis)use just sounds too close to what the words mean in isolation. I've also mostly given up on "literally", which I think is worse, because it's now coming to mean its opposite.

mturmon 11y ago
Bryan Garner, author of an excellent and well-regarded dictionary of English usage (famously reviewed at great length by DFW in Harper's), coined a term for such transitional constructions: "skunked words". The idea is that there are two groups of people, one holding to an original meaning, and one with a new usage. Sometimes the new meaning can be directly opposite the original meaning (e.g.: nonplussed), or just different (e.g., hopefully). So, writers who wish to be understood cannot use "nonplussed," because readers will not know what is meant. A skunked term. A longer explanation: http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.html http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.htm...
- Nadya 11y ago
  Another example: "That's so bad!" meaning "That's awesome!" If I can go on a tangent about poor terms...contranyms will throw people for a loop if they are unaware of one of the meanings. Or worse, if the sentence is constructed in a way meant to cause confusion. "I would be bound for Chicago if I wasn't bound to this chair." [0] "It is transparent that the transparent man cannot be seen." [1] "Three people are left after five left." [2] "If we go back two weeks, when Tom came back, we decided to push the date back three weeks." [3] [0] I would be moving towards Chicago if I wasn't unable to move from this chair. [1] It's visible to anyone that the invisible man cannot be seen. [2] Three people remain after five departed. [3] If you go into the past two weeks, when Tom returned, we decided then to push the date further by 3 weeks. I had fun writing those.
mcphage 11y ago
> it's now coming to mean its opposite As long as by "now" you mean, "over the last several hundred years": My daily bread is literally implored I have no barns nor granaries to hoard; John Dryden, The Hind and The Panther (1687) Every day with me is literally another yesterday for it is exactly the same. Alexander Pope, Letter to H. Cromwell (March 1708) His looks were very haggard, and his limbs and body literally worn to the bone Charles Dickens, Nicholas Nickleby (1839) If we were not perfectly convinced that Hamlet's Father died before the play began, there would be nothing more remarkable in his taking a stroll at night, in an easterly wind, upon his own ramparts, than there would be in any other middle-aged gentleman rashly turning out after dark in a breezy spot -- say Saint Paul's Churchyard for instance -- literally to astonish his son's weak mind. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (1843) He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies. Frances Brooke, The History of Emily Montague (1769) I look upon it, Madam, to be one of the luckiest circumstances of my life, that I have this moment the honour of receiving your commands, and the satisfaction of confirming with my tongue, what my eyes perhaps have but too weakly expressed — that I am literally the humblest of your servants. George Colman and David Garrick, The Clandestine Marriage (1766) Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet. James Joyce, The Dead (1914) that he had shared her bedroom which came out in the witnessbox on oath when a thrill went through the packed court literally electrifying everybody in the shape of witnesses swearing to having witnessed him on such and such a particular date in the act of scrambling out of an upstairs apartment with the a ssistance of a ladder in night apparel... James Joyce, Ulysses (1922) And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom wasliterally rolling in wealth. Mark Twain, "The Adventure of Tom Sawyer" (1876) All colors made me happy: even gray. My eyes were such that literally they Took photographs. Vladimir Nabokov, Pale Fire (1962) Literally, I was (what he often called me) the apple of his eye Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre (1847)
- tripzilch 11y ago
  Just goes to show this Nicholas Nickleby person couldn't write their way out of a wet cardboard box if their life figuratively depended on it--and by figuratively I mean literally, except more intense. (try and disagree with me, some of my words mean the opposite of what I intend)
mediascreen 11y ago
Most people who use literally "incorrectly" knows very well what it means, but use it hyperbolically. As in "I will literary kill the next person who misuses the English language". "I will figuratively kill the next person who misuses the English language" doesn't really convey the same sentiment...
Jun8 11y ago
Somewhat related: There are words that are their own antonyms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym). A better example is nice, which started bad (meaning "foolish" or "silly"), achieved a positive meaning in 18th century and on it's way down again ("How's my coding? It's nice.") Full story and some other interesting examples are here: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/change-in-word-meanings/ http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/change-in-word-me... OK, can't help it, another interesting example. The word slut, of unknown origin, was first applied to men and then generally applied to kitchen maids with a mild negative meaning of slovenliness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slut http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slut). There are other words starting with sl- that made a similar journey but are now fell out of use, e.g. slattern and slammerkin
- craigds 11y ago
  A common, very confusing one of these is 'granular', which means both 'fine-grained' and 'coarse-grained'. I swear someone uses the word 'granular' about once every fortnight and I almost always have to ask what they mean because it's not usually obvious from the context.

sparky_z 11y ago

Honestly, I'm a pedant about most language rules, but the "begs the question" rule is just dumb. There's no reason why a phrase can't have a very specific technical meaning in a particular jargon (debate theory) while also having a different, more literal meaning when used colloquially. If the manager of a football stadium told you he was moving the goalposts to have them cleaned, you wouldn't reply, "Actually, Moving The Goalposts[0] is a type of logical fallacy. You should say 'transporting the goalposts.'" [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts Also, the colloquial meaning of "begs the question" doesn't always have a good alternative. Sometimes, a situation doesn't just "raise the question" like some tired bureaucrat raising his hand in a meeting. Sometimes, the question is too immediate and obvious to just be ignored. It's the elephant in the room. It cries out to be answered. It begs. Allowing "begs the question" doesn't degrade the expressiveness and utility of the language, it improves it. This is unlike, for example, the misuse of "literally" (which results in there being no easy way to indicate that a statement should not be interpreted figuratively).

SilasX 11y ago
>Allowing "begs the question" doesn't degrade the expressiveness and utility of the language, it improves it. This is unlike, for example, the misuse of "literally" (which results in there being no easy way to indicate that a statement should not be interpreted figuratively). Then it's kinda strange that the very same people who are promoting this non-prescriptivism are also rolling their eyes at the "literally-misuse-objectors" and dismissing their complains as baseless for the same reason.
rayiner 11y ago
It does degrade the expressiveness and utility of the language, because when someone says "begs the question" you have to guess at what they find objectionable about the argument. And you can't use the term yourself without the risk of ambiguity (which is sad, because it's a short pithy phrase that refers to a concept that requires a lot more words to describe).
- sparky_z 11y ago

copsarebastards 11y ago

...and I'll think less of you for having that opinion. A lot of people will just stop talking to you if you choose to behave that way. It's hard enough to communicate with a listener who is trying to understand what you're saying. If the listener would rather get hung up on rules which have no basis except in collective usage than listen, I simply can't be arsed to talk to them most of the time. Also, analogies provide explanation, not proof. You've not provided any justification for your opinion with your map analogy, you've just over-explained your opinion which everyone already understood.