7 ms·

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 techn

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
  The colloquial usage doesn't erase the technical usage. They can coexist. I dare you to construct a normal sentence in which the particular usage of "begs the question" is not entirely clear from context. (This, by the way, is my personal test for whether a language rule is useful or not.)
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    > I dare you to construct a normal sentence in which the particular usage of "begs the question" is not completely clear from context. I'd say that in every case that it is used in its classical sense when heard by person who uses it to mean "raises the question." Using "begs the question" that way is an actual mistake. One can have only heard "begs the question" used properly, but if you weren't familiar with the phrase, easily and understandably take it to mean "a question is begging to be asked", then go on to use it incorrectly. Using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly is probably only an hour younger than the phrase itself. Correcting someone about it without completely explaining its actual meaning (because you'd have to, at the least, explain the difference between formal and informal fallacies) is about a minute younger than that. It's hard to make a case for it being language evolution if the incorrect usage is as old as the correct usage, and isn't growing any more than proportionally with it. People being upset about being corrected about it isn't new either. People who use it correctly will continue to use it correctly, and people who use it incorrectly will use it correctly after they learn formal fallacies and can't think of a better, pithier way to describe that particular one. Using it incorrectly, of course, is a sin akin to using an eggcorn (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/) : everybody has misheard or misunderstood many things, and then misuses them. The problem with finding them is that one has to use them in a conversation with someone nice enough or brave enough to correct one.
    - sparky_z 11y ago
      >One can have only heard "begs the question" used properly, but if you weren't familiar with the phrase, easily and understandably take it to mean "a question is begging to be asked", then go on to use it incorrectly. I'm not saying this is impossible, but I don't find it convincing. The formal usage is something that a person does, and is usually the end of a statement. ("You're begging the question.") The colloquial (not "incorrect") usage is something that a situation does. It is nearly always rendered in the third-person present tense and directly followed by the question it is introducing. ("Well, that begs the question: what do we do about it?"). I don't see how somebody could hear only the first version, and end up saying only the second version. I can see how someone could be confused the first time they hear the first version (i.e., "Wait, what question is he referring to?") and would need to have the term defined for them. But that's pretty much the definition of "jargon".
anthony_romeo 11y ago
You see, I would argue that the facetious use of "literally" is not changing the definition of the word. When someone is saying "Ohh my God, my head literally exploded!" the use of "literally" is not meant to be taken literally. It's intended to add on an additional layer of exaggeration atop a ludicrous situation. The reason people say it is to make a joke. People aren't literally going out and using literally to mean figuratively. If literally meant figuratively, it wouldn't be used to express exaggeration in a joking manner.
tormeh 11y ago
"literally, not figuratively" might do the trick
- SilasX 11y ago
  Sure, until people start saying "My eyeballs were literally, not figuratively on fire" as an intensifier, and then insist that anyone who doesn't like that is just a fuddy-duddy who doesn't "get" linguistics.
krstck 11y ago
I basically agree with you, except I don't think there are many cases where the usage of "literally" makes the meaning ambiguous. It should be clear whether someone's head literally exploded (are we having a conversation about an industrial accident, or is a person simply becoming angry?). I treat "literally" and "literally" as two words that are spelled the same but have different meanings.
- sparky_z 11y ago
  Yes, usually you can tell. But the times you can't are very annoying. As a writer, you can be forced into awkward circumlocutions to avoid ambiguity.
  - Terretta 11y ago
    Her head literally exploded at the idea his head actually exploded.

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
The colloquial usage doesn't erase the technical usage. They can coexist. I dare you to construct a normal sentence in which the particular usage of "begs the question" is not entirely clear from context. (This, by the way, is my personal test for whether a language rule is useful or not.)
- pessimizer 11y ago
  > I dare you to construct a normal sentence in which the particular usage of "begs the question" is not completely clear from context. I'd say that in every case that it is used in its classical sense when heard by person who uses it to mean "raises the question." Using "begs the question" that way is an actual mistake. One can have only heard "begs the question" used properly, but if you weren't familiar with the phrase, easily and understandably take it to mean "a question is begging to be asked", then go on to use it incorrectly. Using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly is probably only an hour younger than the phrase itself. Correcting someone about it without completely explaining its actual meaning (because you'd have to, at the least, explain the difference between formal and informal fallacies) is about a minute younger than that. It's hard to make a case for it being language evolution if the incorrect usage is as old as the correct usage, and isn't growing any more than proportionally with it. People being upset about being corrected about it isn't new either. People who use it correctly will continue to use it correctly, and people who use it incorrectly will use it correctly after they learn formal fallacies and can't think of a better, pithier way to describe that particular one. Using it incorrectly, of course, is a sin akin to using an eggcorn (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/) : everybody has misheard or misunderstood many things, and then misuses them. The problem with finding them is that one has to use them in a conversation with someone nice enough or brave enough to correct one.
  - sparky_z 11y ago
    >One can have only heard "begs the question" used properly, but if you weren't familiar with the phrase, easily and understandably take it to mean "a question is begging to be asked", then go on to use it incorrectly. I'm not saying this is impossible, but I don't find it convincing. The formal usage is something that a person does, and is usually the end of a statement. ("You're begging the question.") The colloquial (not "incorrect") usage is something that a situation does. It is nearly always rendered in the third-person present tense and directly followed by the question it is introducing. ("Well, that begs the question: what do we do about it?"). I don't see how somebody could hear only the first version, and end up saying only the second version. I can see how someone could be confused the first time they hear the first version (i.e., "Wait, what question is he referring to?") and would need to have the term defined for them. But that's pretty much the definition of "jargon".

anthony_romeo 11y ago

You see, I would argue that the facetious use of "literally" is not changing the definition of the word. When someone is saying "Ohh my God, my head literally exploded!" the use of "literally" is not meant to be taken literally. It's intended to add on an additional layer of exaggeration atop a ludicrous situation. The reason people say it is to make a joke. People aren't literally going out and using literally to mean figuratively. If literally meant figuratively, it wouldn't be used to express exaggeration in a joking manner.

tormeh 11y ago

"literally, not figuratively" might do the trick

SilasX 11y ago
Sure, until people start saying "My eyeballs were literally, not figuratively on fire" as an intensifier, and then insist that anyone who doesn't like that is just a fuddy-duddy who doesn't "get" linguistics.

krstck 11y ago

I basically agree with you, except I don't think there are many cases where the usage of "literally" makes the meaning ambiguous. It should be clear whether someone's head literally exploded (are we having a conversation about an industrial accident, or is a person simply becoming angry?). I treat "literally" and "literally" as two words that are spelled the same but have different meanings.

sparky_z 11y ago
Yes, usually you can tell. But the times you can't are very annoying. As a writer, you can be forced into awkward circumlocutions to avoid ambiguity.
- Terretta 11y ago
  Her head literally exploded at the idea his head actually exploded.