4 ms·

This is one of those cases where the popular (initially incorrect) use of the word has far outstripped the one this link mentions. It's like the word 'literall

by screye 7y ago

This is one of those cases where the popular (initially incorrect) use of the word has far outstripped the one this link mentions. It's like the word 'literally' (whose bastardization is both far more egregious and hilarious) Even Google now reflects the 'incorrect' use of beg as the primary meaning of it: beg - raise a question or point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question Unfortunate, but true.

mcphage 7y ago
> It's like the word 'literally' (whose bastardization is both far more egregious and hilarious) "literally" has been used to mean "figuratively" for hundreds of years, by plenty of famous authors. The idea that "literally" should only mean "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" seems to be the actual recent invention.
- andrewla 7y ago
  Mostly a question of euphemism drift (or rhetorical drift, if that's a thing) -- "really" and "very" are former terms that meant "without exaggeration or inaccuracy" but slowly drifted towards a rhetoric use.
  - rriepe 7y ago
    Interesting. (That's another one that tends to mean the opposite)
    - andrewla 7y ago
      Wait, was this a burn? Ouch.
      - rriepe 7y ago
        Hah, honestly I think I replied to the wrong thing.
- ajennings 7y ago
  The problem is that we need a way to say "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" succinctly. Also, to say "I am using an idiom, but non-idiomatically." "Literally" should be that tool. I understand that a word's meaning is, by definition, what people mean when they say it, but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. As another commenter said, this same thing happened to "very" and "really" in the past. So maybe it's time to let "literally" go and make up a new word for it?
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. My point is that it isn't "drifting away"—it has been used as an intensifier for hundreds of years.
- aembleton 7y ago
  What is the point of the word literally then? What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration?
  - mcphage 7y ago
    > What is the point of the word literally then? I don't think words have a point. > What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration? Sometimes it does convey that. And sometimes it's merely an intensifier. Lots of words are like that.
LanceH 7y ago
The "problem" with "begs the question" is that makes literal sense. Then there are people who know that phrase from something and apparently once a phrase is used somewhere it can't be used in any other context to mean anything else. There is no problem here as long it isn't being applied to the wrong logical fallacy. A guy walks into a bar with a duck on his head, which begs the question, "why is there a duck on his head?" (be asked.) "Begging" and "asking for" are commonly used to anthropomorphize situations. "The ball spinning on the goal line was begging to be tapped in." "With John's attitude, he was was just asking to be fired." Nothing wrong with the phrase at all. It is consistent with other common usages. Maybe it's the phrase used in the logical fallacy that doesn't make sense.
- gjm11 7y ago
  Yup. The hweird logical-fallacy use of "begging the question" is a mistranslation. It goes back to Aristotle, who talked about "τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς", meaning "asking for the first thing". That is: you're debating some proposition X, which in the rhetorical terminology of the time was called "the first thing" (imagine that you're holding an actual debate, and you start by saying: The question before us is whether X), and the logical fallacy is when, in the course of arguing for X, you assume (ask us to accept -- ask for) X, the "first thing". So far, so good. So after the age when Serious Thinking was done in Greek came the age when Serious Thinking was done in Latin. Aristotle's term was translated to "petitio principii". The first word means "assuming" in mediaeval Latin but "asking for" in classical Latin. The second word means "first thing", a rather literal translation of the Greek. So far, still so good. And then, some time in the 16th century, some genius decided to translate the term into English and (1) render "petitio" as "asking for" ("begging") rather than "assuming", and (2) render "principii" as "question" instead of "first thing". Presumably they did #1 because "asking for" is one meaning of "petitio", even though it's not the one that's relevant here. Presumably they did #2 because in a debate (which, again, was the original context for the term) "the question" means whatever proposition you're debating. The result of which is the ridiculous term we have now. The common usage of the phrase to mean "raising the question" is a much better thing for "begging the question" to mean. Personally, I mostly avoid using the term at all because some people will think it means "raising the question" and think I'm weird and pedantic if I use it to mean "arguing in a circle", while other people will think it means "arguing in a circle" and think I'm ignorant if I use it to mean "raising the question". (So it's an example of what Fowler called a "skunked" term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term.)
m463 7y ago
Also do something on accident (instead of by accident). And the word softwares (software is correct for the plural form).

by screye 7y ago

mcphage 7y ago

> It's like the word 'literally' (whose bastardization is both far more egregious and hilarious) "literally" has been used to mean "figuratively" for hundreds of years, by plenty of famous authors. The idea that "literally" should only mean "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" seems to be the actual recent invention.

andrewla 7y ago
Mostly a question of euphemism drift (or rhetorical drift, if that's a thing) -- "really" and "very" are former terms that meant "without exaggeration or inaccuracy" but slowly drifted towards a rhetoric use.
- rriepe 7y ago
  Interesting. (That's another one that tends to mean the opposite)
  - andrewla 7y ago
    Wait, was this a burn? Ouch.
    - rriepe 7y ago
      Hah, honestly I think I replied to the wrong thing.
ajennings 7y ago
The problem is that we need a way to say "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" succinctly. Also, to say "I am using an idiom, but non-idiomatically." "Literally" should be that tool. I understand that a word's meaning is, by definition, what people mean when they say it, but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. As another commenter said, this same thing happened to "very" and "really" in the past. So maybe it's time to let "literally" go and make up a new word for it?
- mcphage 7y ago
  > but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. My point is that it isn't "drifting away"—it has been used as an intensifier for hundreds of years.
aembleton 7y ago
What is the point of the word literally then? What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration?
- mcphage 7y ago
  > What is the point of the word literally then? I don't think words have a point. > What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration? Sometimes it does convey that. And sometimes it's merely an intensifier. Lots of words are like that.

LanceH 7y ago

The "problem" with "begs the question" is that makes literal sense. Then there are people who know that phrase from something and apparently once a phrase is used somewhere it can't be used in any other context to mean anything else. There is no problem here as long it isn't being applied to the wrong logical fallacy. A guy walks into a bar with a duck on his head, which begs the question, "why is there a duck on his head?" (be asked.) "Begging" and "asking for" are commonly used to anthropomorphize situations. "The ball spinning on the goal line was begging to be tapped in." "With John's attitude, he was was just asking to be fired." Nothing wrong with the phrase at all. It is consistent with other common usages. Maybe it's the phrase used in the logical fallacy that doesn't make sense.

gjm11 7y ago
Yup. The hweird logical-fallacy use of "begging the question" is a mistranslation. It goes back to Aristotle, who talked about "τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς", meaning "asking for the first thing". That is: you're debating some proposition X, which in the rhetorical terminology of the time was called "the first thing" (imagine that you're holding an actual debate, and you start by saying: The question before us is whether X), and the logical fallacy is when, in the course of arguing for X, you assume (ask us to accept -- ask for) X, the "first thing". So far, so good. So after the age when Serious Thinking was done in Greek came the age when Serious Thinking was done in Latin. Aristotle's term was translated to "petitio principii". The first word means "assuming" in mediaeval Latin but "asking for" in classical Latin. The second word means "first thing", a rather literal translation of the Greek. So far, still so good. And then, some time in the 16th century, some genius decided to translate the term into English and (1) render "petitio" as "asking for" ("begging") rather than "assuming", and (2) render "principii" as "question" instead of "first thing". Presumably they did #1 because "asking for" is one meaning of "petitio", even though it's not the one that's relevant here. Presumably they did #2 because in a debate (which, again, was the original context for the term) "the question" means whatever proposition you're debating. The result of which is the ridiculous term we have now. The common usage of the phrase to mean "raising the question" is a much better thing for "begging the question" to mean. Personally, I mostly avoid using the term at all because some people will think it means "raising the question" and think I'm weird and pedantic if I use it to mean "arguing in a circle", while other people will think it means "arguing in a circle" and think I'm ignorant if I use it to mean "raising the question". (So it's an example of what Fowler called a "skunked" term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term.)

m463 7y ago

Also do something on accident (instead of by accident). And the word softwares (software is correct for the plural form).