5 ms·

> begs the question[1] > [1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries Wait, are you calling the correct usage he

> begs the question[1] > [1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries Wait, are you calling the correct usage here historical despite it still being frequently used in contemporary times, and advocating that the incorrect usage should be normalized?

lmm 2y ago
English is defined by its usage, and the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > English is defined by its usage To an extent, but people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also. > the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections. No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use, just not in areas you participate in. It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated. > No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use The last research I saw claimed otherwise. > It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical' Nothing disingenuous; to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) is not active at least in general writing (it may still be used as a term of art in philosophy, but if so I don't think that changes anything). Certainly it's a minority use.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Sure. > Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated. It's not a historical quirk, it's the valid and modern usage. > The last research I saw claimed otherwise. Then it was clearly insufficient. How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so? Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it. > to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage You keep coating your replies with this, but it's not older or historical, just correct. > (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) No, it is absolutely the correct usage. By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well. > is not active at least in general writing Yes, it is, and often articles that use it correctly will call out incorrect usage. > Certainly it's a minority use. Maybe, but your usage is plain incorrect and is as bad as using irregardless.
      - lmm 2y ago
        > How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so? I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers. > Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it. And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior. So let's not stoop to psychoanalysing each other. > By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well. I don't think "irregardless" is more easily understood than, or conveys a useful distinction from, "regardless". Indeed the opposite, it's more confusing as it sounds like it's a double negation that should mean regardful.
        2y ago
- quietbritishjim 2y ago
  Did you really need to insert a contentious distraction in your original comment? The fact that you felt the need to clarify up front shows you knew it would be misunderstood, and discussion of it is totally unrelated to this topic. If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone and not detracted from the actual point you were trying to make (assuming your main goal wasn't social media-style ragebait). To quote from a sibling comment of yours: > a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Exactly.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > Did you really need to insert a contentious distraction in your original comment? The fact that you felt the need to clarify up front shows you knew it would be misunderstood, and discussion of it is totally unrelated to this topic. I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression. > If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand. And I don't believe I caused any actual confusion; no-one genuinely misunderstood my comment. The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression. Next time, just don't try to advocate for your personal view of language, and use a less contended term, as the parent said 'raises the question' would be fine. > I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand. Nope. Raises the question is far clearer and less ambiguous. > The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place. Or people who care about misinformation being spread.
- eadmund 2y ago
  > English is defined by its usage Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Out of curiosity, how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question?
  - defrost 2y ago
    Defined by usage is also the literal premise of the descriptive Oxford English Dictionary.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question? Like that. But mostly I don't.

lmm 2y ago

English is defined by its usage, and the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> English is defined by its usage To an extent, but people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also. > the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections. No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use, just not in areas you participate in. It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'.
- lmm 2y ago
  > people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated. > No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use The last research I saw claimed otherwise. > It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical' Nothing disingenuous; to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) is not active at least in general writing (it may still be used as a term of art in philosophy, but if so I don't think that changes anything). Certainly it's a minority use.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Sure. > Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated. It's not a historical quirk, it's the valid and modern usage. > The last research I saw claimed otherwise. Then it was clearly insufficient. How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so? Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it. > to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage You keep coating your replies with this, but it's not older or historical, just correct. > (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) No, it is absolutely the correct usage. By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well. > is not active at least in general writing Yes, it is, and often articles that use it correctly will call out incorrect usage. > Certainly it's a minority use. Maybe, but your usage is plain incorrect and is as bad as using irregardless.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so? I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers. > Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it. And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior. So let's not stoop to psychoanalysing each other. > By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well. I don't think "irregardless" is more easily understood than, or conveys a useful distinction from, "regardless". Indeed the opposite, it's more confusing as it sounds like it's a double negation that should mean regardful.
      - 2y ago
quietbritishjim 2y ago
Did you really need to insert a contentious distraction in your original comment? The fact that you felt the need to clarify up front shows you knew it would be misunderstood, and discussion of it is totally unrelated to this topic. If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone and not detracted from the actual point you were trying to make (assuming your main goal wasn't social media-style ragebait). To quote from a sibling comment of yours: > a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Exactly.
- lmm 2y ago
  > Did you really need to insert a contentious distraction in your original comment? The fact that you felt the need to clarify up front shows you knew it would be misunderstood, and discussion of it is totally unrelated to this topic. I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression. > If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand. And I don't believe I caused any actual confusion; no-one genuinely misunderstood my comment. The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression. Next time, just don't try to advocate for your personal view of language, and use a less contended term, as the parent said 'raises the question' would be fine. > I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand. Nope. Raises the question is far clearer and less ambiguous. > The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place. Or people who care about misinformation being spread.
eadmund 2y ago
> English is defined by its usage Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Out of curiosity, how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question?
- defrost 2y ago
  Defined by usage is also the literal premise of the descriptive Oxford English Dictionary.
- lmm 2y ago
  > how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question? Like that. But mostly I don't.