3 ms·

That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is bein

That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is being used, and adjust the official meanings of words to reflect that usage. That's how words and meanings get added to (English) dictionaries and grammar books. Old meanings are not considered wrong of course, but are often pushed back to the higher-numbered definitions and eventually considered an old or archaic usage. It doesn't work the same in all languages; for example, French has the l'Académie française which strongly attempts to regulate the meanings of French words, and is quite successful. To prove my point: there are two official meanings of "begging the question," including the one you assume to be incorrect in your post: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs Furthermore, I'm confident that with some research, we could find several words and phrases in your post which were considered "incorrect" several hundred years ago (despite being commonly used then) but are considered "correct" today.

pg 18y ago
The 1% of people (assuming it's that) "exist to analyze how language is being used?" What does that mean? I'm in the 1% who understand "begs the question." Do I exist to analyze how language is being used? Nor is the shift of meaning in a word over time identical with people misunderstanding the previous meanings. That type of shift is quite rare. It's much more common for words to shift meaning the way "computer" has than the way "buxom" did. There's nothing official about dictionaries, incidentally. They describe usage (as well as they can); they don't prescribe it. If dictionaries defined terms in the prescriptive sense, I could refute you by starting one.
- sounddust 18y ago
  Well, I suppose we're talking about a different 1%. Perhaps you feel that you are a "pagerank 10" person regarding "begs the question" because you understand the original meaning. I would argue that the "pagerank 10" would be the person who has studied its usage and has observed that "raises the question" has also become an acceptable use. Assuming that a shift in a word's meaning due to "incorrect" usage is rare, what makes it any less valid of a change? And are you willing to have the same view regarding all English words that turn out to have been formed as a result of misuse that you have toward "hacker" and "begs the question," even if you are forced to use an obsolete word? You argue that dictionaries can't prescribe language, and I agree. I'm saying that there are limits to how much you can prescribe language in general, including the attempt to prescribe the meaning of "hacker" and "beg the question." The "beg the question" of 2009 is no less valid than the one of 1600.

pg 18y ago

The 1% of people (assuming it's that) "exist to analyze how language is being used?" What does that mean? I'm in the 1% who understand "begs the question." Do I exist to analyze how language is being used? Nor is the shift of meaning in a word over time identical with people misunderstanding the previous meanings. That type of shift is quite rare. It's much more common for words to shift meaning the way "computer" has than the way "buxom" did. There's nothing official about dictionaries, incidentally. They describe usage (as well as they can); they don't prescribe it. If dictionaries defined terms in the prescriptive sense, I could refute you by starting one.

sounddust 18y ago
Well, I suppose we're talking about a different 1%. Perhaps you feel that you are a "pagerank 10" person regarding "begs the question" because you understand the original meaning. I would argue that the "pagerank 10" would be the person who has studied its usage and has observed that "raises the question" has also become an acceptable use. Assuming that a shift in a word's meaning due to "incorrect" usage is rare, what makes it any less valid of a change? And are you willing to have the same view regarding all English words that turn out to have been formed as a result of misuse that you have toward "hacker" and "begs the question," even if you are forced to use an obsolete word? You argue that dictionaries can't prescribe language, and I agree. I'm saying that there are limits to how much you can prescribe language in general, including the attempt to prescribe the meaning of "hacker" and "beg the question." The "beg the question" of 2009 is no less valid than the one of 1600.