in reply to Re^2: [OT] On Validating Email Addresses
in thread On Validating Email Addresses

Yeesh, that is one of my pet peeves. It may raise or suggest the question, but it certainly does not beg the question.

Of the 323,000 references to this phrase turned up by google, about 2 or 3 percent are people who have either unilaterally decided or have accepted the wisdom of some other, petitio principii-aware, usage nazi, that the only acceptable usage of this phrase is the classical rhetorical fallacy usage:

To beg the question means 'to assume the truth of the very point being raised in a question'.

The other 90%+, found in many highly respectable sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Times Literary Supplement, and even a hard-core academic journals, are usages similar to mine above, where the verb 'begs' is used as a substitute for the word 'entreat' or the phrase "ask earnestly for or of'.

  1. Language is a live, mutating entity and 'new' forms of usage are being adopted all the time.

    The only 'static' languages, are dead languages--like Latin.

  2. The classical usage is itself suspect.

    Let's try a little substitution--'beg' for 'assume':

    'to beg the truth of the very point being raised in a question'

    Does that make equivalent sense to the classical definition above? I think not.

    Or 'beg the point in a dispute' as meaning 'To take for granted without proof'?

    However, try:

    'That entreats the question...' or 'That implores the question "...", be asked. or 'That craves the question...'.

    I think those do!?

    Do you think it is possible that some ancient scholar made an error when translating from Latin or Greek to English or French at some point in history, and as a result, that nonsensical, idiomatic phrase has become enshrined in classical rhetorical teaching?

  3. Your suggested alternatives--"It may raise or suggest the question,..."--do not capture the essence of this usage.

    The implication of the phrase in the usage is not that the original text raised the question.

    It is that the original text didn't ask the question, when it probably should have asked.

    Whilst that is absolutely different from the classical usage, it does coincide with various other usages of the word 'beg' as a substitute for the word 'ask'.

    As in, 'I beg your forgiveness', or 'I beg to differ', or 'They begged the court's indulgance'.

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
Silence betokens consent.
Love the truth but pardon error.
  • Comment on Re^3: [OT] On Validating Email Addresses

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: [OT] On Validating Email Addresses
by halley (Prior) on Jan 04, 2005 at 14:26 UTC
    The other 90%+, found in many highly respectable sources,

    I agree that English is a living language. That doesn't mean that every pervasive meme is correct, however.

    Ninety percent of everything is crap. --Sturgeon's Law

    --
    [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

[reply]

      The majority usage is correct by definition of "living langauge".

      "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

[reply]
        Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, their is many things the "majority" wright which r still not correct English.

        --
        [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

[reply]
      Sturgeon's Law
      Derived from a quote by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud.

      Sound's like a variation on Ratner's Gaff

      Neither version is a particularly convincing argument.

      That doesn't mean that every pervasive meme is correct, however.

      Let's see, if I do a quantatative study of the people who claim "the earth is flat", or that "evolution never happened", or that "the earth is no more than 15,000 years old", they would all three likely come out with a single digit percentage for and a ninety something percent against.

      Which should I believe?

      On the other hand, when I hear and read a phrase that is used in

      Do I:

      1. Fall in line and use the phrase in that manner that is widely used, accepted and understood by the many, at the risk of being sneared at by the few?
      2. Concern myself with the hypersensitivities of those few that choose to be offended by that "new usage", and cling tooth and nail to an archaic, idiomatic, and illogical interpretation, that is only 'understood' by some small percentage of the population, that claim their interpretation is "the one true meaning"?

      Snear on. No contest.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks.
      Silence betokens consent.
      Love the truth but pardon error.
[reply]
        I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be rude, but I've got to agree with the other fellow. Yes, he came off a little snippy, but your counterattack is even more pedantic and confrontational.

        Your list of people who misuse "beg the question" starts with the British Parliament and continues through the US Congress and the US House of Representatives. These are people who, in general, fit the description "pompous gas bags," people who use words to manipulate and mislead, with little regard for proper usage. That the NYT, the TLS, and the Guardian are on there is a little distressing, but I'm sure there are factions within those groups who still hold out for the proper meaning of the phrase.

        Moreover, the rules should be a little stricter, perhaps a bit more conservative, for writing than for spoken words. Writing gives you the chance to stop and think, and to revise, so it's not unreasonable that the standards should be a little higher. It should resist casual change, if only because it lasts longer. So the "language evolves" argument (which sidesteps the realization that evolution often leads to dead ends), doesn't hold so well there.

        Besides, most people don't even say "beg the question"; more than once, when I've used it in casual conversation, I have had to explain it to someone, so it's not like a split infinitive (which was never wrong, anyhow) or a who/whom confusion. To claim popular support for the phrase is to beg the question, "what constitutes colloquial usage?"

        So in short, yes, it's bad to get uptight about the wrong usage; but it's even worse to get uptight about the right usage.

[reply]

In Section Meditations