Friday, February 4, 2011

FRIDAY ALOTT5MA GRAMMAR RODEO:  Paul asked us to address this question, and I will do with caution. The answer, however, is clear.

To say that something "begs the question" mean that it assumes its own premise without proof.  The alt.usage.english FAQ suggests "Telepathy cannot exist because direct transfer of thought between individuals is impossible" as an example; the late Bill "Whoppers Junior" Safire suggested in 1998 "Lying is wrong because you shouldn't say things that aren't true." as well.

It does not mean "to raise the question." That's something else. More Safire:
Let's say you argue: “Common usage makes it correct because that's the way most people talk.” I say that begs the question because “the way most people talk” is the definition of “common usage.” You could logically argue that “common usage makes it correct because language is changing constantly” or that “common usage makes it correct because rigid prescriptivists have been shown to be the laughingstocks of linguistics,” but you cannot argue in a straight line that “common usage is correct because it's common usage.”

Dictionaries have long reported that to beg no longer means only “to ask for a handout” or “to entreat humbly,” as in “I beg to differ.” It also means -- especially in the phrases to beg the question or to beg the point -- “to take for granted, to assume without logical proof.” And beyond that, “to avoid the issue; to sidestep the argument.” (Sentence fragments are O.K. when used for stylistic emphasis.)

“I wonder,” wonders Ms Meyers, not begging but asking, “has such frequent misuse of the technical term to beg the question made it somehow a proper use of the phrase? Or does such usage remain mistaken?”

Stay on those ramparts, logical thinkers -- hold the fort for Aristotle, the English language and St. George! To use to beg the question as a synonym for “to call for the question” is a mistake. Why? It's a mistake because it is in error. (That's begging the question.)
Got it?  Good.  Because we have screwed this up many times.

poll results, 2/11: I knew what it meant: 46 (58%); I'm ashamed I was so wrong: 15 (19%); and Means the same as "raises the question": 17 (21%).

35 comments:

  1. isaac_spaceman10:15 AM

    "I cannot abdicate the presidency, because only a strong and secure leader can prevent these riots from plunging the country into chaos." 

    ReplyDelete
  2. JIM BELL10:41 AM

    That was a really cool link.  Who knew you could do that?  No, really, who knew.  Please tell me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You mean, Google searches that start with "site:http:// ... "?  I do it all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul Tabachneck11:28 AM

    My perturbance with the phrase started in college.  I was on the editorial board for the Tartan at Carnegie Mellon University.  Every week we took turns writing the editorials -- throughout the week, each editor would look at the editorial and add or subtract their two cents. 

    I had written a strongly-worded editorial calling for the (blotted out) of the (blotted out) after he had (blotted out) down the (blotted out), which we all agreed was the right thing.  The entire staff felt passionately about the issue, so there was more input than usual, even though everyone agreed we were starting from a great place. 

    I think it was the news editor who added the misuse of "This begs the question:" in place of my "It makes one wonder," and while I wasn't as well-acquainted with the phrase then, I knew we didn't need to change it for clarity's sake.  On top of that, I thought the phrase sounded stupid: Wouldn't we be begging for an answer?  Why would we beg it of the question?  Isn't the question what we're using to do the begging? 

    It took a few years for me to really follow the thread and learn that the reason the phrase sounded stupid to me in that usage was that the usage was dead wrong. 

    The wound on that editorial will never fully heal, but it's nice to talk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. christy in nyc12:42 PM

    This one is hard for a few reasons:

    1. Yes, using "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" is objectively a mistake.

    2. Everyone does it. I've heard it and read it in many places that I would consider incredibly literate--NPR springs to mind. I had a really good example from earlier in the week and now I can't remember what it was.  Anyway, everyone does it, and the people who don't probably have in the past. And yes, once something is so widespread, eventually it does become acceptable.

    3. It literally makes sense. Yes, the word beg can mean assume. It can also mean ask for. Those words put in that order could literally mean that.

    4. But people who do it think they're using an idiom, not just words smashed together that mean what they mean. They've heard people use it, and now they're using it too. And as an idiom, that's not what it means.

    5. I find it difficult to explain the real meaning of the phrase in a clear concise way, which makes it hard to explain why it's wrong to use it to mean "raise the question." Also, the need for the phrase "begs the question" comes up very seldomly compared to the need to say something that means "raises the question."

    6. But it does have a specific and useful meaning, which is diluted to near-nothingness when it's used wrong as often as it is. The new usage is actually erasing the old meaning to a certain extent. Because if you were having a debate with someone, and you accused them of begging the question, they might very well have no idea what you meant. That's not effective communication.

    7. Agreed that prescriptivists are laughing stocks.

    8. Saying "raise the question" instead doesn't only clear up any possible confusion, but also avoids people thinking you're using a phrase without knowing the meaning. It's simply the more prudent and stylistically pleasing choice, regardless of my resignation to the fact that the common usage will eventually become accepted, and probably fairly soon. So I continue to say "raise the question" or variants when that's what I mean, despite my general lack of prescriptivist tendencies.

    I guess my conclusion is that using it wrong is not all that bad in itself, but what's bad is the loss of the original meaning that comes as a consequence of how widespread the new/wrong use of it is. I think while that is common when words and phrases evolve meaning (the loss of an earlier meaning with no clear substitute to use when you do mean the earlier meaning), this phrase is a pretty extreme example on all fronts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan Suitor12:46 PM

    I find people's arrogance around "begs the question" completely ridiculous. Anyone looking at the phrase, deciphering it word by word, would come up with the meaning "calls for/raises the question". It makes logical sense, and I actually like the phrase. It sounds good, and works well in context.

    But, instead, grammar hardasses like to use this phrase to lament just how dumb all the little plebeian rubes are. Instead of the logical, prima facie definition, we're supposed to defer to some arcane definition that seems to act as a moving target, and it certainly doesn't sound like it has much to do with the component words.

    I'm all for grammatical fascism on there/their/they're or its/it's or the Oxford comma or the em-dash, but when you're telling someone "Oh using those words in conjunction is wrong, despite the definitions lining up, because this specific arrangement of syllables out of all the billions of possibilities means something other than what basic lingual knowledge (excepting inflection) would tell you it means." I'm a firm proponent of elitism, but I'm against being a snotty turd who finds a small number of axes to grind and pounces on them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daniel Fienberg12:47 PM

    This is, as Twitter followers and podcast listeners know, one of my perennial pet peeves. I can't say that I've ever spontaneously used it correctly, though... 

    When one brings up the improper use of "begs the question," it inevitably raises the question (but doesn't beg it) regarding the evolution of language. I'm a firm believer in the "Language is a living, breathing thing" school of thought, but I prefer that language not evolve around misuse. Alas, as Sarah Palin (and many others) have taught us, it's far more frequent that public personages teach us incorrect meanings and pronunciations for words and phrases than that they teach us correct new words and phrases...

    Oh well...

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  8. isaac_spaceman12:52 PM

    The point here is that "begs the question" is incredibly complicated to use correctly and therefore is almost always used incorrectly.  As a result, one should never use it.  Simple. 

    ReplyDelete
  9. bella wilfer1:00 PM

    "Begs the question" and "It's a moot point" live in the same world for me - my understanding is that "moot point" by definition (at one point in time at least) meant "up for discussion," but now pretty much invariably means "not worth discussing due to changed circumstances" ("do you want light meat or dark meat?" "well, the turkey is burnt to the point of being inedible, so it's a moot point").  "Begs the question" seems to also have mutated in conversational meaning, though it annoys people more, I find, than "moot point"...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Benner1:10 PM

    So, is the debate about the proper use of "begs the question" a moot point or not?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul Tabachneck1:32 PM

    The problem, Dan, is that the "little plebeian rubes" are using a phrase they don't understand in order to cast a more intelligent light on themselves, and while the effect isn't as jarring as, say, Damon Wayans' jail-interred intellectual on In Living Color, it's still annoying as shit.

    See also: "For all intensive purposes."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't think that 'for all intensive purposes' is a good comparison to what Dan is saying because it is a mistake based on a mis-hearing of 'For all intents and purposes'. I don't think it is a good comparison because, as Dan argues, 'it begs the question' in its 'incorrect' usage makes logical sense if you break it down word by word (so does "for all intents and purposes") whereas "for all intensive purposes" doesn't hold up to the same logical scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would also quibble with Paul's conclusion that the "rubes" are using the phrase "to cast a more intelligent light on themselves." While that may be the case with some phrases (I can't come up with a good example of such a phrase here, but again, Sarah Palin springs to mind), this one lines up so well with the literal definition of the words and the component words are so simple to define, I believe that most people are actually just using it because they think that it best gets their point across -- not because they are putting on airs.

    I am so confused about the correct usage of "begs the question" that this debate is moot (like a cow's opinion) for me. I never use the phrase out of fear of using it wrong and being branded a rube.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Paul Tabachneck2:11 PM

    Above I addressed the break-down approach -- I submit that begging a question in that literal sense, and begging for a question are very different things.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan Suitor2:30 PM

    I don't think it's a matter of wanting to "<span><span>cast a more intelligent light on themselves". I think </span></span><span><span>they're just using the phrase because it's economical and has an effective cadence. "Begs the question" isn't faux-intellectual posturing; it's just a common phrase that people of all walks of life use without any pretensions because it works.</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  16. Marsha2:39 PM

    Excuse me, it's a moo point. Like a cow's opinion. It's moo.

    ReplyDelete
  17. christy in nyc3:02 PM

    Funny (if not so surprising) that a lot of words and phrases seem to evolve into their opposite meaning over time. At least opposites have a tangible relationship to each other. Perhaps that's another reason why "begs the question" is such a weird outlier. The two meanings are so unrelated, how would anyone guess they were using it wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would sanction that discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. isaac_spaceman3:25 PM

    Like how facility is good but facile is bad?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Adam C.3:55 PM

    I get the car!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Is it?

    Maybe it's my poorly remembered high school french back to haunt me again, but I don't think facile means bad, just simple/easy.  Being simple is only bad in certain contexts. 

    To be sure, facile arguments are frequently bad and the word is frequently used as a pejorative in that context, but we shouldn't let that fact make a more versatile expression useless except as an indictment.  To do so would bespeak a ... er ... facile (in a bad way) approach to language.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Meghan4:46 PM

    Facile can also mean weak, though. 

    I have read enough about begging the question to know that I have been using it incorrectly but, no matter how much I read about it, I still don't get when to use it.  So I don't anymore.  Problem solved.

    I would like to know how oversight came to mean both watching over and skipping over.  Riddle me that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul Tabachneck5:38 PM

    I don't think facile really means "weak," although facile things are sometimes perceived as weak.

    John Cage: How are you today sir, my name is John Cage.

    Witness: I am fine.

    John Cage: No further questions, your honor.

    That may seem like a weak line of questioning, but did the Biscuit ever lose a case that he tried that approach during?  Every time he went back to his seat in those cases, he did so knowing that the best thing to do would be not to question the witness at all, so he abandoned the line of questioning.  Facile, but not weak.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Adlai6:42 PM

    I find it impossible not to immediately render that as "for all in tents and porpoises." I think it's a Pogo joke.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Adlai6:43 PM

    Also, I recall someone on the interwebs bemoaning the fact that, whenever they tried to spell "ludicrous," the first spelling that came into their heads was "Ludacris." So sad.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Adlai6:45 PM

    Perhaps a future rodeo subject - whoever wrote this is wrong for several reasons.
    http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. Adlai6:48 PM

    It's clearly insulting, though, to call something facile.

    ReplyDelete
  28. spacewoman8:00 PM

    Grammar tics fall into one of two buckets: (1) Everyone else does this incorrectly and it deeply offends me and I hate you all, or (2) I guess I do this incorrectly, but I don't care and you're ridiculously for worrying about it.  Put me down for #2 on this one, but please do not come within fifty feet of me with your "myriad of."

    ReplyDelete
  29. spacewoman8:30 PM

    Hmm, facile analysis. 

    (I kid)

    ReplyDelete
  30. spacewoman8:31 PM

    For one thing, the person is wrong because he/she affiliated him/herself with WSU.  GO HUSKIES.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hmm. I suspect Isaac.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Paul Tabachneck3:39 AM

    Spacewoman:  That is really funny, but only if you intentionally misused "ridiculously." 
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. christy in nyc9:27 AM

    I think there might be a Grammar Tic bucket #3, being a stickler for rules that are actually not rules:

    Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Roger5:43 PM

    Garner on "beg the question": "All that having been said, the use of beg the question to mean raise another question is so ubiquitous that the new sense has been recognized by most dictionaries and sanctioned by descriptive observers of language. Still, though it is true that the new sense may be understood by most people, many will consider it slipshod."

    ReplyDelete