I am delighted to see that there are other Sprachpolizei among my readers. Great suggestions! But there might be some who wonder what the
fuss is about. Language evolves, after
all. Shakespeare's plays are full of
usages that grate on modern ears. So who
cares if "begs the question" has evolved to mean "forcefully
raises the question" rather than "assumes what is to be proved"
and "disinterested" now means "uninterested" rather than
"not swayed by interest?"
My reply is this:
Language is entirely conventional, onomatopoeia notwithstanding. So any sequence of letters in English is
available to be assigned any meaning native speakers choose. But there are conceptual distinctions that it
is extremely useful to mark and maintain by means of linguistic distinctions. "Not interested" really means
something different from "not swayed by personal interest." We want to be able to say that
a judge should not be swayed by private interest -- should be disinterested -- whereas a saint cares nothing for the pleasures and rewards of this world -- is uninterested in them. There are also concepts for which it is
useful to have linguistic expressions. Assumes what is to be proved is one of
them. And we damned well better be able
to distinguish between prescribe and proscribe before we start taking our
daily medications!
2 comments:
I have learned something. I too used to harrumph when I heard people using "begs the question" to mean "raises the question." However, I now realize that the harrumph was on me. I thought it meant to "avoid the question" or to "fail to address the question." I think that the error comes from interpreting the words to mean that the poor question has been left "begging" to be answered.
I think "begs the question" has always been an error waiting to happen. It's a too-literal translation of the Latin expression petitio principii. The misuse of the expression flows naturally from the initial mis-translation.
Post a Comment