My Sweet Little Ass Was Saved By The Mk III Today!!!

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:53:09 -0400, ASAAR <caught DeleteThis @22.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 08:09:15 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> > I don't accept that misusage because it *is* a misusage. What people *mean*
> > when they misuse a word or phrase does not change the meaning of the word or
> > phrase. If someone calls a cauliflower a cantaloupe, that does not magically
> > change cauliflowers into cantaloupes. Words mean things. So do phrases.
>
> Sorry, but you're totally wrong, because you're assumption is all
> wet. Yes, if one person calls a cauliflower a cantaloupe, it
> doesn't change the definition. But if many millions do, that's
> another kettle of, uh, cantaloupes. Unfortunately, you're mired in
> the past, not just not recognizing the many changes that are and
> have taken place, but refusing to even open your eyes and take a
> peek.

Not all language changes are the same. In the case of "begs the
question", a useful meaning that can't conveniently be expressed
any other way is being replaced by a new meaning that _precisely_
duplicates the meaning of "raises the question". There's no benefit
to be gained from using "begs..." to mean "raises..." and it has
a detrimental effect on the language, so don't you think it should
be resisted?

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:05:25 +0100, Matthew Winn wrote:

> Not all language changes are the same. In the case of "begs the
> question", a useful meaning that can't conveniently be expressed
> any other way is being replaced by a new meaning that _precisely_
> duplicates the meaning of "raises the question". There's no benefit
> to be gained from using "begs..." to mean "raises..." and it has
> a detrimental effect on the language, so don't you think it should
> be resisted?

Doubly wrong. You haven't been reading very carefully if you
think that I've said that the older definition is being replaced.
Nope, sorry. It's gaining a sibling. Some day the original meaning
may wither and vanish, but even the curmudgeon that hates changes
has admitted that its usage is already rare, so that process was
under way before the newer meaning gained currency. And of course
you're wrong to say that there's no benefit to be gained by saying
"begs" instead of "raises". There's a not so subtle difference
between them. But if you can't see or imagine any difference,
you're free to continue thinking that there's no benefit, because
for you, there isn't any.

I guess that you're also in the camp that needs to resist the
language's evolution. I'm not, and I don't share your belief that
this change has a detrimental effect, and think that those that try
to resist the changes are wasting their own time. If the new
meaning of "begs the question" eventually fades, it won't be due to
the efforts of a few that tried to resist its adoption.

Perhaps the lexicographer's biggest job is revising their
dictionaries. Every new edition contains many additions and
deletions, and the changes aren't made by biased judges intent on
maintaining the "purity" of the language. The changes are made to
keep the dictionaries in line with how the language is actually
(there's that word again ) spoken and written. They're often
conservative, delaying the introduction of new words and phrases
since they may be short lived, and they wouldn't like to be seen to
have guessed wrong by deleting the new words in the one of the next
editions. If the word or phrase is deemed useful or interesting
enough by society to catch on, it will. "Twenty three skidoo" is as
dated as zoot suits. An earlier form has endured, so I'll take this
as my opportunity to skedaddle.