Raises the question, not begs it. Begging the question would be to say, 'Bitcoin always generates profit, therefor it will always generate a profit.' Begging the question is assuming the consequent of the argument; raising a question is, well … raising one.
In other words: You're fighting a lost battle. I suspect if you put the two common uses of it to a representative sample of people, that the majority won't even know the original usage at this point.
Which begs the question: Who, then, is wrong?
The 'misuse' of "begs the question" has a meaning that logically follows from the words.
I've been knowingly (mis)using begs the question to roughly mean suggests the question ever since I learned the "real" meaning. If anyone ever challenges me on it, I just point out that I'm using the words for their actual English meanings—not as an idiom. Unlike so many other language mistakes, this one actually works.
But really, since I'm using the words for their correct English meanings, I don't see why I have to justify my use at all. I'm not fighting to justify something incorrect; the people correcting me are the ones who are wrong, and they're the ones who then go on to try so hard to justify their incorrect opinion when an easier and better solution would be to just let me use the words for their actual definitions.
This is not a problem unique to this idiom; people often forget that words have general English meanings when there's also a technical meaning for the word in question. For example, some people have made it their personal crusade to claim that backers on Kickstarter are not investing anything because they don't receive any ownership in return for their money. These people are wrong. It's true that by the word's finance definition no investment is taking place, but by the word's English definition they are absolutely correct to say it is an investment (just like one might invest in their college education). Obviously that example has nothing to do with the idiom at hand, but considering how often people make this mistake, I have no problem standing my ground on "begs the question" because I refuse to be limited by other people's inability to crack open a dictionary.
Ehh, somewhat. Why did you pick beg instead of some other similar word? Probably because you heard the original expression and decided to borrow it. It's unlikely you were just thinking one day of how to describe this thing where an answer really raises more questions and said, "Hey I know, I'll call it begging the question!"
> I have no problem standing my ground on "begs the question" because I refuse to be limited by other people's inability to crack open a dictionary.
Which if they opened, would show them a contradictory meaning. But not drastically contradictory where it'd be obvious - just subtly not what you meant.
> For example, some people have made it their personal crusade to claim that backers on Kickstarter are not investing anything because they don't receive any ownership in return for their money. These people are wrong. It's true that by the word's finance definition no investment is taking place, but by the word's English definition they are absolutely correct to say it is an investment (just like one might invest in their college education).
It's more that they don't receive anything back, except maybe a product, which we call "buying". If you personally said to me - I'm investing in VR for the future by buying an Occulus I wouldn't blink, but when a company does it, it does suggest that they're trying to blur the line. Especially given how many people seem to misunderstand the deal... I'd call shenanigans on Kickstarter's usage, but not yours.
> Because the word "begs" is easier to say than the word "suggests," partly because it's one syllable instead of three. It's easier, it's better, and it's the phrase I want to use. (It's also more correct than suggests for what I'm trying to say.)
Yeah, for me it's exactly not right. Begging is something weak things do to get something. It brings to mind prisoners and cute puppies. It suggests many things that I don't mean and doesn't get at what I'd be trying to say. Maybe it just happens to fit 100% to what you want, but in almost every case I've seen of someone borrowing a term for something else, it's more that people just don't understand the subtleties (or they don't apply in their domain) of the phrases.
And frankly, you seem like you've got an "I can do what I want" chip on your shoulder which may explain your choice more than strict understandability criteria.
1. The word beg only suggests a position of weakness in one context. Although that's how it's most commonly used, it's completely correct (and not uncommon) to use it as a synonym for "ask" if you want to imply a stronger request--check out the second definition in Merriam-Webster for formal evidence if you need it (it's not obscure or archaic). I'm normally all for choosing words based on understandability, but since far more people understand my meaning of the phrase than the "true" meaning, I'd say that the people using the idiom (rather than the words themselves) are the ones who have an ulterior motive other than understandability.
1b. I think it's extremely silly to ask me why I used one word instead of another closely related word. Yes, words have near-synonyms, and I could just ask easily ask you why you're not using my word instead. I know you're trying to imply I have an ulterior motive (that I'm doing it just to be contrarian or to feel right or to win an argument or whatever), but that's a weak way to do it since "I like it better this way" is all the justification anyone needs for using a word that isn't outright misleading or insulting. What you're really saying is that you would make a different stylistic choice, which is not much of an argument at all.
2. The "chip on my shoulder" is only in response to you telling me I'm fighting hard to justify something incorrect, which is quite frankly insulting (and, as I said, an incorrect thing to say in its own right, since the dictionary agrees with me, regardless of whether or not you think I have an ulterior motive). This very specific situation (when someone rebukes someone else because they think the other person is ignorant, when it is they themselves that are ignorant) is a huge pet peeve of mine, and it upsets me when people double-down on that position after being shown their misunderstanding. Of course, they're the ones who have convinced themselves that it is the other person who misunderstood and is doubling down, so that just compounds the insult.
Ehh, or to seeing mal-intent where it isn't.
> I'm fighting hard to justify something incorrect, which is quite frankly insulting
I don't tell you if I feel insulted, and if I did I wouldn't expect you to care. Part of having a chip is showing it off.
> (and, as I said, an incorrect thing to say in its own right, since the dictionary agrees with me,
Yes, and the dictionary (Merriam Websters) can't tell the difference between centi and centa, so it's not an authority.
> regardless of whether or not you think I have an ulterior motive).
I think this paragraph is you agreeing that you do have an ulterior motive, and explaining it as getting back at jerks like me.
> This very specific situation (when someone rebukes someone else because they think the other person is ignorant, when it is they themselves that are ignorant) is a huge pet peeve of mine,
I don't think you're ignorant. I think you know more than the average person. However I think it's functionally wrong for you to use something in an ambiguous way, JUST to prove a point - which is that you're technically right because an dictionary agrees, etc.
> Of course, they're the ones who have convinced themselves that it is the other person who misunderstood and is doubling down, so that just compounds the insult.
No, I get that the dictionary agrees. But I think if you weren't set on showing that you're just as allowed to use that phrase as someone else that you'd pick something else from the vast sea of words. Something that actually seemed descriptive.
> I think it's extremely silly to ask me why I used one word instead of another closely related word.
Why is it silly to ask? I like blue more than red for weird little personal reasons - how would you ever know without asking why?
> Yes, words have near-synonyms and I could just ask easily ask you why you're not using my word instead.
Right, and I'd tell you that the original meaning is as good as lost because few get it, and the secondary meaning is wrong because it directly conflicts with the other meaning and causes confusion, so I simply describe what I mean without having a pet phrase.
Why do you feel the need to own that specific phrase when I'm sure you could be more evocative, and thus understandable, by saying almost anything else that came to mind?
> but since far more people understand my meaning of the phrase than the "true" meaning, I'd say that the people using the idiom (rather than the words themselves) are the ones who have an ulterior motive other than understandability.
Frankly the original never meant much to me, the only reason I'm really aware of it is the continual use, misuse, and intentionally unintentional misuse of it. But of the users of those, I find the originalist far less unhelpful in a conversation. They're at least trying to help, as opposed to - what's the verb for exercising your chip?
If you let the phrase die rather than fighting an ideological war around it perhaps someone would coin something better.
Therefore, your claim that "begs the question" can't mean what 99% of people understand it to mean in colloquial conversation because it's a term of art that means something else in logic/rhetoric is invalid.
By the way, this reasoning is independent of etymology. "Beg the question" may at some point have only meant what you claim it means now (I don't know if it did or not) -- but that doesn't change anything, even if it's the case.
Note that "begging" in this context is likely a mistranslation in the first place. Therefore using it to actually mean "begging for" is less incorrect than the idiom.
"Beg the question" is fine: it means what 99% of native English speakers believe it means, and everybody understands it.
In this case, "begs the question" is what something else is called. By conflating two things you get sloppy thinking. Even may people think they know what they're saying or hearing but they don't because there are two distinct things they can't tell apart. Also, it's a less intuitive way to say "suggests" the question. Begs implies something about unequal power structures, and requests, etc.
I understand that I need to be aware of what people might mean, but I'm in tech - I already see that everywhere. Maybe it's a regionalism but many people here call an entire computer a hard drive. I need to know what they want even though they can't ask for it. But yet, they're wrong and there's a lot that could go wrong for them because of their sloppy language.
Rather than fighting for your right to be wrong, why not just be right?
Incorrect based on what standard? What standard for language correctness exists besides consensus?
> In this case, "begs the question" is what something else is called. By conflating two things you get sloppy thinking.
"Bug" means an error in computer software; it also means "insect". Neither is wrong. Terms mean the same thing all the time and context disambiguates perfectly fine.
> many people here call an entire computer a hard drive
Not a good analogy for several reasons: (1) both of those are from the same field so context can't disambiguate, (2) there's no widespread consensus that "hard drive" means "computer". In practice most people would misunderstand.
> Rather than fighting for your right to be wrong, why not just be right?
Wow, I don't mean to be rude but this sounds extremely smug to me. I'm not fighting for my right to be wrong, because I'm not wrong.
Incorrect based on the definition of the word/phrase. Just because most Americans say "I could care less", for example, doesn't mean it's being used/said correctly, and saying that it's ok because language is fluid doesn't get around the fact that it is incorrect.
You are missing my point. WHAT definition? Where does it come from? Says who?
(By the way, if we're going to trust definitions, Google's lists the definition of "beg the question" that you are advocating for only third. https://imgur.com/a/zh6bJ )
> WHAT definition? Where does it come from? Says who?
The literal meaning of the words. If you couldn't care less, your caring is at zero. If you could care less you must currently care more than zero.
But that's not even really our point...
Rather than playing this silly game where you declare the majority view (Yay 51%) correct, why not just avoid things that people use incorrectly? Why go our of your way to join them? Most everyone who'd use the incorrect form would understand the correct form, so you're not even making yourself more understandable to them.
Why are you so fixated on "Begs the Question" that you don't use any other combination of words from the entire language to describe that phenomenon? The odds that you independently arrived at this phrase are infinitesimal.
Based on the part names the person wants to refer to. If you place an order and get exactly what you asked for but not what you want or need, you're wrong.
> What standard for language correctness exists besides consensus?
How many of us need to agree your name is Susan before you'll agree and get your ID corrected?
> Neither is wrong. Terms mean the same thing all the time and context disambiguates perfectly fine.
Well, not perfectly fine but we live with it. Why go out of your way to justify and propagate these errors?
> Not a good analogy for several reasons: (1) both of those are from the same field so context can't disambiguate,
Sure it can. You want your data so I know which piece you must mean.
> (2) there's no widespread consensus that "hard drive" means "computer". In practice most people would misunderstand.
There seems to be here. Maybe your area is more technically sophisticated or maybe they just make other mistakes.
> I'm not fighting for my right to be wrong, because I'm not wrong.
You can call "not right" whatever you wish. I'm not talking about taking back your culture's words or anything; I'm talking about technical cases where there's a clear right answer, and a vast assortment of answers that will not accomplish what you wish or will do it sub-optimally.
> I don't mean to be rude but this sounds extremely smug to me.
Is it also smug to be sure that 2+2 is 4?
I'm not saying you need to attack people for being wrong, I'm just asking why you feel the need to join them as opposed to finding an actually correct thing and saying that. For people who don't know the names of fallacies, "begs the question" holds no special meaning and could be replaced by a multitude of phrases that would communicate clearly to experts and lay-people.
When I do small consulting gigs I always try to be liberal in what I accept - I'll back up your data off of whatever you call it. But I always try to use correct terminology myself and I correct clients with "That's an X, if you ask for a Y you'll end up getting this other thing that's not quite what you want." (But I wait for the verification part of the meeting and I don't make a big deal of it.)
The quoted sentence is the dictionary usage of the phrase.
[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beg-the-q...
[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/beg_the_questio...
i.e to introduce a premise begging to be questioned - that includes, of course, the assumption of a conclusion, (isn't that a different fallacy though? - circular reasoning) e.g.:
> bitcoin is profitable, because bitcoin traders are doing well
It pushes the argument somewhere (sometimes to a new claim; sometimes a consequence-of, or paraphrasing-of the original claim) but provides no argument for that direction either, begging for the new premise to be question just as much as the old, and otherwise providing no new clarity.
This being abstracted to any obvious omission of information, or even abstractions such as situations themselves "begging the question" as if personified, is just an extension of the same semantics.