Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Only because this is HN where we're all picky: http://begthequestion.info/

If the phrase is misused 9 times out of 10, then redefine it. That's the hacker way.

Also, I can't help but wonder if the fallacy was named based on some colloquialism to begin with.

The fallacy is named because one of the definitions for "beg" is "to evade," which is why "begging the question" can be recast as "evading the question" (although you do lose the subtle part about assuming the conclusion to prove the conclusion).

Thank you. Now I actually learned something from this conversation.

Yes, it's based on a literal translation of a latin idiom: petitio principo (IIRC). A more unambiguous phrasing is: assuming the antecedent.

If we redefine everything based on what 9 out of 10 people do, what will the 1 out of 10 do that are trying to communicate effectively using precise terminology that wait... no longer exists for the concept they're trying to convey.

It won't matter that they can't communicate, since they will have been marginalized as pedants.

Maybe by learning a bit about etymology.

What do insects have to do with it?

Much as I sympathise with this view, communication isn't about what you say, it's about what the other person hears.

If 9 out of 10 people use it a particular way, it has already been redefined. What we're talking about here is the difference between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics: definition-oriented vs. usage-oriented.

If you're telling prescriptivists to stop prescribing, aren't you being a prescriptivist for descriptivism?

Descriptivism lets language evolve. Prescriptivism (people trying to push it back) is part of that evolution. According to your principles, you should just accept it as the way the language evolves.

Prescriptivism provides the foundation for descriptivism's point of departure, and descriptivism provides for the evolution of language. They are part and parcel to each other.

On the contrary, nuance matters.

This democratization of language isn't necessarily correct. There's a reason why we don't declare the existence of God as truth just because a majority of the population believes it.

There's a reason why majority rules isn't always appropriate. It's because often the majority can be wrong. We won't redefine the answer to the Monty Hall problem just because 9/10 people get the wrong answer.

If we're constantly redefining words and meanings, then why have definitions at all?

Language is dynamic, and words do change definition over time.

Having said that, I still prefer to use it correctly.

I never knew there was a difference. Thanks for pointing it out!

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists

All linguists are descriptivists.

Some are prescriptivists.

Standard academic linguistics is by definition descriptive.

It's a bit of a silly dichotomy. No linguist will deny that certain sentences are ungrammatical ("cat sees I"), so they are just wrong. And lots of philosophers believe that normativity, what is wrong and right, is an important part of language. But it appears to be something dynamic, language changes over time, yet I can't change language by pretending dog means cat today. So prescriptivism is wrong in the sense that you can't claim to have the sole authority on something. But descriptivism is vacuous, in that it doesn't explain the pervasive tendency for people to consider things to lie on continuum of wrong and right.

I think your definition of descriptivism is incorrect. Descriptivism certainly doesn't mean everything anyone ever says is gramatically correct. Please read http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.h... .

I offered neither a definition nor a description. Indeed, descriptivism doesn't mean that, and that link is where I got the example from. I was correcting the implicit definition people use when they invoke descriptivism as a cop out from any argument on usage (although I certainly applaud ending any such argument). Descriptivism is a stance for linguists to take in their research, and has nothing to do with the rest of the world.

Fair enough -- you're correct.

Coming back to the original point (and not in response to you in particular), using "begging the question" to mean "raising the question" is very common now, and trying to object to that does no one any favours.

That it's common is not sufficient--the majority is not necessarily right. I think pointing out a historical misunderstanding is worthwhile, especially in a forum with smart people or in an academic setting. Using this expression with a meaning based on a misunderstanding reveals that one wants to sound learned without actually being that, so I do think it's a favor to point it out. Of course it's an uphill battle and there's no hope, but I still think there are enough people who do care about where things come from and using them right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com