Just a periodic reminder that 'Beyond the Pale' is a pro-colonialist phrase that many believe was was part of Britain's Centuries-long campaign to eliminate Irish culture.
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/12/beyond-the-pale.h...
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/12/beyond-the-pale.h...
"The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
Throughout, your source draws a distinction between the histories of the separate phrases "beyond the pale" and "pale of settlement".
So I guess your statement might be true in the narrow sense that "many believe" the false etymology, just as you can find many who believe that the earth is flat. But that's not a good reason to go around chiding people for using a common expression.
The etymology is in doubt for any particular area, not the concept of what a pale was and how it was used to colonize.
That is the point of "many believe."
Also keep in mind that the major doubter is the Oxford English Dictionary...
You're the one whose source was quoting from OED, so you tell me. It'll be easier if we're starting from a shared ground truth.
Many people believe that specifically the Irish Pale popularized the statement, but the OED aren't among them.
What are we disagreeing about?
"Many people believe..."
Name one. Have a free do-over: pick a source you actually agree with this time. Make sure it doesn't quote any reference books that you distrust.
> Also keep in mind that the major doubter is the Oxford English Dictionary
So we are to disregard English opinion on the English language?..
From https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/12/beyond-the-pale.h...
As for the relationship between the two expressions, the OED has this to say:
“The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
So is claiming someone didn't read a source when you disagree with their interpretation.
I don't know why you're still typing, you're not convincing anybody, you're not getting any karma, and nobody is gonna respect you more for refusing to acknowledge how blatantly wrong you are. The best you can do here is admit (to yourself) you screwed up and that you have a lot of trouble admitting when you're wrong, and then working on that character flaw -- your life will go a lot smoother.
I made no call to action.
I guess I should have known any time the information is something certain people would consider 'woke' it elicits a strong emotional reaction beyond the information itself.
My bad.
And your implicit call to action was crystal clear. Don't be coy.
It appears I was mistaken, and I apologise.
It doesn't necessarily have bearing, but you cannot generalize the way you are doing.
Then no word would mean anything.