[ruthmarx]

> begs the question[1]

> [1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries

Wait, are you calling the correct usage here historical despite it still being frequently used in contemporary times, and advocating that the incorrect usage should be normalized?

[lmm]

English is defined by its usage, and the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.

[quietbritishjim]

Did you really need to insert a contentious distraction in your original comment? The fact that you felt the need to clarify up front shows you knew it would be misunderstood, and discussion of it is totally unrelated to this topic. If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone and not detracted from the actual point you were trying to make (assuming your main goal wasn't social media-style ragebait).

To quote from a sibling comment of yours:

> a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless.

Exactly.

[lmm]

> Did you really need to insert a contentious distraction in your original comment? The fact that you felt the need to clarify up front shows you knew it would be misunderstood, and discussion of it is totally unrelated to this topic.

I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression.

> If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone

I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand. And I don't believe I caused any actual confusion; no-one genuinely misunderstood my comment. The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.

[ruthmarx]

> I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression.

Next time, just don't try to advocate for your personal view of language, and use a less contended term, as the parent said 'raises the question' would be fine.

> I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand.

Nope. Raises the question is far clearer and less ambiguous.

> The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.

Or people who care about misinformation being spread.

[lmm]

> Raises the question is far clearer and less ambiguous.

"Raises the question" is less familiar and marginally more difficult to understand for people who are actually good-faith trying.

[ruthmarx]

That's not true at all. It's intuitive to understand, less ambiguous and far more common than the incorrect usage than you prefer.

If you disagree, I would ask you to provide a source to support your assertion.

[ruthmarx]

> English is defined by its usage

To an extent, but people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also.

> the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.

No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use, just not in areas you participate in. It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'.

[lmm]

> people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also

Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.

> No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use

The last research I saw claimed otherwise.

> It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'

Nothing disingenuous; to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) is not active at least in general writing (it may still be used as a term of art in philosophy, but if so I don't think that changes anything). Certainly it's a minority use.

[ruthmarx]

> Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless.

Sure.

> Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.

It's not a historical quirk, it's the valid and modern usage.

> The last research I saw claimed otherwise.

Then it was clearly insufficient. How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so?

Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.

> to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage

You keep coating your replies with this, but it's not older or historical, just correct.

> (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different)

No, it is absolutely the correct usage.

By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.

> is not active at least in general writing

Yes, it is, and often articles that use it correctly will call out incorrect usage.

> Certainly it's a minority use.

Maybe, but your usage is plain incorrect and is as bad as using irregardless.

[lmm]

> How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so?

I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers.

> Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.

And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior. So let's not stoop to psychoanalysing each other.

> By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.

I don't think "irregardless" is more easily understood than, or conveys a useful distinction from, "regardless". Indeed the opposite, it's more confusing as it sounds like it's a double negation that should mean regardful.

[ruthmarx]

> I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers.

If you could find that same discussion or source, it would add a lot to the discussion. Change the tide of it, in fact.

> And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior.

Personal attacks like that are very much against the HN guidelines. My statement was not a personal attack, but a reasonable hypothesis as what I described is freuently observed behavior. Saying you were corrected and took issue is rather different from claiming I have never won and am entirely incapable of learning or improving. I consider this escalation an emotional response and thus an indicator, but I agree let's stop psychoanalyzing each other.

You should realize however, it's rather absurd to include a distraction in your comment to bait discussion on this point. I know you claimed your motivation was the opposite, but that's frankly hard to believe.

But, you want to say I'm incapable of learning and improving. OK. All I ask is that you support your claim that the correct use is actually the historical use and not in widespread usage.

> Indeed the opposite

Not the opposite, both are incorrect variations of a valid word/term.

[eadmund]

> English is defined by its usage

Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Out of curiosity, how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question?

[defrost]

Defined by usage is also the literal premise of the descriptive Oxford English Dictionary.

[lmm]

> how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question?

Like that. But mostly I don't.