[chrismorgan]

I would urge you to, like I realised I had to a few years ago, get over it. Language is not defined by a dictionary or by history; roots and origins are truly meaningless. A word is defined by its usage; it’s one of the delightful things in the world for which it can be said that if enough people say something is true, it becomes true.

Uniqueness may once have been a boolean property (I cannot say for certain one way or another), but at present it is not.

[nhayden]

Should we accept incorrect usage of language that is more confusing than the correct usage? For instance, using "begs the question" instead of "raises the question". It causes a lot of confusion because people cannot even agree what the misusage of "begs the question" means and it is never a better choice of words than "raises the question" if that is what someone means.

[Squarel]

I am with Stephen Fry on this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Language evolves over time, and I am no more confused by someone (mis)using "begs the question" than I am by someone using the modern definition of decimate.

[gpvos]

The point is that "correct usage" is not defined by logicians or etymologists or any kind of authority, but by society as a whole, and therefore has no one exact definition. Look up "literally" in any recent dictionary for proof.

[teach]

And the misuse of 'literally' as a generic intensifier isn't even recent. It dates back[0] to the late 1600s.

[0] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2005/11/the...

[jamon51]

Rarely are we in a position to "accept" or "deny" changes in language. They just happen, with or without our consent. All we can do is try to keep up and make some sense of the current state.