Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #153683

Re: [OT] words. Was: typedef ... refactored

Show all headers | View raw

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 16/08/2020 21:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> 
>>> On 14/08/2020 22:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> <cut>
>>>> The original meaning is "assumes the conclusion".  A common modern
>>>> meaning is "raises the question" (which makes more sense given the
>>>> English phrase).
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but I don't agree here.  There is a single correct meaning of
>>> the phrase, and that correct meaning is still in use.  There is a common
>>> incorrect misuse of the phrase, but IMHO that is not a new meaning, it
>>> is simply a common mistake.
>>>
>>> As programmers, accuracy in what we write is important.  You are well
>>> aware of the potential difference between what a code "phrase"
>>> /actually/ means, and what some people want it to mean.
>>>
>>> In my mind, the same applies in writing English.  Obviously English is
>>> not as well specified as C, and there is enormous scope for variety and
>>> ambiguity.  But to me at least, it is important to be as accurate as I
>>> reasonably can.  And I encourage others to do so too.
>>>
>>> I am well aware that languages change over time - and one of the ways
>>> they do so is when enough people make a common mistake that it becomes
>>> the "new correct".  The phrase "the exception proves the rule" is a fine
>>> example of this - it has been used incorrectly so often that the
>>> original meaning is unlikely to be understood, and now we are left with
>>> an utterly pointless "meaning".  Change is inevitable - progress is not.
>>>  Perhaps one day the real meaning of "begs the question" will be lost
>>> deep enough that I'll have to accept that meaning has changed and we
>>> will have lost another subtle and interesting part of our language to
>>> the alter of ignorance and simplicity, but not today.
>> 
>> What is lost when a silly phrase takes on a more natural meaning?  
>
> Two things are lost (please assume "IMHO" is attached to everything I
> write here - it is very much a matter of opinion and personal preference).
>
> One is that we currently have a phrase that can mean two very different
> things to different people.  Usually the meaning is clear from the
> context, but such things are not helpful to communication.

I don't think that is the case.  I don't recall ever having the
slightest doubt about what was meant.

> Secondly, we lose an unusual and interesting idiom - and are left with
> something worse than useless (since "raises the question" is clearer and
> more natural).  Idioms such as "begs the question" are part of what make
> a language colourful and enjoyable beyond simply communicating
> information.

Ah, here we have a more interesting disagreement.  I think the phrase is
an ugly cliché which only helps to make the language dreary and
colourless.

> When used correctly (and in an appropriate context - in an international
> group where many or most people have English as a second or third
> language, it may not be appropriate to use them), such idioms enliven
> text.

Dull, dull, dull.  To me, this phrase suggests the writer is lazy and
not thinking.

(By the way, you seem to be talking about a whole collection of
"colourful" phrases so I should point out that my comments may well not
apply to all of the ones you are thinking about.)

> When used incorrectly, the writer has tried to use interesting language
> but failed.  Whether one appreciates the attempt or dislikes the failure
> is up to the reader.  (Personally, I appreciate the attempt and thus
> gave a little hint to correct the mistake - I hadn't expected it to
> become a topic by itself.)

But, while you may lament the fact, it is not, in fact, a mistake.  The
two sources I mentioned were the Cambridge and the Oxford English
dictionaries (not the OED).  It's simply wrong of you to correct someone
who uses it in the way you don't like because they may well have
diligently checked that their usage is correct.

>> You
>> can still say "that assumes your conclusion", just as you always could,
>> with the advantage of almost certainly not being misunderstood.
>
> Yes, you can.
>
> And you can say "raises the question", which again will not be
> misunderstood.

Yes.  I think I was not clear.  There is no need for this particular
cliché because the meaning can be very simply conveyed by other means.
I am not advocating it's use with any meaning.

> If our understanding and appreciation of the English language has
> decayed to the point where "begs the question" can't be used correctly,
> then I would prefer it not to be used at all.

Good grief!  A 16th century academic made up an awkward phrase.  It got
some use in formal texts for a few centuries before it started to be
re-purposed with a perfectly reasonable meaning (a question that begs to
be answered) and that is a marker for our decayed understanding and
appreciation of "the English language"!

By the way, I put "the English language" in scare quotes because I hate
that phrase.  It seems to embody so many of the ideas about language
that I find irritating.

> (One issue that may be relevant here is differences in usage between the
> UK and the USA.)

That's interesting.  I've just looked in Merriam-Webster and it does not
give the meaning you want at all, but I don't know what counts as an
authoritative source in the USA.

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

typedef ... refactored G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 01:07 -0700
  Re: typedef ... refactored G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 01:46 -0700
    Re: typedef ... refactored Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-09 08:09 -0400
      Re: typedef ... refactored Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-08-09 18:08 +0200
  Re: typedef ... refactored Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-09 09:29 +0000
  Re: typedef ... refactored Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2020-08-09 13:29 +0200
  Re: typedef ... refactored Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 13:53 +0200
    Re: typedef ... refactored Poprocks <please@replytogroup.com> - 2020-08-10 20:37 +0000
      Re: typedef ... refactored Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-10 13:49 -0700
        Re: typedef ... refactored Poprocks <please@replytogroup.com> - 2020-08-10 23:09 +0000
          Re: typedef ... refactored Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-08-11 07:14 +0000
            Why not indeed??? (Was: typedef ... refactored) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-08-11 07:48 +0000
            Re: typedef ... refactored Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-11 10:56 +0100
        Re: typedef ... refactored Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-08-28 04:08 -0700
      Re: typedef ... refactored Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-11 08:10 +0200
        Re: typedef ... refactored Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-08-13 00:52 +0300
          Re: typedef ... refactored Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 14:13 +0200
            Re: typedef ... refactored Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-14 13:37 +0100
              Re: typedef ... refactored Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 14:54 +0200
                Re: typedef ... refactored David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-14 16:46 +0200
                Re: typedef ... refactored Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-14 16:59 +0100
                Re: typedef ... refactored David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-14 21:05 +0200
                Re: typedef ... refactored Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-14 20:51 +0100
                Re: typedef ... refactored antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-08-16 13:36 +0000
                Re: typedef ... refactored Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-16 15:58 +0100
                Re: typedef ... refactored antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-08-16 18:10 +0000
                Re: typedef ... refactored Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 13:23 -0700
                Re: typedef ... refactored David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-16 19:48 +0200
                [OT] words.  Was: typedef ... refactored Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 20:08 +0100
                Re: [OT] words. Was: typedef ... refactored David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-17 10:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] words. Was: typedef ... refactored Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-17 12:00 +0100
                Re: typedef ... refactored Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2020-08-17 17:51 +0300
                Re: typedef ... refactored Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-17 16:06 +0100
                Re: typedef ... refactored Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-17 10:48 -0700
                Re: typedef ... refactored scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-17 19:36 +0000
                Re: typedef ... refactored Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-17 14:06 -0700
                Re: typedef ... refactored Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-08-28 03:53 -0700
                Re: typedef ... refactored Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-28 15:30 +0000
                Re: typedef ... refactored Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-29 02:24 +0100
                Re: typedef ... refactored Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 18:37 +0200
                Re: typedef ... refactored Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 10:29 -0700
                Re: typedef ... refactored David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-08-14 21:10 +0200
                Re: typedef ... refactored Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 12:32 -0700
  Re: typedef ... refactored G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 05:44 -0700
    Re: typedef ... refactored Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2020-08-09 08:12 -0700
      Re: typedef ... refactored G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 08:32 -0700
  Re: typedef ... refactored John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2020-08-12 11:45 -0700
    Re: typedef ... refactored Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-08-12 19:59 +0100
    Re: typedef ... refactored Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-12 14:16 -0700
    Re: typedef ... refactored Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-08-28 05:05 -0700
  Re: typedef ... refactored Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2020-08-13 00:41 +0300

csiph-web