When the vast majority of people use the word “moot” in its adjective form, most commonly “a moot point”, they use it incorrectly.
The word “moot” in adjective form is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
‘1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED’
Most folks take “moot point” to mean that there is no point in discussing it, but as we can see “moot” in this example does in fact mean it’s open to question or debate.
So my question is: how did this happen, that practically everyone I know has a misunderstanding of this word? I can think of no other similar instance, of a word’s definition somehow being understood to be the opposite of its true meaning.
Actually, I have heard the reverse - someone say “it’s a mute point” when they clearly meant to say “moot” which in my opinion is incorrect to begin with (per my original post and subsequent follow-ups).
Makes me nutty.
Can you tell both my parents were English teachers??
My defence is that, although I shot my gun, the bullet didn’t hit the victim (i.e. he died from some other cause) or, if it did, I had a lawful excuse (I was acting in self-defence).
The court finds, on the evidence, that my bullet never hit the victim. I am acquitted. No ruling is needed about whether the circumstances would have supported my argument about self-defence, so no ruling is made.
Consequently the issue is still open to debate as an abstract question.
From the point of view of the court, the point is moot, meaning “people can debate it one way or the other; it doesn’t matter to this case”.
From the point of view of those discussing the issues the point is moot, meaning “we can debate it because the answer is still open for debate ; the court never ruled on it”.