# No, it DOESN'T "beg the question"! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 16, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942 "2003-07-16T18:23:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jackelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a6a055/32.png) [@jackelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackelope)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/21 "2003-07-16T23:59:37Z")
It’s just a phrase whose component words don’t actually suggest the meaning. Like “make the bed” or “go to sleep.” I think it’s constructions like this that give English its quirky charm. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/22 "2003-07-17T00:06:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Svt4Him \* > \*\*1+ wILl L00k @ LoT l1K3 +hI5. F4IRly 34$Y +O uND3r$TANd 0NcE j00 9E+ +3h h4ng opH 1+, 4L+HoU9H Pr0848lY n0t W0rtH GetTIn9 tH3 hAn9 Of, IMH0. \*\* This causes me to ask\* CAN I HIT Svt4Him? HUH? CAN I? PLEEEEEEEEEESE? 😉 - - Isn’t that a clearer way to say it than either begs or raises the question? And isn’t it sad when I end up showing you people the CLEAR way of saying something? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/23 "2003-07-17T00:09:36Z")
**Cecil Adams** says [I was using these words in a manner congruent with their plain meaning, and while they also happen to be the term for a certain logical fallacy, I figured that no one would misunderstand my intent. And no one has. I recognize, however, that people need an outlet for their hostility, and better this than mailbox bombs. So, has your stress been reduced? Good. Now piss off.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020524.html) ---
**Author:** ![Svt4Him](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@Svt4Him](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svt4Him)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/24 "2003-07-17T00:30:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dropzone \* > \*_This causes me to ask_ > CAN I HIT Svt4Him? HUH? CAN I? PLEEEEEEEEEESE? 😉 > > - > - Isn’t that a clearer way to say it than either begs or raises the question? And isn’t it sad when I end up showing you people the CLEAR way of saying something? :rolleyes: \*\* 😃 Hey, I didn’t say I liked it, just said that’s how it will be going. Well, at least on the net. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/25 "2003-07-17T01:35:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bibliophage \* > \*\ ***Cecil Adams** says [I was using these words in a manner congruent with their plain meaning, and while they also happen to be the term for a certain logical fallacy, I figured that no one would misunderstand my intent. And no one has. I recognize, however, that people need an outlet for their hostility, and better this than mailbox bombs. So, has your stress been reduced? Good. Now piss off.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020524.html) \*\* The problem with this argument is that “these words” DO NOT “ **also** happen to be the term for a certain logical fallacy,” they **only** “happen to be the term for a certain logical fallacy.” Technically, that is. [From Paul Brians “Common Errors in English”](http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html) > [@](#): > > An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to “beg the question.” Here is an example of a question-begging argument: “This painting is trash because it is obviously worthless.” The speaker is simply asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. Since we never use “begs” with this odd meaning (“to improperly take for granted”) in any other phrase, many people mistakenly suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked–raises the question. **If you’re not comfortable with formal terms of logic, it’s best to stay away from this phrase, or risk embarrassing yourself.** But hey, even Cecil needs an outlet for his hostility… (all bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/26 "2003-07-17T01:46:03Z")
Okay, everybody back away from the computer. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/27 "2003-07-17T02:30:34Z")
As long as we’re at it, _per se_ is Latin for “in or by itself.” it is used to isolate a specific subject or thought from a broader whole (e.g. “I don’t hate Christmas _per se_ I just hate all the commercialism.”) Some people seem to use _per se_ as a sort of all purpose intensifyer or they think that it means something like “precisely” or “Definitively” (“It’s not a biography _per se_. it’s more like a novel.”) If you want to use _per se_ in a semtence, first substitute the words “by itself” in your mind. If “by (or in) itself” would not work then you are using _per se_ incorrectly. ---
**Author:** ![Elemenopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b5e925/32.png) [@Elemenopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elemenopy)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/28 "2003-07-17T02:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Who the fucking hell are we to tell people that they can’t use a certain arrangement of words to mean exactly what it appears to mean, just because it also happens to be the archaic name of a logical fallacy? "‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more or less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’" — Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/29 "2003-07-17T03:46:43Z")
It being used incorrectly isn’t why I hate it, I hate the phrase “it begs the question” merely because it just SOUNDS so stuffed shirt and meant to impress. Like something one of “those” people in a class or meeting would say (you know the ones, everyone else is hoping to get out of there and go to lunch, and they’re trying to sound OH so intelligent by “pretending” to ask “smart questions”? And they do so for an ETERNITY???). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/30 "2003-07-17T05:18:54Z")
Take the stick out of your butt and settle down. What’s confusing you are two similar yet different phrases. [“Begging the question”](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging) is a logical fallacy in which the the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. “Begs the question” is a different phrase that means to suggest another question. The two are similar, but they have different meanings, and are each correct in their own appropriate context. This may be a recent development, but common usage has established “begs the question” as a useful phrase, so you might as well used to it. ---
**Author:** ![j.c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@j.c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j.c)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/31 "2003-07-17T05:25:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Flugelhorn defenestrate lipid skybox Seeing such outright filth on the SDMB begs a question I’d rather not answer, that you very much. Although if Fear Itself wants to liquid my skybox, I’m ready, willing, and able! ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/32 "2003-07-17T05:34:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\*Take the stick out of your butt and settle down. What’s confusing you are two similar yet different phrases. [“Begging the question”](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging) is a logical fallacy in which the the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. “Begs the question” is a different phrase that means to suggest another question. The two are similar, but they have different meanings, and are each correct in their own appropriate context. This may be a recent development, but common usage has established “begs the question” as a useful phrase, so you might as well used to it. \*\* Garner’s _Dictionary of Modern American Usage_, which is probably the best balance between descriptivism and prescriptivism on the market, makes no such distinction. For the phrase _beg the question_ he simply says “see **begging the question**.” He states that > [@](#): > > **begging the question** does not mean “evading the issue” or “inviting the obvious questions,” as some mistakenly believe. In his entry he gives an example of a statement in which the writer uses “begs” to suggest that there is another question that needs answering. Garner contends that this can be corrected simply by replacing “begs” with “ignores.” Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/33 "2003-07-17T07:26:57Z")
For the record, the statement “two parallel lines have no point of intersection” is not a tautology. In fact, it is a false statement. A true statement is “two non-colinear parallel lines have no point of intersection”. This statement is not a tautology, however. Rather, it is, to the best of my knowledge, true by definition. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/34 "2003-07-17T09:57:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MaxTheVool \* > For the record, the statement “two parallel lines have no point of intersection” is not a tautology. In fact, it is a false statement. > > A true statement is “two non-colinear parallel lines have no point of intersection”. This statement is not a tautology, however. Rather, it is, to the best of my knowledge, true by definition. That’s what comes of trying to give an example (I used up my creativity bringing in oxymoron). Go on, then, give an example of a ‘necessarily true’ statement (which isn’t a definition). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/35 "2003-07-17T10:03:24Z")
Me > [@](#): > > Tautology: A or Not A > > … > > (A tautology is implied by anything… Glee > [@](#): > > No, a tautology is a repetition (e.g. a contradictory oxymoron), or something which is necessarily true (e.g. no parallel lines ever meet) [Columbia University](http://www.columbia.edu/~av72/symboliclogic/Lectures/Lecture09.pdf) > [@](#): > > A contradiction implies anything > A tautology is implied by anything [The University of Virginia](http://www.uvawise.edu/philosophy/Logic%20Text/Chapter%208%20Deduction%20Trees.doc) > [@](#): > > A tautology is logically implied by any statement whatsoever. The simplest tautology is the law of excluded middle, p [or] ~p. [Rice University](http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~psyc360/chapter4.pdf) > [@](#): > > The simplest tautologies are p [-\>] p and p [or] ¬p. etc. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/36 "2003-07-17T10:06:22Z")
Glee > [@](#): > > Go on, then, give an example of a ‘necessarily true’ statement (which isn’t a definition). “Either your name is Tom or else it isn’t.” ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/37 "2003-07-17T10:15:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Glee > > “Either your name is Tom or else it isn’t.” \*\* However, “or else” in this context is a pleonasm, since “or” would do perfectly well. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/38 "2003-07-17T13:40:12Z")
And I take it no one here would ever use the term “spam” in any of its variously capitalized forms to refer to anything but the spiced meat product? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/39 "2003-07-17T13:57:19Z")
Libertarian, you quote 3 universities over ‘tautology’: - If the statement includes ‘A and not A’, then it is necessarily true, which is what I said (using the Oxford Dictionary definition). - one of the universities claims ‘A tautology is logically implied by any statement whatsoever’. So presumably these are all tautologies: ‘A tautology is logically implied by any statement.’ ‘The cat sat on the mat.’ (whether the cat is on the mat or not) ‘A tautology is not logically implied by any statement.’ I don’t see what their definition is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942/40 "2003-07-17T14:04:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ludovic \* > \*\*And I take it no one here would ever use the term “spam” in any of its variously capitalized forms to refer to anything but the spiced meat product? \*\* That only begs the question of how to start a sentence with “spam” as the first word. Since, of course, we capitalize the first word of a sentence because that’s how it’s done. [sub]Oh, look! A zebra crossing![/sub] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-it-doesnt-beg-the-question/188942.md?page=3)