Can someone please enlighten me about what Mrs. Palin’s definition is of her supposedly new word “refudiate”? I know what it means in fact: that she got her tongue twisted saying “repudiate” and “refute” and she’s too stubborn to admit it. But if she says she coined a new word, does she say what it means? From her context it seems to be just a synonym for repudiate.
FYI Merriam Webster says repudiate means:
1 : to divorce or separate formally from (a woman)
2 : to refuse to have anything to do with : disown
3 a : to refuse to accept; especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force <repudiate a contract> b : to reject as untrue or unjust <repudiate a charge>
4 : to refuse to acknowledge or pay <repudiate a debt>
While refute means:
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
Near as I can tell “refudiate” means to have nothing to do with one’s own arguments.
Shakespeare make up lots of words too. Refudiate means to counter an argument with all the thought and rational of a simple repudiation, but with out all the work of refuting.
To be fair, it could simply be a typo. Or she could have had a brain freeze and typed the wrong word. It happens. Of course, Palin could never admit something like “I was typing fast and made a mistake.” It’s illegal for any US politician to ever admit he or she made a mistake or even changed their mind.
I’d cut her a break (sorta) for using a bogus word in the first place. It seems “repudiate” fits the meaning she was going for, and she conflated it with “refute”. Not really a big deal, though if my every word were as thoroughly scrutinized as hers, my motto would be “spellcheck, spellcheck, spellcheck!”
But then she corrected herself by replacing “refudiate” with “refute,” which did not make sense in context. And then she tried to claim she coined a new word on purpose, just like Shakespeare did.
All of this put together just makes her look like a bumbling fool… yet again. I’d have much more respect for someone who said “Yeah, I was typing too fast and screwed that up… oh, well.” Sarah apparently doesn’t do humility well, though.
By itself, it’s not much to write home about. Lots of people of all levels of intelligence levels take an interest in language and play around with it. But occasionally, you’ll find yourself using a coinage meant to be jocular as though it’s a normal word. It happens. Suddenly you’re in mixed company that doesn’t know you and the spurious word “accrumulate” slips out. People who know you have a facility with the language will see it in that context. People who don’t will suspect you of being a dolt. It’s not a question of whether or not it’s fair, it’s just one of the things about language – it is taken to reflect character.
Now, if you were a public figure who already had a reputation for low intellect, it makes a much bigger difference. She can insist that actually she was being quite cheeky and you big meanies are just being jerks about it, but it’s a lot better to bank some credibility first. Bush often couldn’t help it, because he was caught out speaking off the cuff. But if you’re Twittering, you may wish to try out a spell check first. Or have a member of your staff actually write the Tweets.
“Refudiate” is when you order the Rootin’ Tootin’ Fresh and Fruitin’ breakfast at IHOP because you like how saying it sounds, only to discover upon its arrival that it is too horrid and disgusting to swallow.
And the very first sentence of this transcript has “taken a lot of flack”–so much for cultural literacy nowadays (not to put whoever was responsible for typing up this transcript through the “ringer”)
