# waive not wave **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 12, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094 "2013-02-12T17:19:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/21 "2013-02-13T18:38:49Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > See, this is what I don’t understand - you appear to have a good grasp of how language works, except back in post 6, you can only imagine an absolutely literal, physical interpretation of an idiom: Not necessary literal, but sensical. Would you talk about cooking a right until its done? Or dolling up a right? When the metaphor as spelled makes no sense, and there’s a similarly spelled word that fits the usage precisely, the simplest explanation is there has been a spelling mistake. Yes, one could come up with some weird usage that vaguely justifies the misspelling, but I’d rather point out the error. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/22 "2013-02-13T18:48:50Z")
I think the confusion is about the actor. > [@](#): > > That was then, you may say, and this is now. In the 1990s it may well be foolish, as a matter of public policy, to allow law-abiding private citizens to own guns (although I’m not persuaded this is so). But it seems pretty clear that’s what the founders intended, and it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply wave that right away. It seems to me that the paragraph is not contemplating citizens with guns _waiving_ their OWN rights, but **others** (hand) _waving_ away the idea that gun ownership is a right. You cannot waive _someone else’s_ right – only your own. Therefore I say it’s technically not an error, albeit a puckish word choice in that context, since it is so close to the word “waive.” ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/23 "2013-02-13T19:14:02Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > You cannot waive _someone else’s_ right – only your own. Therefore I say it’s technically not an error, albeit a puckish word choice in that context, since it is so close to the word “waive.” The actor is the collective we, as in all Americans, who are setting public policy and considering waiving our second amendment right away. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/24 "2013-02-13T19:54:18Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t find ‘waive away’ being used commonly at all. Are you actually looking or merely deciding that since your idiolect doesn’t have it, it cannot exist? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/25 "2013-02-13T21:59:47Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Not necessary literal, but sensical. Would you talk about cooking a right until its done? Or dolling up a right? So not all idioms fit all uses - this is no surprise, but “wave away” is pretty much the same as “brush off” - and if someone says they were “given the brush off”, I don’t look around for a physical brush. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/26 "2013-02-13T22:02:01Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Are you actually looking or merely deciding that since your idiolect doesn’t have it, it cannot exist? Both, really. Are you saying it exists in yours, and thus assuming it must be what Cecil meant? ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/27 "2013-02-13T22:02:23Z")
Drowning, not waiving ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/28 "2013-02-13T22:07:11Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > So not all idioms fit all uses - this is no surprise, but “wave away” is pretty much the same as “brush off” - and if someone says they were “given the brush off”, I don’t look around for a physical brush. Yes, and it’s sensical to “brush off” a person idiomatically because it’s plausible to “brush off” a person literally. Would you consider the phrasing “it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply brush that right off” to be reasonable? It looks bizarre to me. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/29 "2013-02-13T22:08:28Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Both, really. Are you saying it exists in yours, and thus assuming it must be what Cecil meant? I don’t recall ever having said it but I wouldn’t put it past me. As I said before, I can see the arguments for waive and wave and I don’t care for either formulation but if I had to choose one over the other, Pleonast’s version would be slightly less grating. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/30 "2013-02-13T22:37:52Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes, and it’s sensical to “brush off” a person idiomatically because it’s plausible to “brush off” a person literally. It’s also possible to brush off a suggestion, an idea, a regulation, etc - I don’t think the existence of a literal dimension is even slightly relevant. > [@](#): > > Would you consider the phrasing “it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply brush that right off” to be reasonable? It looks bizarre to me. You’ve got a problem with ‘wave away’ and ‘brush off’ as non-literal idioms, but no problem with ‘eats at the heart’? Whose actual literal beating heart is being consumed? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/31 "2013-02-13T22:42:07Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I don’t recall ever having said it but I wouldn’t put it past me. Apologies - it appeared you were implying familiarity with the expression. > [@](#): > > As I said before, I can see the arguments for waive and wave and I don’t care for either formulation but if I had to choose one over the other, Pleonast’s version would be slightly less grating. Me too, except the other way. I guess the only solution is for someone to contact Cecil and ask him what the hell he meant. My money is on the answer being: “exactly what I said” ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/32 "2013-02-13T22:46:26Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes, and it’s sensical to “brush off” a person idiomatically because it’s plausible to “brush off” a person literally. It’s fairly difficult to literally brush off a person. I mean, people tend to be fairly heavy, so if one is sitting on you, it is a challenge to remove them with a light brushing motion, even if using a standard brush. You can literally brush off lint or dirt or a hat or an insect, but not a person. The idiom “brush off” refers to quickly removing and dismissing something that is on you with a light rubbing motion. When you brush off a person, you are figuratively giving them a quick dismissal. The idiom does not refer to running a brush across another person to remove stuff from them. It refers to running a brush across yourself to remove stuff from you. > [@](#): > > Would you consider the phrasing “it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply brush that right off” to be reasonable? It looks bizarre to me. “Brush off” works better as a two word expression, so, while inserting the object of brush after the verb brush is grammatically sensible and perhaps nominally preferred by some “standard”, it reads somewhat better to say “simply brush off that right”. In that wording, I would totally accept that as a reasonable replacement for “simply wave that right away”. Waiving a right is the right holder deciding not to use it. Waving away a right is dismissing the right of someone else with a cursory and inattentive act. The problem is not the collective group of Americans deciding we no longer need this right. The problem is one limited group of Americans deciding that all Americans do not need this right. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/33 "2013-02-13T22:57:21Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Both “waive away” and “wave away” are used in natural english speech. Man, you must have a really good ear to be able to hear the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/34 "2013-02-14T16:37:37Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The actor is the collective we, as in all Americans, who are setting public policy and considering waiving our second amendment right away. To nitpick – having read some threads lately, I’m pretty sure that some parties to the policy discussion are _absolutely determined_ not to consider, entertain, or allow waiving the right. Therefore, it makes no sense to discuss “we, as in all Americans, … are … considering waiving our second amendment right away,” since we’re manifestly not a monolithic bloc on this issue. Whereas it _does_ make sense to say _some_ parties to the discussion are considering waiving the right for all of us – including those who do not wish to. And thus my “you cannot waive someone else’s right” comment seems to clear (if convoluted) sense, and the other interpretation…less so. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/35 "2013-02-15T05:31:46Z")
Uh, everybody, I think **Pleonast** is whooshing us here, starting right up there with his OP. The proposed phrase “waive away” as OP suggests seems to have excess and perhaps redundant words (where else would you waive something but away?) besides that the words don’t seem to quite fit together well as “wave away” does. What else would you expect from a [**Pleonast**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm)? ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/36 "2013-02-16T13:41:16Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Yes, the phrase in question is ambiguous enough that either word makes sense. It’s also ambiguous enough for someone to question the usage. Perhaps that was intentional, though if it was meant to ferment discussion, it took a long time for that to happen. _Foment_. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/37 "2013-02-16T14:21:25Z")
> [@](#): > > _From Cecil:_ But it seems pretty clear that’s what the founders intended, and it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply wave that right away. Seems to me that an individual can waive his/her rights, and no one would think that it “eats at the heart of the constitutional process.” Individuals waive rights all the time, that’s PART of the constitutional process. However, Cecil is taking about the collective (rather than the individual) simply discarding the right entirely with a wave of the hand – that, indeed, eats at the heart of the constitutional process. The grammatical nit-pick about whether one can “waive away” seems less convincing than the substantive argument that waiving a right is NOT undermining the constitutional process. And, by the way, this sort of deep pun is one that Cecil enjoys. There’s the bit about using entomologist in a discussion about vocabulary (see: [Does the average American student have less vocabulary today than in days gone by? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2724/does-the-average-american-student-have-less-vocabulary-today-than-in-days-gone-by) ), where, yes, he means a statement has been attributed to an entomologist. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094/38 "2013-02-16T18:12:27Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Here is what Merriam-Webster says about [wave](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wave):intransitive verb > 1: to motion with the hands or with something held in them in signal or salute > 2: to float, play, or shake in an air current : move loosely to and fro : flutter \ > 3 of water : to move in waves : heave > 4: to become moved or brandished to and fro \ > 5: to move before the wind with a wavelike motion \ > 6: to follow a curving line or take a wavy form : undulate > transitive verb > 1 : to swing (something) back and forth or up and down > 2 : to impart a curving or undulating shape to \ > 3 a : to motion to (someone) to go in an indicated direction or to stop : signal \ > b : to gesture with (the hand or an object) in greeting or farewell or in homage > c : to dismiss or put out of mind : disregard —usually used with aside or off > d : to convey by waving \ > 4 : brandish, flourish \ > And here is what it says about [waive](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waive):1 archaic : give up, forsake > 2 : to throw away (stolen goods) > 3 archaic : to shunt aside (as a danger or duty) : evade > 4 a : to relinquish voluntarily (as a legal right) \ > b : to refrain from pressing or enforcing (as a claim or rule) : forgo \ > 5 : to put off from immediate consideration : postpone > 6 [influenced by wave] : to dismiss with or as if with a wave of the hand \ > 7 : to place (a ball player) on waivers; also : to release after placing on waivers > I think that definitions 4a, 4b, and 6 of waive are all reasonable in this context. I suppose one could argue that wave 3c (transitive) fits the context, but it looks ignorant when there’s a better word that’s very similar to the one used. I think your cite doesn’t support you. Cecil is not talking about voluntarily relinquishing rights, so 4a and 4b of waive are inappropriate. Definition 6 for waive works, but it baldly states: **Influenced by _wave_.** For you to argue that Waive def. 6 is legitimate, and Wave def. 3 is not legitimate when the former is a derived from the latter… well, it doesn’t seem like honest argumentation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waive-not-wave/650094.md?page=1)