Where should we draw the line on misused words?

[Windwalker]

As a TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) teacher in China, and as a student of Chinese, I’ve thought about languages a lot in the past year, especially English. Every day I work with folks from England, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Brazil, France, and America, and every day there are puzzled looks as local idioms and expressions fly by. Heck, my students have often been taught British English and they occasionally come out with stuff that gives me a second look. Ask someone whether pants are worn on the inside or outside, and you’ll get two different answers. Is it soda, pop, coke, or fizzy drink? Is he pissed (US) because his girlfriend just shagged some sleazy swagman? Or is he pissed (UK) because he just downed five shots of Tequila?

Sounds like a right pain in the ass, dunnit? But you know what? It’s all good. It ain’t a problem at all; we actually enjoy this stuff. It adds a dash of the exotic and/or funny to our daily lives, and that’s even when these differences are a barrier to communication!

So, getting back to the original point; it is of my firm belief that we should let the language evolve, let the will of the masses do its thang, with the only exception being mistakes that actually impede communication. A good example already mentioned was “disinterested” (~impartial, uninvolved) vs. “uninterested” (~not givind a damn). We must make sure not to diminish the number of ideas we can express efficiently, which means keeping those two definitions clear. However, as an absurd example, if the words somehow evolve to “disted” and “unted”, I would not care one bit, as we would have retained the distinction.

Grammar’s true purpose should be to serve communication, and not to act as a way to look our noses down on others. It’s often the case that the so-called “butcherers” of the language are actually making it simpler and more efficient. The subjunctive in English is one such example of where I’m glad it has been butchered. “I wish the subjunctive was dead” is just a lot more sensible than needing a special rule to explain “I wish the subjunctive were dead”. I may be biased due to my line of work, but try explaining the rationale behind or even the function of this rule to some curious Chinese university students and you’ll prolly come around. It’s pointless and hopefully soon to be R.I.P.

The evolution of language is a wonderful thing. Yes, it does in a way mute us to future generations, but the language of an era does also give insight into the society that molded it, while serving as an identifying stamp in the process. And do we really need one more thing to be uptight about?

Dat’s my 2 cents, yo. Peace out, and werd to Big Bird.

[erislover]

@cricetus

I most object when words like “ironic,” and “literally,” and expressions like “begging the question” are rendered meaningless by misuse.

It’s a veritable crime.

Most people who think they know what “begging the question” means think it means “circular justification” or somesuch. No, “circular arguments” are “circular arguments.” Question begging is when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion… a more general case than mere circularity. When you see its use like this, it is much easier to understand why some people interpreted it to mean “raise the question,” because using such questionable standards to support a questionable conclusion does indeed raise a different, but corresponding, question. From there it has simply ran away on its own to mean, to some, any statement which raises an obvious question. I don’t like that use myself, but since most conversations do not involve formal logic there isn’t really any overlap or danger of losing meaning, instead a phrase from one specific context has found a new use in an entirely different context. Logicians do not have any special powers of restricting terms or phrases to only their use.

The problem most people have in the “conclusion is ‘contained’ in the premises” line of thought is that this can pretty honestly be said of every single logical proof, since they manipulate existing truths and are not synthetic. The whole point of logical proofs is that the premises do indeed entail the conclusion.

It is hard to see how something can be rendered meaningless by misuse, if such misuse is habitual and not overly confined. Can you explain with some example?

[js_africanus]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

It’s just that I find that telling them that “Grammar is good” doesn’t do it, while telling them that “Some oddballs with a great deal of power are impressed with this grammar crap” tends to sink in.

If by “oddball with…power” you mean “poor slob who has to figure out what a person meant from what he wrote,” and by “impressed with this grammar crap” you mean “stuck with the only tool to figure out what that semiliterate jackass actually meant: what he wrote,” then yes, that is an accurate way to put it.

Look: Just about every community in the States has land-use regulations. Everybody who owns a home, wants to start a business, get a license, etc. must communicate clearly with people who are not present and most often cannot be contacted to plumb their intentions. The rules of grammar, usage, &c. create a common framwork in which one can more accurately judge the intent of others’ words.

Example: My township had a provision that proscribed the outdoor storage of unlicensed cars, boats, and junk. Some guy is hopping mad because he pays shitloads of money to store his boat properly while others simply leave them in their driveways. What was intended by the phrase “unlicensed cars, boats, and junk”? What do I do? Did the writers of the ordinance intend for licensed boats to be acceptable for outdoor storage while unlicensed ones are proscribed?

This is the sort of crap that happens at a level that makes it nigh unavoidable. It’s not a question of when is “fucktard” and acceptable word, or when “screwed over” is an acceptable term.

Here is something you can do that I think illustrates quite well a related issue: tape a few episodes of Jerry Springer. Watch how the inability to communicate clearly creates or exacerbates the situations. Then create some new dialogue that illustrates how meaning could be clearly communicated between the parties to avoid the problem.

Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, I am not convinced that grammar and so on are completely arbitrary. I’m not a linguist. But I do know that a common convention makes many things easier. Surely you can come up with prosaic examples where bad language makes your students’ lives more difficult, no?

[tnetennba]

@erislover

Most people who think they know what “begging the question” means think it means “circular justification” or somesuch. No, “circular arguments” are “circular arguments.”

Begging the Question and Circular Argument ARE the same thing. Hence “Most people who think they know what begging the question is” do, indeed, know what begging the question is. Your second statement is a good example of a fallacy, in fact. Because circular arguments are circular arguments does not have any logical implication that they are not anything else. To present a parallel form, I could say, “People who think they know what Pekignese are think they are little dogs or some such. No, Pekignese are pekignese.”

See Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question for more information.

The problem most people have in the “conclusion is ‘contained’ in the premises” line of thought is that this can pretty honestly be said of every single logical proof, since they manipulate existing truths and are not synthetic. The whole point of logical proofs is that the premises do indeed entail the conclusion.

Yes, but the whole point of logical proofs is also that all parties accept the premise and that the premises + logical proof prove the conclusion. In circular arguments, the premise doesn’t “entail” the conclusion, it IS the conclusion. A good argument proof states true premises and derives a conclusion from sound logic. If I say that all Pekignese are Dogs and All Dogs are Mammals, Therefore All Pekignese are Mammals, I’ve done something quite different than arguing that All Pekignese are Yappy Little Monsters because they’re Yappy Little Monsters, aren’t they? Begging the Question/Circular Logic doesn’t refer to any shady attempt to prove something using words and symbols. It refers specifically to an A, therefor A argument where A has not been established.

It is hard to see how something can be rendered meaningless by misuse, if such misuse is habitual and not overly confined. Can you explain with some example?

Well, words are negotiations between people. I can tell someone they are “begging the question,” and they’ll wonder what question I mean. I can tell someone a thing is “ironic,” and they’ll suppose it’s a drag. I’ll tell someone I “literally” did some thing, and they suppose I mean I did it figuratively.

[erislover]

@cricetus

Begging the Question and Circular Argument ARE the same thing.

Nonsense.

@infidels.org

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. For example:

"The Bible is the word of God. The word of God cannot be doubted, and the Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore the Bible must be true.

Begging the question is similar to circulus in demonstrando, where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premise.

This is a particularly good example of a begged question. See Merriem-Webster’s definition 3a for “beg”:

EVADE, SIDESTEP <begged the real problems> b : to pass over or ignore by assuming to be established or settled <beg the question>

Hence “Most people who think they know what begging the question is” do, indeed, know what begging the question is.

But this is not a statement I disagreed with.

Your second statement is a good example of a fallacy, in fact.

Second statement?

Yes, but the whole point of logical proofs is also that all parties accept the premise and that the premises + logical proof prove the conclusion.

So you see no use in distinguishing:

1. unaccceptable or at least questionable premises and a valid argument from
2. a conclusion which is the same as the premise?

Because, I have to say, I find (1) much, much more common than (2). Of course, since circular arguments have equally questionable conclusions and premises (they are the same) they are begged questions as well.

In circular arguments, the premise doesn’t “entail” the conclusion, it IS the conclusion.

That is simply a circular argument.
A -> A
A
therefore A
is a circular argument. Is it a fallacy?

A good argument proof states true premises and derives a conclusion from sound logic.

A good argument is valid (manipulations according to the rules of logic) and sound (the premises are true). Both circular arguments and begged questions are valid arguments.

Begging the Question/Circular Logic doesn’t refer to any shady attempt to prove something using words and symbols. It refers specifically to an A, therefor A argument where A has not been established.

They both have this characteristic, yes: the soundness of the premises is not established. Of course, logical arguments do not generally establish soundness of premises anyway.

Suppose we are arguing about abortion. I suggest the following two premises:

1. Killing people is wrong
2. upon conception, the cells are a “person”
   Therefore I conclude that
3. abortions are wrong.
   Is this a valid inference? Yes. Is it circular? No. Does it sidestep the issue of soundness? – well, the premise (2) is, to many, just as questionable as the conclusion. It begs the question of the soundness of (2) when (2) is often just what is open to question.

What would you use to describe this kind of argument?

[RickJay]

@tulula2la

…think it is okay for people to say “you was” instead of “you were” or “ain’t” instead of “aren’t”? For one it makes it so much harder for anyone to learn the language when the rules are abandoned.

“Ain’t” was a perfectly acceptable word in English for centuries and there isn’t any logical reason why it should not be acceptable today.

The central rules of English have never been “abandoned.” Whether or not “ain’t” is a proper word is not a grammatical rule. English vocabulary and pronounciation have been changing since the day of William the Conqueror. What you consider “proper English” would be been indecipherable to English speakers for most of the history of our language.

The purpose of language is to communicate. I would agree that English is poorly used if the person speaking or writing uses it in a way that their ideas aren’t clearly communicated. Being in systems auditing, I run into bad English all the time, but it’s never bad because of “ain’t.” Bitching about “ain’t” or split infinitives - a totally arbitrary and illogical complaint - is just silly.

[RickJay]

@Clothahump

I aggravate The Teenaged Terror constantly when she is telling us something and I hear:

“…and so Sarah goes, ‘Well, I did.’ and then James goes, ‘No!’”

Or something like that. I always ask her, “Where did they go?” and I get a blank look and “Huh?” in return. I then explain to her that “go” does not mean “say”. It lasts for a day or two until she gets back around the airheads who think it does, and she’ll slip back into Slanglish.

You might want to write the people at Merriam-Webster, because they are apparently just as mistaken as your daughter. According to them, “go” means “say.” Go to M-W online, look up “go,” and check out definition #7 under verbs, transitive senses.

Go DOES mean say. Deal with it.

[js_africanus]

@RickJay

What you consider “proper English” would be been indecipherable to English speakers for most of the history of our language.

Is this a good thing?

I consider it to be a bad thing. If we spoke the same form of English Aristotle spoke, would we not be that much richer for finding him comprehensible?

Seriously, though, I used to be an advocate of letting language flow and move easily. When it occured to me what a tragedy it is that so much of our history is, IMO, inaccessable because language is not constant, I came to have much different feelings on the subject.

That’s my main contention and I’m sticking too it.

[Gary_Robson]

I think there’s a difference between the evolution of a language to accommodate changes in society, and just plain sloppy usage.

As others have pointed out, grammar serves many purposes. If we adhere to grammatical rules as the language changes, we make English an easy language to learn and use correctly. If each change violates another rule, then grammatical rules become an even nastier hodgepodge than they already are.

I grimace when I hear, “That movie was so cool! Let’s go get dinner.” The word “so” is not a synonym for “very.” I recall a thread here in SDMB where someone was defending the common usage, “I could care less,” which makes no sense whatsoever. I can almost always care less. It’s when you couldn’t care less that I know you’re seriously apathetic. If you say “Give it to me,” why would you say “Give it to Suzy and I”? These things are just wrong.

We have a powerful and expressive language. Accepting misuse of words into the mainstream dilutes the meaning of those words and takes away the nuances of their meaning.

[tim314]

@erislover

Second statement?

cricetus was refering to the statement “Circular arguments are circular arguments.” He mistakenly thinks that you meant that “begging the question” doesn’t mean “making a circular argument” because “making a circular argument” means “making a circular argument.” Hence his example of saying a Pekingese isn’t a dog because it is a Pekingese.

This would of course be false reasoning, but I’m quite sure it isn’t what you meant. I interpreted your statement “Cirular arguments are circular arguments” to mean something more like “You should use the pharse ‘circular arguments’ if what you mean is ‘circular arguments’, because ‘begging the question’ doesn’t mean precisely the same thing.” Right?

[Ramanujan]

@js_africanus

Is this a good thing?

I consider it to be a bad thing. If we spoke the same form of English Aristotle spoke, would we not be that much richer for finding him comprehensible?

Seriously, though, I used to be an advocate of letting language flow and move easily. When it occured to me what a tragedy it is that so much of our history is, IMO, inaccessable because language is not constant, I came to have much different feelings on the subject.

That’s my main contention and I’m sticking too it.

i contend that it is neither good nor bad. it just is. in many cases, evolution of language makes it more expressive or clear or efficient. as one example, think of the word inflammable. we don’t often see or hear this word any more, because it means exactly the opposite of what we think it means. the word flammable has more or less taken its place.

another common example of recent evolution is the use of “they” to denote a singular subject without a specified gender. it is much more efficient than saying “he or she” every time, and we know exactly what one means when one says it. also, while i happen to continue to use “whom”, most people don’t. it does not impede communication, because we know what is meant when we see “who” as an object. it may, in fact, be more efficient.

our language has to change with us. we have different things to express than, say, chaucer did. societies and their languages interact in a complex way that indicates, to me, a need for each to change with the other. while it may be sad that we have to do a bit of work to understand the great thinkers of centuries past, it would be even more sad if our language did not evolve to meet the changing needs of our society.

also, there is no such thing as a standard rule set for the english language. there is only a record of common usage.

[erislover]

@tim314

cricetus was refering to the statement “Circular arguments are circular arguments.” He mistakenly thinks that you meant that “begging the question” doesn’t mean “making a circular argument” because “making a circular argument” means “making a circular argument.” Hence his example of saying a Pekingese isn’t a dog because it is a Pekingese.

Ah, I see. Good read. Makes sense now.

I interpreted your statement “Cirular arguments are circular arguments” to mean something more like “You should use the pharse ‘circular arguments’ if what you mean is ‘circular arguments’, because ‘begging the question’ doesn’t mean precisely the same thing.” Right?

Right. One is a general kind of “assumed soundness”, the other is a specific instance. (Neither are invalid argument forms.) You can suggest any circular argument is a begged question, but there are begged questions which are not circular arguments (else the logicians were the ones using “to beg” incorrectly in the first place!).

[tnetennba]

Part of the reason for the misunderstanding over “begging the question” may be due to the term itself, which was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii, could be translated more accurately as “petitioning the principle,” meaning claiming the truth of the very matter in question, but the more pithy “begging the question” has become the well-known translation.

The two meanings (“circular argument” and “raising the question”) are discussed below.

Begging the question

Begging the Question
Alias:
Circular Argument

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

begging the question (petitio principii)
Circular reasoning. The “informal fallacy” of (explicitly or implicitly) assuming the truth of the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises employed in an effort to demonstrate its truth.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b2.htm#beg

[Gary_Robson]

@Ramanujan

as one example, think of the word inflammable. we don’t often see or hear this word any more, because it means exactly the opposite of what we think it means

Speak for yourself.

I agree that language has to change. I’m glad that we invent new words for things so that we can speak efficiently. I disagree, however, that we should allow the lowest common denominator determine the language. If people don’t understand a particular word, maybe they should use a different word instead of expecting the definition to change due to popular (mis)usage.

This goes double for the press. I was interviewed some years back when I was teaching woodworking to a group of 4-H kids. I spoke to the newspaper reporter for the better part of an hour, and probably used the word “woodworking” twenty times or more. When the article appeared in print, she had substituted “carpentry” throughout, even in the direct quotes. There’s a difference between those two words, and people who understand them use that difference to communicate better. Idiots like that reporter hurt our ability to communicate in English by blurring the distinction between similar words.

I understand why some words change. Your example of “inflammable” came about because of public safety. If someone of limited vocabulary didn’t realize that the canister labeled “inflammable” could inflame, they could well get hurt and sue someone. It’s cheaper in the long run to create a new word than to fight a lawsuit.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

I’mk only against use of words in such a way as to reduce the quality and clarity of communication. Thus inflammable is now a poor word to use either correctly or wrongly as too many people misstake it for meaning non-flammable. On the other hand unflammable would be a fine word, even though it is not (yet) in dictionaries its meaning cannot be easily mistaken. I beleive in the fluidity of language, and will happily make up a word if it seems both apropriate and easily understood.

[erislover]

We can cite all day. The latin for circular argument is not “Petitio Principii” but “Circulus in Demonstrando” which you will see if you search on the term. I do not know why so many people offhandledly fail to recognize the distinction, but I assure you it is there.

@http://skepdic.com/begging.html

An argument is a form of reasoning whereby one gives a reason or reasons in support of some claim. The reasons are called premises and the claim one tries to support with them is called the conclusion.

If one’s premises entail one’s conclusion, and one’s premises are questionable, one is said to beg the question.

See also

@http://ironyparty.org/fallaciescomposition.htm

li. Petitio principii

Begging the question - Circular reasoning

An argument which includes unproven assertions, or which includes a solution to the point in contention as a part of a conclusion on that issue. Where an argument draws upon its own conclusion to establish one of its premisses.

Nb. Circular arguments are surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you’ve already reached a particular conclusion once, it’s easy to accidentally make it an assertion when explaining your reasoning to someone else. (from The Atheism Web)

lii. Circulus in demonstrando

Similar to Petitio principii. In this case, however, the conclusion is identical to a premise on which it is based, if worded differently

It is hard to understand why there would be such a distinction if there was no difference.

Also:

@http://users.andara.com/~brsears/reafault.htm

Begging the question (Petitio principii)

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.

Circular reasoning (Circulus in demonstrando)

Here one assumes as a premise the conclusion that one wishes to reach. Sometimes, the proposition will be rephrased so there might appear to be a valid argument.

“Communists must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a Communist will lose his job. Therefore Communists will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore Communists cannot be allowed to hold government office.”

I’m not trying to be a huge stickler here, but it is like some analogue of Gaudere’s Law when people define “petitio principii” as “circulus in demonstrando.”

“Circular reasoning” is a “see also” and and “aka” for the begged question. One is a more general case, the other more specific. People get hung up on things like “implicit in the premises” and wrap the whole ball of wax together as if they were the same fallacy. They are not [always] the same fallacy. Promise.

[tnetennba]

Well, there’s a damned bit of difference between saying “nonsense,” and saying “not exactly.”

[scotandrsn]

Yes, I am fully against the degeneration of the English Language. All the sensible rules are being thrown out the window!

For instance, it has long been the practice to use the second person plural pronoun (you) in the role of the second person singular pronoun. Yet I am constantly being told that to do the same with the third person plural (they, for he, she or it) is a detestable mistake, even though examples of it date back centuries. Who can understand such chaos?

And I constantly hear the lament that various nouns are turning into verbs, or verbs into adjectives and so forth, are a degenration of the language, when English is loaded to the gills with valid examples of words that have undergone just such a transformation. How are we supposed to know when the cutoff date was for transformation of the language?!? Insanity!

[Gary_Robson]

@scotandrsn

And I constantly hear the lament that various nouns are turning into verbs, or verbs into adjectives and so forth, are a degenration of the language, when English is loaded to the gills with valid examples of words that have undergone just such a transformation.

One of the fun things about English is that you can verb just about any noun.

I just don’t understand why some of these changes happen, though. For example, we’ve had a perfectly reasonable plural for “person” for a very long time. Why did newscasters decide in the '90s that they were going to say “persons” instead of “people”? Just because it sounds more pretentious?

[Smartass]

@tim314

On the other hand, I seem to be one of the few remaining people on earth who still says “I shall” instead of “I will” (at least some of the time)…"

Are you saying that you believe that “I shall” is correct and “I will” is incorrect? As it turns out, both are grammatically correct, but mean something slightly different. “I shall” is a prediction of the future: Some day in the future, I shall die. “I will” is a statement of intention: I will never drink again. And this time, I mean it. Just to make things easier, this distinction is reversed in second or third person. There is a joke–using the term “joke” very loosely–that describes someone drowning and shouting, “No one shall save me! I will drown!” Passersby thought the person did not want to be helped. Or something like that. If I got it wrong, rest assured that it wasn’t funny the right way, either.

I think that people should know how to use the language properly. It doesn’t bother me that people are lazy with it in conversation. It bothers me that so many people are not able to use it correctly when appropriate (formal writing, etc.).

It’s one thing to mangle the language for emphasis, effect, or convenience; it’s another, sadder thing to do so out of ignorance.

-VM