« We Do Not Stock Oxymorons | Main | National Poetry Month (I) »

b'pardon-

Mark Liberman was certain to catch my eye with a piece on the Language Log called Hartman’s Law Confirmed Again. However, other than the reference to Hartman’s Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation (which, bye the bye, comes up first on a Google search for “Hartman’s Law” this morning, so sucks to any so-called iterated logarithm for explosive Gaussian autoregressive processes!), the content was dealing with joke Latin. So, we’ll pass lightly over that.

The location of the joke Latin in question, however, is the April Fool’s site for the March to End “Beg the Question” Abuse by Paolo Ordoveza, which was then noted by the livejournalist comma in a note called literal misreading. Comma defends the use of the phrase beg the question to mean something like raises the question or provokes the question; I find that use grating, and prefer to reserve the use for the rhetorical trick (or error) of petitio principii, for which begging the question is a bad translation, but the one that has come into (moderately) common use. OK, not very common.

That, actually, is comma’s argument; the handful of people who use the phrase in its relation to a logical fallacy shouldn’t impose their jargon on the rest of the world, who, after all, are “are combining the meanings of the words in accordance with the normal compositional rules of English semantics.” With, as he admits, “a little coercion”. In my opinion, a lot of coercion.

We don’t say that bland food begs the salt. We don’t say that a panhandler begs the money. In fact, if you were to take a moment from Googling “Hartman’s Law” you might find that “begs the ” has about 673 kghits, where “begs the question” has 630 kghits. This would lead a person to believe that 94% of usages of “begs the ” are as part of the idiom. Of course, believing that would be silly; kghits are a lousy and inaccurate measuring device. F’r’instance, “begs the question” +“begs the question” gets about 1,690 kghits, thus showing that over 250% of sites which contain the phrase begs the question also contain the phrase begs the question. Or, in an other and far more accurate sense, shows that there’s no real point in attempting to judge relative frequencies of juxtapositions of words via ghits.

Anyway, I do think that it’s preposterous to suggest that the idiom that means provokes the question arose independently (not that comma does suggest that, but the preposterousness of the claim he does not make is important to the claim he does make). No, what clearly happened is that people were aware, vaguely, that there was a phrase begging the question and that it was an idiom for something, and they took a guess what it was. The guess was wrong. It’s not surprising; the idiom is derived from a bad translation in the first place. But it was wrong. It’s as if, knowing that educated persons with a pretension to culture occasionally use whom where once might expect who, a person were to guess that whom indicated relative importance, or the gender or age of the person referenced, or the case of the pronoun’s declension, instead of, as is correct, the added m merely being a signal that the speaker is a pretentious git.

But why get worked up over this, or over oxymoron? Well, for YHB, there’s the crankiness that comes from a pedant’s pet phrase being clumsily coopted by the bellowing yahoos circumjacent, but there’s also the matter of careful speech versus sloppy speech. We whom are interested in rhetoric are touchy on the matter of sloppy speech anyway; we may not be prescriptivists all, but we like our language change to be the result of something more than just slop. And begs the question seems to me unnecessary and unfelicitous in its casual use. I think Mr. Ordoveza puts it best:

Already, philosophical arguments are degrading, as more knowledgeable folk accuse their conversational partners of "begging the question," only to meet the reply, "What's the question I'm begging?" If we don't act now, who knows what depths we could sink to? Language as we know it will collapse! Words and phrases will be open to any gopher bookcase throwing limelight Pepsi yellow harving gadger sastunable turpadoop!

iterated logarithm for explosive Gaussian autoregressive processes,
-Vardibidian.

Comments

We whom are interested in rhetoric

You mean to write "We who are interested in rhetoric..." there. Using "whom" is a hypercorrection. If you examine the structure, who is the subject of the verb phrase "are interested...", and should therefore be in nominative case. "Whom" would be appropriate if it were the object of the subordinate clause, as in "We whom pedants correct are more annoyed than chastened."


If "beg the question" comes from "beggar the question", at least its original meaning becomes clearer. Sadly, I don't have an etymological dictionary of English idioms, so I don't know the idiomological root.


Pedant,
No, this is a common mistake. Knowing that in English, other pronouns have special forms for the objective case, and specifically that the objective form of the nominative he is him, you assumed that adding the m indicates (and Your Humble Blogger will quote himself, as if he doesn't, who else will) "the pronoun’s declension, instead of, as is correct, the added m merely being a signal that the speaker is a pretentious git". Sadly—do you know the idiom Is that your idea of a joke?—sadly, the added m in the paragraph following that quote, Gentle Reader, is Your Humble Blogger's idea of a joke.

Michael,
The beg in beg the question comes from the petitio in petitio principii. If you take petitio to mean petition in the sense of requesting something, beg is a synonym of sorts. However, I think (and again, even my knowledge of joke Latin is very weak) petitio here would better be translated as inquire into. There's a name for an idiom which begins as a bogus translation; it's not a hobson-jobson, which derives from a bogus transliteration (such as Hallelujah or mushroom), but there's a word for it. I imagine Anu Garg knows what it is.
Thanks,
-V.


those who do not indulge the begging of questions are being mean-spirited


I'm not sure I buy the petitio>beg derivation, if only because the presumably contemporaneous principii>question derivation makes no sense. But historical linguistics was always my weak area, and as always I defer to your expertise in matters rhetoriffic.


Well, and the question in question is the basic principle that begins the argument. But, yes, now that you mention it, it does seem a stretch. I'll look into it at some point.
On the other hand beggar the question doesn't work for me at all. If I'm inventing a derivation, I prefer bugger the question.
Thanks,
-V.


Comments are closed for this entry. Usually if I close comments for an entry it's because that entry gets a disproportionate amount of spam. If you want to contact me about this entry, feel free to send me email.