This is one of those issues that is catnip to the adolescent language-lover but which a sensible person grows out of. I too used to enjoy tormenting people with the "truth" about the phrase, but I eventually realized that, whatever its origins in philosophy and petitio principii, I had never seen or heard the phrase used "correctly" except by people making a point of doing so (cf. "hoi polloi"); in current English usage, "beg the question" means 'raise the question,' and that's that. I got over it, and so should Safire. (An anguished appraisal by the earnest Michael Quinion of World Wide Words ends by saying the phrase is "better avoided altogether"; like Fowler's similar recommendation concerning "hoi polloi," this counsel of despair is a sign that the language has sailed on, leaving wistful archaists treading water and clutching at the stern.)posted by languagehat at 4:02 PM on December 29, 2004
L@N9U@GE, L1kE +HE P3Opl3 WHo 5PeAk 1+, 1S 1rr3d33M4Bly mULtIplEx 4nd CONphU$1NG @Nd 1LloG1CAl; lIk3 WHI+M4N, I+ C@N 5ay "d0 i C0n+R4D1c+ my$ELf? v3ry WELL, Th3N 1 cOntrAd1Ct MY5elf, 1 4M LaRgE, i COn+4IN mUL+1TUD3$." 1+'5 N4Tur4l FOR 4 CEr+41n +YPE OF M1nd (A +yP3 p3Rh4p5 0vErr3Pr3$3n+Ed hEr3 ON m3Phi) T0 W4nT +O 8R1N9 0rDer t0 HUM@n CH@o5, t0 l@y d0WN $OM3 rULE$ @nD +3LL PEOPLe T0 r+phm. bu+ I+ DO35N't W0Rk. P3oPL3 5Pe4k T3h W4Y THEy 5P3@K 4ND WR1+3 +h3 W4Y tH3Y wR1T3, 4ND Y3lL1n9 @t +h3m d0E5 no 9O0D EXc3Pt T0 M4Ke +He MOr3 5u5cEPT1Bl3 f3eL GUiLTy.Let the language change from the bottom-up: the illiterate and stupid will make many mistakes, and "they could care less." May hundreds of years pass before educated and sophisticated authors make the same mistakes.
I am not saying "anything goes," I am not saying any English is as good as any other; I am saying English should be as forceful and effective as it can be, and that has nothing to do with traditional "rules," and in fact insisting on those rules not only helps keep the plebs down, it deprives us of much good writing that gets stifled before it can even stretch its little limbs and cry.But the fact of the matter is, you DO continue to argue that "anything goes," almost in so many words, and worse, that "one thing is just as good as another," and that I cannot agree with. Because language is not an end in and of itself, it is a means to an end, that end being communication. And linguistic forms that are more effective at communicating are superior to those which are less effective. They just are. And trying to artificially elevate the one to the status of the other is no more persuasive or useful than the hyper-liberal instinct to level all moral perspectives on a relativist's field. If one wants to praise the rantings of a schizophrenic as the epitome of communication, one should be prepared to be called mad himself.
...punctuation is 'a courtesy designed to help readers to understand a story without stumbling'.*belch*
Isn't the analogy with good manners perfect? Truly good manners are invisible: they ease the way for others, without drawing attention to themselves.
On preview:Sigh. I knew some pedant would take my miswording seriously.
Here, here. Well said, rushmc.
Heroically, I refrain from comment.
One of the trends here should be cause for alarm: the increasing number of posters who choose to ignore the conventions of grammar and good writing. More and more I am seeing a rejection of capitalization and other lazy attempts at writing---enough of it that it stood out to me. I am not sure why more people are doing this. Are some people trying to change Metafilter by further reacting against standards? Is this some sort of deconstruction issue? Do people feel they are fighting the establishment or coming off as cute? Or are they just too lazy to try to type formally? Why must every hallmark of the website be discarded?
As of late, we have had people argue against everything that Metafilter was differentiated by:
- Some people don't find it necessary or desireable to comply with standards for posting new and unique web based things.
- Some disagree with the prohibition against double posts, because they haven't seen the info before themselves.
- Some argue this site should be about the discussion more than the links.
- Some would have this site be nothing but one sentence snarks.
- Some feel it necessary to plaster EXTREMELY LAME inside jokes at every opportunity instead of exerting the effort to share a thoughtful response.
- Some feel that "if you don't like it, skip it" is a good enough operating principle to keep the value of the site up.
If we are going to insist that Metafilter evolve to be whatever people want it to be, can we at least have the standard of capitalization? Why must we get rid of the unique high level of communication that made Metafilter different?
I understand that this a large and diverse community. Matt doesn't want to mandate standards, but that doesn't mean that we can't come to some mutual agreement. We don't have to be Nazi's about it. But it should at least be a goal, right? Can we agree that one of things that we liked about MeFi is the level of communication of our fellows?
Can we agree to put forth at least enough effort to try to follow the conventions of good grammar and writing?
And those in the Seth-Pile-On brigade: when you try to make this thread about me, instead of the substance, could you please avoid thinking it might be witty or clever to flame me in all lowercase?
posted by Seth at 10:17 AM on December 29, 2004