Re: Death of the English Language

[Nicholas Clifford clifford@xxxxxxxx]

 On 10/18/2010 9:33 AM, Patricia McLaughlin wrote:
> I meant to drop out of this listserv as soon as I found a taker for my old
> XY books and disks--thank you very much, Otis Port!--but as with so many
> things, I haven't got around to it. So: Think: Isn't there something we can
> do to end or at least reduce the near-universal misuse of "begs the
> question"? I'm teaching a writing class this term, and I feel as if I've
> typed the line "COMMAS AND PERIODS ALWAYS GO INSIDE THE QUOTE MARKS" about a
> million times to no effect. Lately sometimes I don't even notice--not to
> mention correct and comment on--use of≪it's≫ as a possessive and≪its≫
> as a contraction. Punctuation is used promiscuously, or maybe it's just
> decorative. I can't seem to persuade them to turn off Autocorrect in Word,
> so I'm always having to redact≪defiantly≫ to≪definitely≫. (That's how
> Autocorrect "fixes" the misspelling≪definatly≫--it took me years to
> figure out what all the defiance was about.) And you know that, after
> another decade or two of texting, it will all be moot anyway. But "begs the
> question" is different: It's epidemic in spoken language, not just in print,
> and people often misuse it with a sort of show-offy smugness that's
> infuriating, given that they're using it to mean something it doesn't and
> can't mean and never has meant. It's much worse than≪hopefilly≫, which
> grammar nazis used to complain about so much. The problem, as I see it, is
> that it's hopeless to restore its actual meaning, because you'd need to be
> able to explain≪petitio principii≫, which you can't do without
> introducing the idea of logic. Clearly impossible. Instead, I suggest a
> campaign to ban≪begs the question≫ entirely. Its misuse can be replaced
> with "poses the question" or "raises the question," and its rare and
> inevitably misunderstood proper use replaced with "avoids the question,"
> "skirts the question," or "pretends to answer the question while actually
> avoiding it." Given that we still haven't passed the equal rights amendment,
> it's unlikely that we can amend the Constitution to outlaw≪begs the
> question≫. Maybe we can get to Oprah, or else launch a grass-roots campaign
> like the one that persuaded SNL to hire Betty White. Or start with a
> California referendum? Or maybe you have a better idea?
Further to my last -- let's not drop the phrase "begs the question" in
its real meaning, in the middle of a campaign, since begging the
question is something politicians are very good at doing, avoiding
completely whatever real questions might be thrown at them.

Nicholas Clifford