Pedants' Paradise

[jean]

So. Twice today I heard proselytise used to mean something like popularise or promulgate.

Is this new?

[Serial_Apologist]

So. Twice today I heard proselytise used to mean something like popularise or promulgate.

Is this new?

I dunno. I assumed proselytize to mean advertise, speak on the subject of... which would half-comply with the idea of popularisation or promulgation. I remember a Buddhist once saying "Unlike Christians and other religious groups, we do not proselytize on behalf of our beliefs": which I heard as sermonise. It seemed such a shame!

[french frank]

So. Twice today I heard proselytise used to mean something like popularise or promulgate.

Is this new?

Had to have a quick look at 'promulgate', but no, proselytise is not quite that. It means actively going out to convert/persuade people of something, usually a religion. Certainly not 'popularise' ('Thou shalt wear a hair shirt under thy vest and only eat on Mondays' - could it catch on?). Can't remember when I heard anyone (mis)use it in recent times

[kernelbogey]

And proselytise can only be used intransitively, I think; whereas popularise and promulgate require an object.

Edit: no, I'm wrong, OED says it can be used transitively. (Though I still think that's less common.)

[french frank]

And proselytise can only be used intransitively, I think; whereas popularise and promulgate require an object.

Edit: no, I'm wrong, OED says it can be used transitively. (Though I still think that's less common.)

But only to proselytise someone, not something.

[jean]

That's right - the verb is a backformation from proselyte, a convert to (usually) a religion. It was originally intransitive, and meant to make, or try to make, converts. Then it began to be used with a personal object.

There aren't many religious people about nowadays and those there are don't proselytise much any more, so I suppose the word is ripe for a new use!

[kernelbogey]

That's right - the verb is a backformation from proselyte, a convert to (usually) a religion. It was originally intransitive, and meant to make, or try to make, converts. Then it began to be used with a personal object.

There aren't many religious people about nowadays and those there are don't proselytise much any more, so I suppose the word is ripe for a new use!

Though there are plenty of others who proselytise - in politics, lifestyle, wellbeing, conspiracy theory, and so on and so forth.

[Serial_Apologist]

That's right - the verb is a backformation from proselyte, a convert to (usually) a religion. It was originally intransitive, and meant to make, or try to make, converts. Then it began to be used with a personal object.

There aren't many religious people about nowadays and those there are don't proselytise much any more, so I suppose the word is ripe for a new use!

Well, I get visits from the Jehovahs Witnesses at least once every month. I repeatedly tell them that I think religion is a problem, not a solution, and that "in the beginning was the word" is a tautology, but they insist on (being) trying, and as a result I have to respect their thick skinnedness. I just hate closing the door in their faces, but there seems to be no alternative!

[jean]

Now that's what I call proselytising. But

...I repeatedly tell them that..."in the beginning was the word" is a tautology...

Why a tautology?

[Serial_Apologist]

Now that's what I call proselytising. But

Why a tautology?

No word, no beginning.

[jean]

?

[Serial_Apologist]

?

There can't be any beginnings (or middles or endings for that matter) without singling out, which is a function of language rather than the way the universe operates, whether by the will of God or what some might consider intelligence which is not one-at-a-time-linear in operation, i.e. not by some principle which divides existence in accordance with its own conventions. So, to say in the beginning is the word is to postulate a process of succession subdivided into beginnings, middles and endings, and then to obscure that division by endowing it supernatural powers. This might be very useful in postulating origination, e.g. who started this? but not at getting at the indivisible essence of existence, which appears to be the province of spiritual traditions which hold to a more holistic view. The tautology consists in the self-justifying elision of concept and conceived brought about by lending primacy to The Word (read - languages and their processes of conceptualisation in general), especially to That Word which supposedly supersedes all else by virtue of its Source of Emanation!

That's about as clearly as I can express it without proselytizing!

[Nick Armstrong]

For want of an apostrophe, the message was lost...

[ahinton]

There can't be any beginnings (or middles or endings for that matter) without singling out, which is a function of language rather than the way the universe operates, whether by the will of God or what some might consider intelligence which is not one-at-a-time-linear in operation, i.e. not by some principle which divides existence in accordance with its own conventions. So, to say in the beginning is the word is to postulate a process of succession subdivided into beginnings, middles and endings, and then to obscure that division by endowing it supernatural powers. This might be very useful in postulating origination, e.g. who started this? but not at getting at the indivisible essence of existence, which appears to be the province of spiritual traditions which hold to a more holistic view. The tautology consists in the self-justifying elision of concept and conceived brought about by lending primacy to The Word (read - languages and their processes of conceptualisation in general), especially to That Word which supposedly supersedes all else by virtue of its Source of Emanation!

That's about as clearly as I can express it without proselytizing!

The simplest way in which I can express it is that it's the use of the past tense by means of the word "was" that gives it away; if it's the "beginning", there could be no "was". But then what do I know?...

[Padraig]

For want of an apostrophe, the message was lost...

Some ambiguity here Caliban! (Humour alert)

If no apostrophe had been intended, you could say that the message is a dire warning about the possible break-up of the UK, a political statement that has no place here, so please ignore the suggestion.

If the apostrophe is missing and 'we're' had been intended, this leads me to my old history teacher who would request us to stroke out 'we're' in our British history books and replace it with 'they're' .........which arrives at a similar conclusion, so please ignore.