Pedants' Paradise

[smittims]

..in the same way that something is always 'faintly' ludicrous?

[french frank]

Does anyone ever use the phrase 'to beg the question' accurately nowadays (Independent: 'Disastrous Trump town hall begs the question: What was CNN thinking?'. It doesn't mean 'to prompt or provoke a question'. I keep having to look up the definition but I know it doesn't mean that, usually in the format of 'begs the question ...' followed by … a question.

OED 'To take for granted without warrant; esp. in to beg the question: to take for granted the matter in dispute, to assume without proof.' I would probably have said it of a statement of 'fact' supported a premise of dubious factual accuracy.

Does this mean that the phrase has now changed its meaning and there is now no way of expressing the original meaning?

[Serial_Apologist]

Does anyone ever use the phrase 'to beg the question' accurately nowadays (Independent: 'Disastrous Trump town hall begs the question: What was CNN thinking?'. It doesn't mean 'to prompt or provoke a question'. I keep having to look up the definition but I know it doesn't mean that, usually in the format of 'begs the question ...' followed by … a question.

OED 'To take for granted without warrant; esp. in to beg the question: to take for granted the matter in dispute, to assume without proof.' I would probably have said it of a statement of 'fact' supported a premise of dubious factual accuracy.

Does this mean that the phrase has now changed its meaning and there is now no way of expressing the original meaning?

I have to say I prefer the "revised" usage of the term to that of questioning questioning, getting one's head around which is a bit of a mental somersault - it's been around for as long as I can remember.

[french frank]

I have to say I prefer the "revised" usage of the term to that of questioning questioning, getting one's head around which is a bit of a mental somersault - it's been around for as long as I can remember.

Given that that appears to be the common way in which it's used, I'm suprised that I haven't (as yet) found that definition, and the OED article was revised March 2023. Originally it was an English translation of the logical fallacy petitio principiil which is defined as a circular argument, but I haven't worked out the exact sense of petitio here.

[vinteuil]

Originally it was an English translation of the logical fallacy petitio principiil which is defined as a circular argument, but I haven't worked out the exact sense of petitio here.

... is this (from wiki) helpful?

"The term was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, petitio principii, "asking for the starting point", can be interpreted in different ways. Petitio (from peto), in the post-classical context in which the phrase arose, means assuming or postulating, but in the older classical sense means petition, request or beseeching.[5][6] Principii, genitive of principium, means beginning, basis or premise (of an argument). Literally petitio principii means "assuming the premise" or "assuming the original point".

The Latin phrase comes from the Greek τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι (tò en archêi aiteîsthai, "asking the original point")[7] in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi 64b28–65a26"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

.

[french frank]

... is this (from wiki) helpful?

Yes, it's helpful and I'm almost but not quite there. I can see how petitio gets to 'beg' (or ask) but not how it gets to mean 'assume' or 'postulate'. And then not how principii gets to be 'question', and thence to the English version. But if Late Latin, say no more . I'm being too pedantic here, I fear.

[Pulcinella]

Yes, it's helpful and I'm almost but not quite there. I can see how petitio gets to 'beg' (or ask) but not how it gets to mean 'assume' or 'postulate'. And then not how principii gets to be 'question', and thence to the English version. But if Late Latin, say no more . I'm being too pedantic here, I fear.

Brewer also mentions the Latin, but imho doesn't get his punctuation right; if I were writing I wouldn't have a comma before the 'is' (or after the word term, for that matter!):

To beg the question
To assume a proposition which, in reality, involves the conclusion. Thus, to say that parallel lines will never meet because they are parallel, is simply to assume as a fact the very thing you profess to prove. The phrase is the common English equivalent of the Latin term, PETITIO PRINCIPII.

[oddoneout]

While reading the link on the birds thread about the demise of two eagles in Ireland I was reminded of something which seems to have become standard usage but which I am certain is incorrect. Birds are now frequently said to be born, rather than hatched. Although the egg from which the baby bird develops comes from a female's (mother) body, the baby bird itself does not so how can it be "born"? I have also noticed the usage recently in connection with other creatures that emerge from eggs, such as snakes. Why? What is wrong with the term "hatched"?

[Serial_Apologist]

While reading the link on the birds thread about the demise of two eagles in Ireland I was reminded of something which seems to have become standard usage but which I am certain is incorrect. Birds are now frequently said to be born, rather than hatched. Although the egg from which the baby bird develops comes from a female's (mother) body, the baby bird itself does not so how can it be "born"? I have also noticed the usage recently in connection with other creatures that emerge from eggs, such as snakes. Why? What is wrong with the term "hatched"?

I would say that it is eggs that are hatched; the chicks I would describe as emerging from eggs, although I can't see anything wrong with describing the moment of emergence as "birth".

[oddoneout]

I would say that it is eggs that are hatched; the chicks I would describe as emerging from eggs, although I can't see anything wrong with describing the moment of emergence as "birth".

This, from Merriam-Webster

the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent. : the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb

is what I understand as birth/born, which is why I don't see how hatched can be synonymous.
I rather wonder if it has to do with the tiresome trend in so-called nature documentaries, to turn everything into human experience, rather than accepting as is, possibly to make it all more emotionally appealing. Anthropomorphism taken to excess.

[Serial_Apologist]

This, from Merriam-Webster is what I understand as birth/born, which is why I don't see how hatched can be synonymous.
I rather wonder if it has to do with the tiresome trend in so-called nature documentaries, to turn everything into human experience, rather than accepting as is, possibly to make it all more emotionally appealing. Anthropomorphism taken to excess.

Then the question becomes, can one describe an egg as a new individual being in its own right? After all, it is in an equivalent place to a mammal foetus still in the womb. But I agree regarding there being too much anthropomorphism in many nature documentaries.

[oddoneout]

Then the question becomes, can one describe an egg as a new individual being in its own right? After all, it is in an equivalent place to a mammal foetus still in the womb. But I agree regarding there being too much anthropomorphism in many nature documentaries.

Is it equivalent though? The foetus has to remain attached to the womb, which has to remain attached to the mother, until(if all goes to plan) the time arrives that the baby will be expelled to start developing as an individual. The egg doesn't need that physical attachment, although the embryo inside needs to be attached to the intact egg to remain viable. How that egg subsequently develops, and the level of involvement of the egg parent(s) depends on the species; it might be under a bird, or it may be buried in sand for instance.
I will continue to use hatch for eggs and born for mammals - the alternative just feels wrong, (and slightly uncomfortable - twee overtones) to me. I accept that there are some animals that confuse the issue somewhat - live bearing fish and reptiles for instance.

[vinteuil]

I accept that there are some animals that confuse the issue somewhat - live bearing fish and reptiles for instance.

... I see that the wiki entry for the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) agrees that 'hatch' is the term to be used in their case : "Newly hatched platypuses are vulnerable, blind, and hairless, and are fed by the mother's milk"

.

[oddoneout]

... I see that the wiki entry for the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) agrees that 'hatch' is the term to be used in their case : "Newly hatched platypuses are vulnerable, blind, and hairless, and are fed by the mother's milk"

.

Yes I saw that - and then missed it out of my examples... My day started at 4am and cognitive function is suffering!

[Serial_Apologist]

Is it equivalent though? The foetus has to remain attached to the womb, which has to remain attached to the mother, until(if all goes to plan) the time arrives that the baby will be expelled to start developing as an individual. The egg doesn't need that physical attachment, although the embryo inside needs to be attached to the intact egg to remain viable. How that egg subsequently develops, and the level of involvement of the egg parent(s) depends on the species; it might be under a bird, or it may be buried in sand for instance.
I will continue to use hatch for eggs and born for mammals - the alternative just feels wrong, (and slightly uncomfortable - twee overtones) to me. I accept that there are some animals that confuse the issue somewhat - live bearing fish and reptiles for instance.

Good points, I concede!