It must have been a toss-up between “Cutting Edge” and “The Scalpel Life”
Posted by Lizzie on 02/11/05
Not since the PC craze of the late 1980s and the launch of PC Resources magazine has a publication had such a promising start, says Husni. Naturally, he says, a debut of this magnitude begs the question: Can this trend sustain itself?
We’re just going to put our fingers in our ears and hum da da da da da over the topic of this article and state, once again, for the grammatical record, “begs the question” does not mean “raises the question” but instead means AVOIDS THE QUESTION, as in, beggars the question, as in LEAVES IT UNASKED (in this case, unfortunately, not “nonexistent.”)
Filed under: Lit-ish |
According to my Meriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, the phrase “beg the question” actually describes a logical error in which someone arguing the truth of one proposition (for example, “locusts are bad”) instead argues another, in a way that assumes the first proposition has already been settled (e.g. “locusts must be eradicated”). The Latin term for this error is petitio principii, traditionally translated in English as “begging the question.” So dodging the issue is the result of begging the question, but not the very act of begging it.
It follows that the definition of “begging the question” as “sidestepping, evading,” is itself a bastardization of the original meaning.
But I most emphatically do not agree with the editor of the dictionary when he writes that people who miss this distinction are “untrained in the finer points of logical argument.” That is an inexcusable slander.
Happy Valentine’s Day!
Comment by Chris — 2/15/2005 @ 1:17 am
Why are my comments not forwarding to my Neomail suddenly? THAT is inexcusable.
Next time, Chris, chocolates. Then some dictionary reading, if you desire.
Comment by Old Hag — 2/16/2005 @ 12:09 am
Btw, as any woman will tell you, a man acting on the premise that a question is already settled and a man deliberately dodging a question are indistinguishable.
Comment by Old Hag — 2/16/2005 @ 12:24 am