Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Does the new LuLa need an editor?  (Read 5311 times)

Mikenor2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #60 on: January 05, 2019, 07:01:23 pm »

I'm not passing judgement on Josh's post(s) which I've enjoyed so far - It's the nit picking I've been reading on various posts since the change. I'm not a huge poster here but have been a paying customer owning many of their videos (before they were part of the membership), to my yearly membership since they went in that direction. I agree with you - lets let the dust settle a bit before passing judgement.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14488
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #61 on: January 05, 2019, 07:06:16 pm »

That phrase from the Wikipedia extract, from which I did not include footnotes. Maybe the footnotes better explain what they mean by "incorrectly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question...

Seems to me that the basis for "incorrectly" in modern usage is simply to deny the right for a different interpretation, other than the classic one as a logical fallacy. In other words, arguing that way that there should be no modern usage.

If we accept that there is a modern usage, different from the logical fallacy, then there is no reason not to understand it on the basis of the words it uses. To me, it simply means the following: when a statement is unusual, absurd, or paradoxical, then I beg you for clarification by asking a question, thus the statement "begs the question." As "begging" is a stronger word than "asking," it serves as a signal that the original statement is rather incredulous.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 987
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #62 on: January 05, 2019, 07:13:16 pm »

Seems to me that the basis for "incorrectly" in modern usage is simply to deny the right for a different interpretation, other than the classic one as a logical fallacy. In other words, arguing that way that there should be no modern usage.

If we accept that there is a modern usage, different from the logical fallacy, then there is no reason not to understand it on the basis of the words it uses. To me, it simply means the following: when a statement is unusual, absurd, or paradoxical, then I beg you for clarification by asking a question, thus the statement "begs the question." As "begging" is a stronger word than "asking," it serves as a signal that the original statement is rather incredulous.
You can, of course, make up any meaning you want.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14488
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #63 on: January 05, 2019, 07:18:11 pm »

You can, of course, make up any meaning you want.

I am not making anything up, just explaining why "begging the question" has become "raising the question" in recent times: From the same Wikipedia link:

Quote
... sources such as the Meriam Webster Dictionary and non-prescriptivist critics acknowledge the usage of the phrase as a synonym for “raises the question” as popularly accepted.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2280
    • advantica blog
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2019, 07:43:43 pm »

Translating "beg a question" to German results in "eine Frage stellen" and pretty much to the same meaning in French "poser une question".
Translating both terms back to English results in a much more prosaic term - "ask a question".

Trevor Murgatroyd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #65 on: January 05, 2019, 09:53:50 pm »

I think it is time for RSL to contribute on this discussion of "begging the question".
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1312
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #66 on: January 05, 2019, 10:11:52 pm »

I remember back in graduate school being mildly upbraided by my thesis advisor for using 'hopefully' in sentence.  At that time (1974), it was only used in common speech and many regarded it as 'shorthand.'  I think today is is commonly accepted.  When I submitted the first draft of my dissertation, he struck out all the uses of the phrase 'due to.'  He noted that the rent can be do but something that happens in an experiment is 'a result of.'  As with hopefully 'due to' is pretty much common usage these day.

I hate beating this horse but this may interest you. If others don't care, look away, don't read this.

Before retiring, my last job for 10 years was copy-editing scientific journals (mostly physics and chemistry). The usage of "due to" vs "because of" or "owing to" came up all the time.

From the web somewhere, I found this good explanation: These examples highlight the difference between "due to" and "because of": He failed because of bad planning. In short, "because of" modifies a verb, but "due to" modifies a noun (or pronoun). In common usage, though, you will often hear/see them being used interchangeably.

As for "hopefully", I read somewhere once that the word we really needed was "hope-ably" but it never caught one.

Although people might dispute it based on my responses on this thread, I am not a grammar nerd. Far from it. Working in publishing did not make me an expert in grammar, spelling or anything else. But time and time again when researching an ambiguous turn of phrase, I discovered just how many things that we think are rules of grammar simply are not and never were. This seems to bother some people, and I don't understand why.
Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1312
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #67 on: January 05, 2019, 10:23:56 pm »

Seems to me that the basis for "incorrectly" in modern usage is simply to deny the right for a different interpretation, other than the classic one as a logical fallacy. In other words, arguing that way that there should be no modern usage.

If we accept that there is a modern usage, different from the logical fallacy, then there is no reason not to understand it on the basis of the words it uses. To me, it simply means the following: when a statement is unusual, absurd, or paradoxical, then I beg you for clarification by asking a question, thus the statement "begs the question." As "begging" is a stronger word than "asking," it serves as a signal that the original statement is rather incredulous.

Yes, this is how the language evolves. It puzzles me why people object to this since we probably all inadvertently use phrases from time to time that had no accepted meaning a generation or two ago.



Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1312
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #68 on: January 05, 2019, 10:25:30 pm »

Warning, this is for nerds only.

I found a telecast of a lecture by Simon Winchester on his book about the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary. Not sure if there are country restrictions on this: https://www.tvo.org//video/archive/big-ideas/simon-winchester-on-his-book-the-meaning-of-everything . It is surprisingly interesting for a geeky topic and he's entertaining speaker.
Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #69 on: January 06, 2019, 03:38:59 am »

"Why will an editor never starve in a desert?"

"Because of the sand that is there"

Okay. A little obscure perhaps.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2019, 03:43:02 am »

While we're on the subject of people mistaking what things actually mean, in my former place of employment (in Texas) the company canteen offered a choice between cole slaw and hot slaw.
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7847
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #71 on: January 06, 2019, 04:06:30 am »

Translating "beg a question" to German results in "eine Frage stellen" and pretty much to the same meaning in French "poser une question".
Translating both terms back to English results in a much more prosaic term - "ask a question".

That is a ridiculously silly exercise which ignores the existence of idiom and proves nothing at all. It's reminiscent of the old trope of a computerised translation of "out of sight, out of mind" from English into [another language] and back again producing "invisible idiot".

"Beg the question" does not mean "raise the question"; it refers to a logical fallacy. On the other hand, perhaps I'd better write "did not" and "referred", as I accept that language changes over time; but the loss of a useful phrase is to be mourned.

Jeremy
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2019, 04:12:20 am »

Je repose ma valise :-)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22007
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #73 on: January 06, 2019, 04:24:41 am »

Beg the question.

It's when you ask a question basing the entire thing on an assumption, such as here: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The assumption is that the person does beat his wife, which may or may not be the case.

It does not mean a question arising from an earlier statement, as when you follow through the steps of an argument or debate, posing the question in response to some just received information, to which your own question seems a logical next step derived from, and based upon, what went before.

Rob

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1312
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #74 on: January 06, 2019, 06:47:48 am »

Beg the question.

It's when you ask a question basing the entire thing on an assumption, such as here: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The assumption is that the person does beat his wife, which may or may not be the case.

It does not mean a question arising from an earlier statement, as when you follow through the steps of an argument or debate, posing the question in response to some just received information, to which your own question seems a logical next step derived from, and based upon, what went before.

Rob


None of that is in dispute.

But if the usage changes over time, so that in some contexts the specific phrase "begs the question" ends up meaning something else, then it will end up meaning something else too. There is no rule of grammar to prevent it.
Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2280
    • advantica blog
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2019, 06:51:00 am »

That is a ridiculously silly exercise which ignores the existence of idiom and proves nothing at all. It's reminiscent of the old trope of a computerised translation of "out of sight, out of mind" from English into [another language] and back again producing "invisible idiot".

"Beg the question" does not mean "raise the question"; it refers to a logical fallacy. On the other hand, perhaps I'd better write "did not" and "referred", as I accept that language changes over time; but the loss of a useful phrase is to be mourned.

Jeremy

which begs the question why would anyone take these silly examples seriously. Fortunately, the Google translation program didn't and since it recognized the English idiom correctly and at the same time it accounted for the inadequacy of both German and French languages in the said context, it did find find the nearest approximation of the meaning. By offering this translation to an unsuspecting German or French reader it still transmitted a pretty good translation.

However, by turning the dial to the manual mode and asking the Google translator to deal with an artificially constructed "mendier une question" or"betteln eine Frage" to English, it would perform the accurate translation and deliver "beg a question".  Before anybody raises further questions, asking Google to translate "mendier une question" to German or "betteln eine Frage" to French, in both cases the translation would be streamlined and furnished as "poser une question" ("Frage stellen"). And this, my ladies and gentlemen, is the finest example of applied AI in modern linguistics.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2019, 07:11:46 am »

which begs the question

Or not, as Rob pointed out.
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 987
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2019, 07:48:09 am »

You can use the language with precision or not. Rationalizing sloppiness in how you express yourself by saying everybody does it hardly recommends itself.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 11:44:54 am by faberryman »
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2773
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2019, 09:31:53 am »

This site is getting so childish... Enough with the nit picking already!

Sorry Alan and anyone else who questioned Mikenor2 (I don’t have the stomach to read everything that’s been written) - but I have to agree with him.

All this sniping and chirping is a great way to drive away those who are interested in talking photography. It’s a clear sign of having too much time on your hands.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 11:17:20 am by luxborealis »
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Does the new LuLa need an editor?
« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2019, 09:32:45 am »

While we're on the subject of people mistaking what things actually mean, in my former place of employment (in Texas) the company canteen offered a choice between cole slaw and hot slaw.

Mighty fine canteen !
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up