Well it does beg the question: who is the original Rubber Freak?
i lov Squeaky Bum Time :3
What's wrong with beg the question? Seems you may be 0 for 2 of the dictionazi complaints today.The other one I always feel the need to correct people on is when they misuse "beg the question"
What's wrong with beg the question? Seems you may be 0 for 2 of the dictionazi complaints today.
Dunno if you guys follow football but that phrase was popularised by Alex Ferguson who used it to describe the tight moments at the end of the game.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/05/football/alex-ferguson-jose-mourinho-english-dictionary-spt-intl/index.html#:~:text=The term “squeaky bum time,English Premier League rival Arsenal.&text=“They have a replay against,the league,” said Ferguson.
It's a very evocative phrase. Three words efficiently putting you in mind of a sphincter clenched so tightly with nervousness that any fart that escapes will make a high-pitched whistling sound, like when you let a balloon deflate slowly by stretching the neck of it so tightly that the air can barely escape.Or actually seems I'm wrong, he was talking about the extended nervousness over the last few games of a tight season, rather than the last few minutes of a tight game.
Yeah before you shared that article, which used the murder/abortion example of a consequent implied within the antecedent, I wasn’t aware of the origin of the phrase - nor yet do I understand how the phrase “begs the question” ever meant what it meant, and not what it is now used to mean. I do find it interesting. If anything, I think it could be an example of a phrase taking on a more intuitive meaning over time. But yes I also agree that in general any term or phrase losing in popular usage its semantic roots is tragic, if even justified like in this case.The original meaning of "begging the question" is nothing to do with raising an obvious question, it is a description of a certain - wrong - argument in philosophy when someone is trying to prove something and in doing so they use the very point they were trying to prove, kinda like a circular argument. Referring to the very thing in question to prove that point is to beg the question. But, cos the phrase sounds as though it's something to do with raising an obvious question, many people use it in that way... and I appreciate that. over time, usage kinda overwhelms and swamps any rules or original intentions and so on. And that's how language evolves, I get that. But at the same time, it can be a shame I think, because here we've lost quite an unusual phrase with a unique meaning and crudely simplified it into what lazy journalists thought it should mean.
It's like with "literally" so many people used it to mean the exact opposite of what it should that that usage has now become accepted, but have we gained from that?
When someone says literally they either mean either one thing or the exact opposite. "The horses literally exploded out of the gate" means either that the horses actually blew up or, they didn't blow up, but simply they came out so fast it was like they exploded ie metaphorically or virtually or some other way that really means (or meant) "not literally" - have we gained something from when the word had one precise meaning?
Though of course it would be stupid to insist that people who are clearly using it in the new sense mean to say the exact opposite of what they intend so there is no easy answer.
Either way, I thought that a man with your... ah... unique and precise deployment of language would be interested to learn the original meaning and usage of the phrase regardless of the way that it has been bastardised. I truly think it's something nice to learn and I hope you do too. And that's my real reason for mentioning it rather than to criticise your writing.