OT - "It begs the question"
I know that there are a great many students of all levels on the MGoBoard, in addition to many post-graduates who are interested in writing. There are STEM students who, despite their technical orientation, wish to learn better writing and communication skills. God bless them all. There are liberal arts students whose future careers in education, journalism, the law, etc., depend upon being skilled communicators.
One of several basic grammatical mistakes that I see in comment writing at MGoBlog is the misuse of the syllogism, "It begs the question." People -- young students, I presume -- frequently write, "it begs the question," when they really mean "it raises the question."
This issue of misuse comes up so frequently, that a web site was devoted to the annoying error. And then, linking to that site, Roy Peter Clark of The Poynter Institute took the time to write this post at Poynter.com.
So don't be a jerk, and misuse the phrase, "it begs the question." Underclass students in English composition ought to know this. No self-respecting professional should commit this mistake in usage. The only explanation for the error seems to be people who think that they know a little bit about writing, and who want to appear sophisticated, but who are in fact poseurs.
February 1st, 2014 at 7:37 PM ^
in question is panhandling to the lowest common denomination, at least that's my cents of it.
February 1st, 2014 at 7:46 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 7:48 PM ^
All jokes aside, the worst thing about mgoblog is the access of grammar nazis.
I mean really, we should take it away. This would be a better place.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:44 PM ^
February 1st, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^
Can't you go back to complaining about The Free Press? At least then I thought you were a lunatic instead of an idiot.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:28 PM ^
Okay.
February 1st, 2014 at 9:39 PM ^
that his example of a grammatical error wasn't a grammatical error at all.
February 2nd, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
There are three commas that should be deleted, but it's free of comma splices.
I agree with you about "syllogism" though--it's a weird use of a technical term, and he's committing a use/mention confusion anyway, as "beg the question" is not a syllogism (nor an argument) but a phrase. The type of argument named by that phrase need not be the kind of two-premise argument usually called a syllogism, although Section 1 likes to write as inaccessibly as his Cooley JD allows, so it's not very surprising that he'd use the term pompously to refer to any kind of argument.
February 2nd, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^
I think I have committed comma-splice errors on occasion. But I expect that those are most often intentional confrontations with the rule.
And yes, I suppose that I might have avoided a couple of commas.
"Syllogism" was prompted by the Poynter link, which referred to that term. Syllogisms play into the proper use of "begging the question." I think I agree with you otherwise.
And I'm both amused and gratified about the fact that 24 hours and about 170 posts later, nobody figured out why I posted this. I'll bet that I've had more fun, checking in on this thread during commercials in the golf/basketball telecasts, than anyone else. More than you apparently realize, I feel a lot like Colbert in the .gif just below.
I didn't go to Cooley. Not that there's anything wrong with Cooley.
February 8th, 2014 at 7:36 AM ^
Well, RPC more or less denies knowing what "syllogism" means, though the example he presents is decent enough. The reason I think it's a misuse of the term is that a syllogism is a very particular kind of argument--the Wikipedia article does an ok job of introducing the basics--and one can beg the question without using or attempting to use syllogistic reasoning. The term does have a derivative sense in which it just means any kind of deductive reasoning, but I would be surprised if anybody who actually understands the primary meaning would use the more general one. I also think it's possible to beg the question when not engaging in deductive reasoning at all, though sometimes textbooks do characterize question-begging as putting forth a deductive argument that takes its conclusion as a premise.
February 1st, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
When does the phrase mean what people think it means?
(% of pop misuing term or phrase) x (# of years misused) = New meaning/additional meaning officially added
Perhaps a result of 5 or above should be the benchmark. If 50% of users use a term incorrectly for 10 years then .5x10=5 and a new meaning is added to the definition.
I'm sure an interested and industrious fellow could create a proper equation or link to one that already exists.
February 1st, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^
For all intensive purposes, Section 1 usually relegates his posts to serious topics about Michigan football. You might have taken this post seriously on accident. But lets nip that notion in the butt. Case and point: The topic is clearly one of common Internet discourse: grammer. You should of recognized it as simply a play on that discourse and not picking up on these topics will wreck havoc on your point total in the future. Irregardless, one should not throw around neg points simply for disagreeing with a post or a topic, though I could care less what you do with your points.
February 1st, 2014 at 9:15 PM ^
I am pretty sure this thread is actually about RichRod.
February 1st, 2014 at 10:43 PM ^
who gives a fuck
February 1st, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
Should we talk about how the University conducts itself or mistranslations from Latin? It's up in the air!
February 1st, 2014 at 11:20 PM ^
February 2nd, 2014 at 12:45 AM ^
because the Wolverines will be undefeated.
February 2nd, 2014 at 2:27 AM ^
Which begs the question: Will David Brandon sell the Title Trophy to the highest bidder?
February 2nd, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
ISWYDT.
February 2nd, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^