[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Split ebuilds for GCC

[Duncan]

Ciaran McCreesh posted <20060104123442.1768e676@××××××××.home>, excerpted
below,  on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:34:42 +0000:

> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:26:44 -0700 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
> | That begs the question...
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html

Forget formal logic, it still "begs the question", in that it "begs that
the question be asked".  IOW, a narrowly constructed answer was /too/
narrow -- it didn't answer a follow-on question that logically follows
from the answer as given.  Thus, it "begs" that the follow-on question be
asked.

You (and the above link) are using "beg" in the sense of [1913 Webster]
definition 4: "To take for granted; to assume without proof."  If that
definition fails to make sense (as it does) in context, look to the other
definitions.  "Beg" in the sense of [1913 Webster] definition 3 makes
perfect sense in context: "To make petition to; to entreat; as, to beg a
person to grant a favor", or definition 1:  "To ask earnestly for; to
entreat or supplicate for; to beseech."

It also mentions that it may imply deference or respect, rather than
earnestness.  I should also mention that it has a specfic sub-entry for
"To beg the question", which does indeed invoke the definition four usage
as you and the above link did.  However, that's not the only meaning of
beg, tho it may have been the common meaning in the context of "begging
the question" at that time.

Therefore, while "to beg the question" as used here doesn't work in the
"assume that which was to be proved" sense, it works quite well in the
"causes a follow-up question to be asked with earnestness and/or respect"
sense.

Wordnet has a more modern definition that leaves out the "proof" concept
entirely.  Beg:  1: "Call upon in supplication; entreat [...] [syn:
implore, pray]."  2: "Make a solicitation or entreaty for something;
request urgently or persistently [...] [syn: solicit, tap]."  (The third
definition is "ask to obtain free; "beg money and food", but that doesn't
really apply to either usage under discussion.  There is no fourth
definition, so no "proof" concept in the modern Wordnet definition at all.)

So... tho your definition fit with the usage in 1913, it doesn't appear to
fit with modern usage nearly a century later.  Even in 1913, however, one
couldn't properly say my usage was entirely incorrect, given the other
definitions for the word "beg".

The definitions above courtesy of kdict, KDE's desktop dictionary
protocol applet, with its default source of dict.org.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list