As You Were Everybody

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

The information provided to you as to how you are incorrect in your narrow defining of how anti or un may be used should have been illuminating. I'm sorry it hasn't been. The very thorough response to you by Kyle regarding the use of mute as you phrased it also should have been enough to allow a smile and, "Ok, you got me." I'm sorry it didn't. Pride is a trait that finds us all at various points and here, I see, is where your pride has gotten the better of your position. I see that. You don't. Perhaps you never will. I won't hold it against you too much.

What you see Art is determined by a narrow focus, the width of which is defined by how little you know me.

Kyle's "thorough response" was entirely based on common usage of the word moot. Common as it is, it is incorrect. I'll grant you that over time Webster will adjust the definition of a word to acquiesce to common usage, but it has yet to occur. Ergo, when someone states that a "point has been rendered moot", they are in effect saying the point has gone from a state of being fact to that which is arguable.

Pride has nothing to do with it. I've had this conversation ad infinitum over this word and others over the last 25 years. It's a pet peeve of mine. Take my word for it or not, it matters little to me.

I will though try to get us back engaged in some of the furthering of the conversation you wanted to have earlier. Specifically, when it is acceptable to risk the lives of civilians in an effort to limit the potential harm to Americans.

Hmmm..., I could have sworn your position was that it was always acceptable to risk the lives of civilians to save American lives. I'm beginning to question my own ability to comprehend and process the written word. If you are saying that a situation must be assessed and judgement calls made in determining whether the risk of civilian casualties is worth American lives, well then, we have nothing further to debate; for I am in total agreement.

[Art]

Kurp,

Just to be clear, in the link you provided for moot, under usage note, the paragraph concludes with, "When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant." In fact, I am all for the fine point of linguistic bating in an argument. However, when Kyle explained how moot meant the common usage of being of no significance or consequence, he met his necessity to define the usage to fit the conversation.

Therefore, it is not simply correct to point out a traditional, lesser used definition as an example of how the common usage is incorrect. In fact, the common usage is correct, and as a usage note, you are told to make clear how you are using the word. If you understood Kyle's usage as the common usage, then, he's not incorrect, because, that's the burden placed upon him in the conversation and you recognized it.

But, again, I too enjoy a good back and forth over word usage, so, on that you and I have a shared point we enjoy debating. No matter. As for the rest, you wrote, "If you are saying that a situation must be assessed and judgement calls made in determining whether the risk of civilian casualties is worth American lives, well then, we have nothing further to debate; for I am in total agreement."

It is true that when there comes a time to change the rules of engagement, those changes must be implemented to protect our troops from even the slightest possibility of risk, even if it means killing innocent civilians. The situation with the van is an example where our troops may not have actually been in any real danger. However, there was the possibility of danger, and their only appropriate action was to limit that possibility. In this case it may have caused the death of innocents. And that is always going to have been the appropriate decision because our boys are ok. That's what is important in the equation.

[TheKurp]

http://www.worldwidewords.org

“Did the phrase a moot point originally mean ‘a debatable point’? Nowadays it seems to mean ‘an irrelevant point’ or even ‘a point so irrelevant it’s not worth debating’. Some actually have taken to referring to it as a mute point. What’s the history here?”

Moot point is one of those phrases that once had a firm and well-understood meaning, but no longer does. It was just as you say: a matter that was uncertain or undecided, so open to debate.

It comes from the same source as meet and originally had the same meaning. In England in medieval times it referred specifically to an assembly of people, in particular one that had some sort of judicial function, and was often spelled mot or mote. So you find references to the witenagemot (the assembly of the witan, the national council of Anglo-Saxon times), hundred-mote (where a hundred was an Anglo-Saxon administrative area, part of a county or shire), and many others. So something that was mooted was put up for discussion and decision at a meeting—by definition something not yet decided.

The confusion over the meaning of moot point is modern. It is a misunderstanding of another sense of moot for a discussion forum in which hypothetical cases are argued by law students for practice. Since there is no practical outcome of these sessions, and the cases are invented anyway, people seem to have assumed that a moot point means one of no importance. So we’ve seen a curious shift in which the sense of “open to debate” has become “not worth debating”.

The mute spelling is a development that has come about because moot is now a fossil word, usually encountered only in this phrase; there is an understandable tendency to convert the unknown into the known, and mute seems to fit the new meaning rather better.

[Kyle]

Kyle's "thorough response" was entirely based on common usage of the word moot. Common as it is, it is incorrect.

Not incorrect. One of the definitions provided from your own link is "no practical importance; irrelevant", and that is the definition I have suggested. The fact that it is also by far the most common usage for the word only strenghthens the point.

Ergo, when someone states that a "point has been rendered moot", they are in effect saying the point has gone from a state of being fact to that which is arguable.

Not if a valid definition of the word is "no practical importance or irrelevant", and most people will interpret it that way - which your usage note makes clear has been the case since the mid-19th century.

The better example of incorrect usage would be what started this debate - "the discussion is mute."

"Moot" is a very old word related to "meeting," specifically a meeting where serious matters are discussed. Oddly enough, a moot point can be a point worth discussing at a meeting (or in court)--an unresolved question--or it can be the opposite: a point already settled and not worth discussing further. <b>At any rate, "mute point" is simply wrong.</b> link

A commonly confused pair of words is mute and moot, as in referring to a "mute point." In its adjective form "mute" means incapable of speech, or an absence of speech. I suppose a point could be silent [although a discussion can't], but the correct term is "moot point," meaning a point that is debatable, or one that is of no practical significance, abstract, or academic. link

Moot and Mute: How often have you heard someone insist: "it's a mute point!" Well, if it's a topic that's incapable of making a sound, they're correct. But more often they're really trying to say that it's a moot point - or one that's irrelevant.link

So, not only is the usage not correct, it is often provided as an example of a common mistake. Try this for fun: Google the phrase "discussion is mute". What you will find is that there are only 161 results, indicating that most people know better than to make that mistake. More importantly, just about all of the examples are qualified with "(sic)", or some similar acknowledgment of the error. Note the many published articles where this usage was corrected.

[TheKurp]

Kyle,

Please refer to the post immediately above yours.

It is an argument based on the purist form of the word over a more common (*******ized) version.

If you rewind back to the original post in which I originally used the word mute, you'll see that my statement was meant to render the debate over "un" and "anti" silent. In EVERY definition of the word moot, the FIRST definition is ALWAYS listed as "something that is arguable or debatable."

The definitions from your Google search always list the more common usage of the word as the third or fourth definition.

Now pay attention Kyle. This is the statement in which I used the word.

So any further discussion based on that assumption is mute in my book.

Most every example where the word "mute" is said to be used incorrectly for "moot", it is in the context of rendering a point moot. My statement is not about a point, but a discussion. I chose the word mute because I wished the discussion silenced. I'll grant you that wishing a point silenced doesn't make much sense. However a discussion is a conversation between two or more people. Get it?

Now beyond this, I cannot better explain my use of the word. From where I stand, you and others who continue to insist that I used the word incorrectly haven't a proverbial leg to stand on.

[Kyle]

Kurp,

I commend you for your sense of duty to this issue. :laugh:

Please refer to the post immediately above yours. It is an argument based on the purist form of the word over a more common (*******ized) version.

Yes, that’s very interesting, but it doesn’t support your case, in as much as it offers the word “mute” as an alternative spelling of “moot”. You have previously stated that you do not believe that it would be correct to use the word "moot" in the given context. If you believe that "moot" is not correct, then why would your usage of "mute" as an alternative spelling for this incorrect word be any more correct?

Regardless, the information is merely an acknowledgment of the fact the people have commonly confused these similar sounding words. Based on your affection for etymology, I’m surprised that you were not discouraged in presenting this argument by the fact that “mute” is not in fact a recognized alternate spelling for “moot” in any actual dictionary.

But again, the whole passage is irrelevant, as you have clearly stated that you intended the "unspoken" meaning for the word mute. I will remain confused as to why you offered the passage it in the first place.

In EVERY definition of the word moot, the FIRST definition is ALWAYS listed as "something that is arguable or debatable.

And that makes the secondary meaning incorrect? Do you have a policy against using the secondary meaning of a word? Do you initiate heated debates when people say things like “make a left at the light”, because they have utilized a non-primary meaning of the word "light"? Or perhaps you are confused by the fact that the word “moot” has opposite meanings. Does it follow that only one can be right? What about the word cleave, which can mean to split or to attach. Or the word sanction, which can mean to encourage or to penalize. Which of these meanings are “incorrect”? Are you really basing you whole convoluted opposition to the word moot on the fact that it’s more common meaning also happens to be it’s secondary meaning?

I chose the word mute because I wished the discussion silenced.

Than you should have said "any further discussion is muted in my book." It would have been equally awkward, but more accurate. But to say that the discussion is mute, is like saying the TV is mute or the radio is mute. You see, TVs, radios and discussions cannot talk or vocalize, and therefore, cannot be mute.

From where I stand, you and others who continue to insist that I used the word incorrectly haven't a proverbial leg to stand on.

Ok, the editorial staff of Reuters is wrong when they corrected the quote “the discussion is mute.” (You're meant to click on the link and search for the word mute in the article. )

The editorial staff of the Associated Press was wrong when they corrected the quote “the discussion is mute.”

The editorial staff of The Los Angeles Times is wrong when they corrected the quote “the discussion is mute." Note that they go a step further. They actually supply the only word that could possibly have been intended by this man.

Take heart, I’m sure this oft quoted man shares your special peeve. :laugh:

[TheKurp]

Kyle,

You are persistant as well.

What you so far have yet to recognize is that in your examples where the author of the sentence has incorrectly used the word "mute" for "moot", they used it in the context where they meant to convey irreverance.

I did not choose to use that meaning, despite it being more common.

I chose to use the definition that appears first, second, and even third when defined.

Ergo, "moot" would not have conveyed the meaning I wished to impart on the topic.

Now you claim, perhaps correctly so, that I should have used the past tense of the word; i.e., muted. If doing so could have save me this inane back-and-forth, then yes, I would have in hindsight used "muted" instead of "mute".

Fair enough?

[Kyle]

What you so far have yet to recognize is that in your examples where the author of the sentence has incorrectly used the word "mute" for "moot", they used it in the context where they meant to convey irreverance [irrelevance].

Clearly. The point is, the editor would not have corrected the quote except that it is plainly wrong. If “discussion is mute” was a potentially acceptable usage to convey that the person wanted the discussion to be silenced, the editor would not have corrected it. It is only because it is plainly wrong that it was corrected.

Now you claim, perhaps correctly so, that I should have used the past tense of the word; i.e., muted. If doing so could have save me this inane back-and-forth, then yes, I would have in hindsight used "muted" instead of "mute". Fair enough?

Ok, but if you’re interested, I have a much better word for you to use. :laugh:

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by JackC

Art,

In which period was America great? Are we great now? I will say at times we were the best but we've never been great.

Larry,

If you think I'm Un or Anti American than you don't know me at all.

Huh? At the risk of starting another "war over words", DEFINE GREAT. Better yet let me help in order to speed things along.

1. Very large in size.

2. Larger in size than others of the same kind.

3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large.

4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay.

5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.

6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.

7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate.

8. Superior in quality or character; noble: “For he was great, ere fortune made him so” (John Dryden).

9. Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.

10. Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.

11. Grand; aristocratic.

Hmmmm....

#1 - check

#2 - check

#3 - check

#4 - in time of existance we *are* a young nation so - no

#5 - check

#6 - check

#7 - check

#8 - check

#9 - check

#10 - As much as it pisses france off - check

#11 - a matter of opinion but since it is *my* opinion - check

Maybe you do not think we were great when we destroyed nazism and communism. I think we were. Maybe you think we are not great when the world turns to us to stop genocide. I think we are. Maybe you think that we are not great when we spread democracy or use our recources to rebuild a nation we once were at war with and then relinquish all control. I say you are wrong.

So tell me, among all existing nations, who *is* great.

:doh:

[AJWatson3]

I can't believe I read that last three or four pages of this thread, and the prevailing argument ended up being about the usage of the word(s): mute/moot

[fansince62]

AJ....ditto.....

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kyle

Clearly. The point is, the editor would not have corrected the quote except that it is plainly wrong. If “discussion is mute” was a potentially acceptable usage to convey that the person wanted the discussion to be silenced, the editor would not have corrected it. It is only because it is plainly wrong that it was corrected.

Ok, but if you’re interested, I have a much better word for you to use. :laugh:

Point to you on correcting the word from irreverance to irrelevance. I sat down and wrote that response after sharing a bottle of wine at the Lake Eola Wine Company in downtown Orlando with a lovely young lady. Not an excuse, but an explaination.

Kyle, try this exercise on for size. If we can agree that the word moot, as defined, also means debateable, arguable, open to discussion et. al., then please if you will, use it in a sentence that clearly demonstrates that usage. Just to be clear, use the word as an adjective without any suffixes like "ed" or "edly".

Here's the point, in fact the same point which you've conveniently ignored in the above reference from http://www.worldwidewords.org. Because common usage of the word moot has rendered ambiguous any meaning other than irrelevance, how does one make the point that he doesn't want the point open for debate? Common usage assumes that using the word means irrelevant. But that assumption may be incorrect, correct?

Ergo, I use the word mute to remove any doubt despite your insistence that to do so is incorrect, which it is not.

[Kyle]

Kyle, try this exercise on for size. If we can agree that the word moot, as defined, also means debateable, arguable, open to discussion et. al., then please if you will, use it in a sentence that clearly demonstrates that usage. Just to be clear, use the word as an adjective without any suffixes like "ed" or "edly".

The following illustrates both meanings for the word, each of which are entirely clear from their context:

Last month, the student debate society selected the moot question to be presented: Should the library be expanded. However, as the funds for the project have subsequently been approved, the issue is now moot.

Here's the point, in fact the same point which you've conveniently ignored in the above reference from <http://www.worldwidewords.org.> Because common usage of the word moot has rendered ambiguous any meaning other than irrelevance, how does one make the point that he doesn't want the point open for debate?

While it may be possible to use the word in a way that would leave the meaning ambiguous, it doesn't mean that any use of the word is necessarily ambiguous, or should automatically be attributed the primary definition. That is why you find the usage note that advises that "one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant."

Lets revisit what started this debate:

Art, your entire argument is based on "un" and "anti" being interchangable. They are not. So any further discussion based on that assumption is mute in my book.

You have now agreed that the usage of the word "mute" was not correct in this context. Therefore, I'm sure you now understand why it was natural for Larry to assume that you intended the word moot, particularly given the ample evidence provided that the two words are often confused. Furthermore, in substituting the word moot in your statement, it is very clear which meaning would be intended - so there would be no improper usage of the word based on a failure to make clear the meaning through context. Therefore, when Larry suggested that "you might want to look [the word "mute" up] before you correct others on their word selections," he was making a point that you should have taken to heart, rather than diverting the discussion down this path by leaping into the trap that you thought you had set for him.

[TheKurp]

Kyle,

Let's again examine the original statement in context.

Art, your entire argument is based on "un" and "anti" being interchangable. They are not. So any further discussion based on that assumption is mute in my book.

Can we agree that the word "mute" means "silent"? If so, then read on. Let's take the word mute out of the sentence and replace it with silent.

Thus we have the following: "So any further discussion based on that assumption is silent in my book."

Is that sentence devoid of logic or meaning to you? If so, please explain. If not, then I thank you for playing.

[Kyle]

I will resist your invitation into the miasma of further tortured analysis, and stand by the editorial comment made by three respected publishers in correcting the statement "the discussion is mute." If that's not good enough for you, nothing I ever say will be.

[TheKurp]

Kyle,

I am a good sport if nothing else.

You made your point rather well and I enjoyed reading it. This tete-a-tete will no doubt have some influence on me down the road.

Cheers!

BTW, did you mean 'tortured' instead of tourcherd?

[Kyle]

Kurp,

It's been fun.

BTW, I have enjoyed many of your own inventive spellings, which I will be kind enough to refrain from itemizing here. :laugh:

[TheKurp]

Hey, play by the rules Kyle.

By editing your post to correct the spelling of tortured, you've succeeded in rendering my above post moot.

Or would it better be said that you muted my point?

For someone who's been around for 3 years you post far too little.

I look forward to reading you in the future.