Is it time to abandon begs the question? For a phrase that gets so much attention, youve probably never seen it used in its original sense. Begs the question refers to a form of circular reasoning in which you assume the validity of the conclusion in your premise. Heres an example of a question-begging expression: Sleep is healthy because the body needs it. Yet if you encounter begs the question online or in an indifferently edited newspaper, it will almost certainly be used to mean raises the question. This appropriation has spawned countless indignant letters to the editor, in which readers claim that a contributor was remiss in using it in the new colloquial manner. So which is correct? The archaic and sparingly used term or the popular, incorrect version? Etymologically speaking, begs the question has a complex and rather obscure history. The impossibility of the casual observer to elicit its intended meaning from its components perhaps explains why the corruption is so dominant. A comprehensive explanation of the terms origins can be found at the excellent Language Log. To summarise: Aristotle first described the logical misstep, dubbing that kind of circular reasoning (in ancient Greek) assuming the conclusion [in your premise]. This was then translated to Latin as petitio principii, which translates literally as laying claim to a principle. Yet this Latin expression made its way into English in the 16th century as begs the question, since petitio[footnoteRef:0] can also be taken to mean requesting in addition to assuming, as it is intended here. [0: Note: Im employing single quotes here to uphold the use-mention distinction employed in discussions of language.]

So the original term really should have been translated as assuming the question, or some variant thereof or simply remained as petitio principii. The latter would have made a good deal of sense, given the preponderance of Latin terms in the language of formal logic. Latin-to-English phrases that have seen their meaning corrupted over time are common. One example is the expression the exception that proves the rule. This, upon first reading, doesnt quite make sense. How does the existence of an exception prove the validity of a rule? Wouldnt it do precisely the opposite? One etymological theory holds that proves in the expression comes from the Latin probare, which means to test, rather than to verify. Hence an exception tests the validity of the rule. This meaning of prove has been lost over time, leading to confusion and a debate about the true meaning of the adage. Part of the appeal of the casual, modern usage of begs the question is that it sounds academic to many. Its present corruption rankles many because it reduces a useful, specific term describing a particular kind of logical misstep to a clever-sounding alternative to raises the question. What should the discerning writer use instead? I suggest raises or invites the question. Raises the question is more or less semantically identical to its corrupted counterpart. No suitable substitute is used as frequently. Google trends however reveals that begs the question is about 16 times as common as raises the question. So even the healthy alternative is ignored. Beg the question is here to stay.This subject has been the focus of some debate in the news media. NPR and the New York Times have addressed the issue. Some enterprising soul maintains a website dedicated exclusively to correcting societys ignorance on this topic.Why worry? You might respond. Language evolves, and presumptuous is the Canutian[footnoteRef:1] linguist who dares stand in its way. Yet I do not accept the descriptivists[footnoteRef:2] poisoned chalice; quite simply, the semantic altering of this phrase makes language less specific and de-enriches it. This is a dear shame. [1: Upon googling the myth of King Canute, I found that the original context to the king infamously commanding the tide not to rise was not to demonstrate his divine power but instead to prove to his courtesans his own futility. Yet Id only heard the first version of the myth. How apt. ] [2: Linguistic descriptivism contrasts with prescriptivism. The former aims at an objective analysis of how language is used. The latter involves issuing normative instructions governing proper usage, such as those found in style guides or grammar textbooks. They arent mutually exclusive they just govern different aspects of language. ]

Given the difficulty of conducting a study of every use of begs the question to determine how it is used, anecdotal evidence will have to suffice. Today, the original meaning of begs the question is almost never found outside of philosophical journals, and even then, the preferred formulation is question-begging. I have never once seen it used in its original sense in a news article or book. A quick search finds recent articles from the Guardian, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal featuring the vulgar use of the term. Articles and blog posts about begging the question are likely more common than actual instances of the expression in its old meaning. Despite my misgivings, its not particularly useful to oppose the misuse of the term, as there now exist two parallel and equally valid meanings. Deeming an expression wrong when its supposedly incorrect usage dominates is to flaunt reality. At this point, its best to admit the change and quietly lament the loss of the expression. There is no English equivalent to the Acadmie Franaise. Our language is ruled by the masses. And when the vast majority co-opts an expression and changes its meaning, no one holds a veto. Writers and editors should avoid the term altogether. If you use it in the colloquial sense you risk being jumped upon by an army of critics scoring points on technicalities. And if you invoke its original usage in an article designed for the layperson, you will not be understood. However begging the question will never be entirely abandoned, as long as discussions of formal logic exist. Therein lies one use for academic philosophy, at least.