In an item about Nikki Sinclaire's expulsion from UKIP (a British fringe political party) I heard the following. Am I the only one who sees something just a touch odd here?

"The party say that her views are incompatible with those of other party members. She says it's the other way round."

Am I missing something about the meaning of "incompatible"? Or is she?

I think "It's the other way around" is not an appropriate rejoinder, since either way she's incompatible.

I'd say that either she's got quite the ego, or it's a party of two members.

Well, if you were to use the definition of "consistent with," wouldn't the "other way around" mean that she thinks her views are "consistent with" other party members?

quote:

"The party say that her views are incompatible with those of other party members. She says it's the other way round."

In other words, everyone's out of step except her.

Perhaps she is trying to imply that her views tolerate the presence of other viewpoints, but the views of other party members do not.

Or infer it.

Myth, it is really good to see you! We'd like to see more of you.

I suspect that it really is an idea, in her head, that "incompatible" somehow implies "in the wrong". My views are incompatible with yours: I'm wrong.
Your views are incompatible with mine: you're wrong.

The fact that this isn't what the word means won't stop some people using it that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Or infer it.

According to my understanding of the difference between "imply" and "infer"; she would imply something with her statement, and it would be up to someone else, such as ourselves, to infer something from her statement.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I suspect that it really is an idea, in her head, that "incompatible" somehow implies "in the wrong". My views are incompatible with yours: I'm wrong.
Your views are incompatible with mine: you're wrong.

The fact that this isn't what the word means won't stop some people using it that way.

She also might merely be aware of a public perception that being singled out for incompatability equates to some amount of "wrongness". If that public perception exists then the dictionary definition of "incompatible" doesn't really matter--in politics it is all about the spin. You'll note that the spokesmen for the party did not switch the statement around the other way, or even offer a more obviously neutral version such as, "Our ideas are incompatible."

Of course this is all speculation giving her the benefit of the doubt. Many of us in the States are fully aware that politicians can also have problems matching wits with a box of hammers, which might be a more likely explanation in general.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Myth Jellies,

quote:

According to my understanding of the difference between "imply" and "infer"; she would imply something with her statement, and it would be up to someone else, such as ourselves, to infer something from her statement.

This has been discussed in great detail here, with some claiming that, because the meaning of infer "to draw a conclusion" is only about a century old, and prior to that "infer" and "imply" were synonyms, it cannot be claimed that it is now wrong to use infer as a synonym for imply. But as has also been suggested many times on this board, language changes and eventually changes that were once wrong eventaully become correct.

I suggest that this is now the case with "infer" and "imply". It is a useful distinction that is now drawn and I go along with "The Times" style guide which is quite definite. Infer and imply, it claims, are not synonyms. And The Times has a useful aide-mémoire: "You imply when you speak; you infer when you listen".

imply and infer

As usual, the retelling of the opposition's stand on these two words is lacking. Here are the facts (taken from the MWDEU):

Sir Thomas More used both words in their modern meanings first in the English language. The meaning of his imply is non-controversial. The meaning of his infer is.

quote:

Whereupon is inferred ... that the messenger wold have fled from by force. (1528)

The fyrste parte is not the proofe of the second, but rather contrary wyse, the second inferreth well y[super]e[/super] fyrst. (1533)

Note that More 1533 usage does not have a human subject. The point of this is not that the current meanings of the two words ought to be regulated by how More used them in int he early 16th century. That would be the historical fallacy, which is something that the peevers are guilty of when it suuits their purpose. It just shows that the problem is not a recent as some think.

Over the next 400 years, another sense of infer developed, the personal one. for example

quote:

However, as I have often heard dr Johnson observe as to the Universities, bad practice does not infer that the constitution is bad. Boswell. Life of Johnson. (1791)

Lucy ... reseated herself with an alacrity and cheerfulness which seemed to infer that she could taste no great delight. Austen. Sense and Sensibility. (1811)

Again, this just shows that the personal use of infer kept developing and was used by great writers. The MWDEU also notes that these uses of infer are not exactly of the same meaning as imply. It means more hint, suggest than imply.

These meanings and the usage of the two words remained uncontroversial until 1917, when the peevers decided that a different distinction needed to be made than the one that had developed over the years. Nothing too much wrong with that, I suppose. Though in the past hundred years or so, infer has more and more merged with imply as a synonym. Now, whether this is a result of normal linguistic change or whether the usage mavens have confused things by trying to restrict the meaning (noted in the dictionaries all along) of infer as the flip-side of imply would probably make a good study.

And, FWIW, Kalleh did tack on a smile to imply she was joking. now, where did I put my salt-shaker?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
This has been discussed in great detail here, with some claiming that, because the meaning of infer "to draw a conclusion" is only about a century old, and prior to that "infer" and "imply" were synonyms, it cannot be claimed that it is now wrong to use infer as a synonym for imply.

I hope you're not talking about me, because I never said that you couldn't claim it was wrong. Claiming that something is right or wrong is an opinion. What I don't like is getting the facts wrong - saying that "word X does not mean Y", when word X demonstrably does mean Y.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
But as has also been suggested many times on this board, language changes and eventually changes that were once wrong eventaully become correct.

What's happened in this case seems to be equal parts language change and change in the opinion of usage commentators.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

infer do not confuse with imply; to infer is to draw a conclusion from a suggestion, to imply is to make the suggestion.
The Times Style and Usage Guide

Take it up with The Times if you reckon they're wrong.

I wish I'd never bothered to try to make a simple observation about the previous discussion. "Infer and imply" will obviously have to be added to that list of things - like art - that cannot be discussed on this board for fear of causing apoplexy amongst some contributors.

Richard, I'm willing to bet that every single person on this board uses "imply" and "infer" exactly the same way that you do. I certainly use them that way. The only difference is that we accept, as do the dictionaries, that a substantial number of people use "infer" as a synonym for "imply" and that they are not actually wrong to do so.

If they are not "actually wrong to do so", then their prose or speech is likely to be unclear or misleading, perhaps purposely so. Why would I ever "imply" something when I could "infer" it instead and have the added cache of having you think I may be basing this implication on evidence.

I'm willing to bet that every single person on this board uses "imply" and "infer" exactly the same way that you do. I certainly use them that way. The only difference is that we accept, as do the dictionaries, that a substantial number of people use "infer" as a synonym for "imply" and that they are not actually wrong to do so.

Thank you very much, Bob. Yes, the fact that I agree in my usage of imply and infer with the usage mavens does not mean that i agree with them about the wrongness of people who don't.

quote:

The only difference is that we accept, as do the dictionaries, that a substantial number of people use "infer" as a synonym for "imply" and that they are not actually wrong to do so.

So. When is misuse wrong? If I decide that from now on I am going to use the word "treacleface" instead of "car". because I think it's right - should you correct me? And if I were to use a more commnon error and decide that "their" "there" and "they're" all going to be spelt "there" from now on (as do many others) is that wrong?

When is it permissable to correct an error, if all linguistic errors are simply a matter of preference, not a matter of right and wrong?

When is misuse wrong?

A good question. When it is recent and fairly rare. At some point calling the imply sense of infer wrong, even though it has been used for between one and two hundred years. Also, when the word had from its very beginnings in English been used with two different meanings, it makes me feel that those who are crying abuse don't really know what they're talking about, but merely repeating somebody else's opinion without have reflected carefully or thoughtfully on the matter at hand.

quote:

When is misuse wrong?

We are discussing usage here. Misuse is by definition wrong. Bob said

quote:

that a substantial number of people use "infer" as a synonym for "imply"

(My emphasis.) He didn't say they were misusing it.

Let me try a different example. For the vast majority of people the word "while" means "for the duration of". However, in some northern British dialects it is commonly used to mean "until". So "just wait while your dad gets home" would, for those dialects be both grammatical and sensible. There is of course a potential confusion.
"Wait while the lights are red." would, in this usage, have the opposite meaning to it's conventional one and could result in people driving through red lights and stopping at green ones.

Nevertheless I do not recall ever coming across a single case of this happening. No one has been killed because of a mistaken usage of "while" at a traffic light.

Differences of usage do not create anarchy.

quote:

"Wait while the lights are red."

Has anyone actually said that?

quote:

Originally posted by Myth Jellies:
If they are not "actually wrong to do so", then their prose or speech is likely to be unclear or misleading, perhaps purposely so. Why would I ever "imply" something when I could "infer" it instead and have the added cache of having you think I may be basing this implication on evidence.

The infer that is objected to is the "personal infer". zjmežd provides some quotes above. It is only used in the third person, and means "hint, suggest". It's possible that you might find some examples with personal infer that are ambiguous. But ambiguity is everywhere. Ambiguity in language is a feature, not a bug.

I would venture that no modern official publications (such as driving tests and laws) use "while" in this fashion. If your presumption is that your words are only meant for your own little enclave of folk with a similar dialect or slang then you all can do whatever. If that is all you can do for communication, then the internet fueled society that can more effectively exchange ideas will leave your backwoods babbling in the dust--hope you enjoy subsistence farming, etc.

If there is a measure of communication effectiveness in deciding whether a particular word usage is right or wrong, then there are circumstances where that usage is wrong even if the dictionary allows for it. If you use "inflammable" to mean "not flammable", or if you use "moot" to mean "debatable" when you cannot tell from the context that it also might mean "irrelevant", or using "infer" to mean "imply" when it could also mean "deduce", is bad usage in many contexts, though not necessarily all contexts

If there is a measure of communication effectiveness in deciding whether a particular word usage is right or wrong, then there are circumstances where that usage is wrong even if the dictionary allows for it.

This argument cuts both ways. I have never heard anybody utter decimate where they meant to reduce a force by one-tenth as a punishment for some infraction. It always means to 'destroy completely' or 'annihilate'. The problem with almost all of the constructions that people peeve about is that it is perfectly obvious what somebody means, otherwise you could not correct them. If it were ambiguous you would have to do what anybody does when there's is ambiguity (which is quite often) in what somebody says. You would have to ask questions to clarify their statement and its intended meaning. That's what communication is about.

Boy, did I mess up. I was kidding (did you see the wink?) about the "infer" comment. I forgot...there are some things you can't kid about here (I won't specify them!). So sorry, and really...I didn't mean to "hijack" the thread as z said here.

quote:

Has anyone actually said that?

It's very common in the north of England. Most southerners would not understand it the first time they hear it - but of course, that could be said about any unfamiliar word or usage.

I recall when I called my then head office in Colne, Lancashire, and asked to speak to someone. "He's away while Thursday" came the response. After some discussion I discovered that the girl meant "He's away until Thursday".

Whether to try to correct such local usage is the tricky question; by most standards it is wrong - but then, so is much local slang and jargon. My own feeling is that one should only offer a correction to a usage that is written and in a respectable publication - and not used deliberately as slang or jargon.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
If there is a measure of communication effectiveness in deciding whether a particular word usage is right or wrong, then there are circumstances where that usage is wrong even if the dictionary allows for it.

This argument cuts both ways. I have never heard anybody utter decimate where they meant to reduce a force by one-tenth as a punishment for some infraction. It always means to 'destroy completely' or 'annihilate'. The problem with almost all of the constructions that people peeve about is that it is perfectly obvious what somebody means, otherwise you could not correct them. If it were ambiguous you would have to do what anybody does when there's is ambiguity (which is quite often) in what somebody says. You would have to ask questions to clarify their statement and its intended meaning. That's what communication is about.

It is my intent that this argument cuts both ways. When everyone understands it and it is easy to read there should be no issue. Peeving about "decimate" especially does not make sense since there really is no use-case for the older definition in modern conversation.

As for the rest, you don't always have the opportunity to ask for clarification. In those cases, in some contexts (journalism, scientific writing, etc.), effective communication has not occurred.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Myth Jellies,

I'm not quite with zm on this one. While I don't believe that 'decimate' can only mean 'kill one-tenth of', I feel that it should be used to mean 'destroy a large part of', but not 'destroy entirely' or 'annihilate'.

Agreed, arnie. I have mostly seen it used to mean "destroy a large part of...."

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
I'm not quite with zm on this one. While I don't believe that 'decimate' can only mean 'kill one-tenth of', I feel that it should be used to mean 'destroy a large part of', but not 'destroy entirely' or 'annihilate'.

M-W has

quote:

3 a: to reduce drastically especially in number
b: to cause great destruction or harm to

MWDEU has this quote from 1859:

quote:

... severe frost set in ... and my field of turnips was absolutely decimated; scarce a root was left untouched

Where's the line between "destroy a large part of" and "destroy entirely"?

As for the rest, you don't always have the opportunity to ask for clarification. In those cases, in some contexts (journalism, scientific writing, etc.), effective communication has not occurred.

Certainly true. If you are reading a book or listening to a recording, there may be no way to ask for clarification. I would just like to point out once again that perfectly grammatical sentences may be poorly written vis-a-vis effective communication. Learning how to write well is something that takes place after one has learned the language in which she wishes to communicate effectively. Most normative grammarians either do not give the reasons why they proscribe some form or meaning or, if they do, they more often get it wrong than right. Most normative grammarians seem woefully and willingly ignorant of the grammar of their language. They confuse style, punctuation, and spelling with grammar. For instance, many who proscribe the passive voice, cannot identify this grammatical form correctly, and therefore simply confuse the novice and irritate the true grammarian.

I agree, z. I have seen some tortuous writing when people insist on not ending sentences with prepositions or not to using the passive voice (how many times can you say "the investigators found" or the researchers conducted"?), etc.

On the other hand, a really good editor can make my writing so much better because I always struggle with being too verbose and not clear enough. There is a fine line in editing. I've found the more amateurish ones to be the sticklers on stupid rules, while the more seasoned book or article editors to make my words sound magical.

I agree, too.

Many prescriptivists tend to cite lack of clarity as the reason for their dislike of a particular usage. In almost all cases there is no risk of confusion; the reader can tell by the context what is intended.

There is an art to clear writing, but it can't be learned from their 'grammar' books.

quote:

Where's the line between "destroy a large part of" and "destroy entirely"?

The line is simple enough: when none are left that's complete destruction; when one or more is left, that's destruction of a large part of.

Both The Times Style and Usage Guide and the COED suggest that the word "decimate" should never be used to indicate total destruction. Both alwso agree that the original and accurate meaning is to destroy one in ten but accept that usage has extended the meaning to indicate the destruction of a large nunber. Both references suggest caution in the use of the verb in the newer sense.

Why do we not use "annihilate" or "eradicate" instead of decimate, when we want to talk about massive, or near total, destruction?

a really good editor can make my writing so much better

Indeed. I am not suggesting that we should get rid of editors. It's just that good editing, like good writing, is a craft that one needs to practice and hone. The ability to write well does not come out of books like Lynne Truss' or Strunk & White's. It comes from reading good authors and bad and comparing how they express themselves. This is the difference, in a nutshell, between the descriptive (or empirical) school and the prescriptive (or ad hoc) one.

As for decimate, I would tend not to use it to mean annihilate. All I was saying is that some people use it to mean just that.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

Where's the line between "destroy a large part of" and "destroy entirely"?

The line is simple enough: when none are left that's complete destruction; when one or more is left, that's destruction of a large part of.

Both The Times Style and Usage Guide and the COED suggest that the word "decimate" should never be used to indicate total destruction.

I find this interesting, because I don't see this "destroy entirely" definition in M-W or the OED. Some citations in MWDEU or the OED might be interpreted as meaning "destroy entirely", but it's not clear.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

I don't see this "destroy entirely" definition in M-W or the OED

I was thinking about this on the way to work yesterday, and it dawned on me that I have never heard it used this way, I had just accepted the very normative grammarians' word for it that some people did abuse it this way. I realized that one would have to spend some time researching its use (or looking in the literature to see if others had already done the heavy lifting).

I also contemplated constructions such as destroy, destroy completely, and decimate entirely. It seems that, while they are grammatical, one could make the argument that (much like quite unique or the very best) that logically they make no sense. (At least that is what I assume those people who disapprove of nay qualification of unique are on about.)

Z, some while ago you and I discussed "framing" of arguments, and you averred that whoever frames a given argument has pretty much won it from the get-go. Isn't using a word in an etymologically inaccurate way in a sense framing it?

Isn't using a word in an etymologically inaccurate way in a sense framing it?

No, because etymology, the study of word origins, has literally nothing to do with a word's current meaning(s). This even has a name now: the etymological fallacy. Even in Latin decimo had more than one meaning, 'to select every tenth man by lot for punishment; to cause to pay, or collect, tithes; to select the tenth part of something as an offering'. When decimate is first used in English, it is not the punishment sense of the word that was brought along, but the tithing part. But, you are on to something. I have always been a little reticent about my insisting that grammar be used to mean what it has traditionally meant rather than what usage mavens want it to mean. I know that grammar has multiple meanings, but I don't want to let the normative grammarians frame the argument. Of course, I am fighting a losing battle.