Unfortunately, in a letter to our organization, we were described as "disingenuous". IMHO, they are all-wet in their analysis. Regardless, I find this word interesting.

"Ingenuous", itself, is fascinating when I read the various definitions. Some definitions are almost negative, such as "acting in cunning, guile, or worldliness; artless"; yet others are laudatory, such as "noble, honorable or high-minded".

So, no wonder there has been confusion about "disingenuous". AHD says, "The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means 'insincere' and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating." What do you consider the meaning of "disingenuous" to be?

A simple litmus test: When someone says something to you and your initial response is "Who do you think you're kidding?!" that person is being disingenuous.

A case in point: A HUGELY lucrative contract dealing with the restoration of the Iraqi oil industry was awarded to the very same company that Vice President Cheney had headed. When asked why this matter wasn't opened up to a competitive bid, as is usually the case with any spending of government funds, the official answer was that no answer could be given due to matters of secrecy and national security. This struck me as being disingenuous to a criminal degree.


Or, on a more humorous note, a recent David Letterman line had the Iraqi Information Minister explaining to the world that they were just taking down all the statues of Saddam Hussein for cleaning. Disingenuous to the max.

I agree with the meaning "insincere" but I've always taken it - and used it - with the additional implication of "deliberately and misleadingly insincere", especially when the truth is being told as a prop to that insincerity.

For example (and I'm parphrasing from memory here) today Tony Blair was talking about the fact that so far no weapons of mass destruction have been found and still no links to terrorist networks.

He said something like

"Of course I can't say for certain that these links exist but I will say that we don't have all the evidence yet and I am confident that when we do have the evidence we will see the links."

It's disingenuous because (apart from the patent insincerity) it's still suggesting that the links exist in the same breath as admitting that the evidence doesn't.


It would also be disingenuos if someone asked you if you had made you mind up yet and you said "well there's a lot to consider" when in fact you had already decided.

That's how I use the word anyway and as always I'm with Humpty on the subject of meaning.

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

The confusion over "disingenuous" may be because ingenuous can easily be confused with ingenious, which in quite different; indeed it is nearly opposite. One of the dictionaries notes: "[Formerly] printers did not discriminate between . . . ingenuous and ingenious, and these words were used or rather printed interchangeably almost to the beginning of the eighteenth century. -- G. P. Marsh."

Even Shakespeare used ingenuous to mean ingenious:

quote:

---

if their sons be ingenuous, they shall want no instruction; if their daughters be capable, I will put it to them: but vir sapit qui pauca loquitur; a soul feminine saluteth us.
-- Love's Labor Lost, Act IV Scene 2

---

I can't tell you whether Shakespeare erred, or rather was putting a malaprop in his character's mouth.

Can someone translate the Latin, and perhaps tell us whether it's a classical reference?

Wise is the person who talks little.

or

It is a wise man who speaks little.

It seems to convey the meaning, "Man understands that which he seldom says," although I must agree with TrossL's more literal translation.

quote:

---

Even Shakespeare used ingenuous to mean ingenious:

---

This text, at least, uses "ingenious":

quote:

---

HOLOFERNES: Mehercle! if their sons be ingenious, they shall want no instruction; if their daughters be capable, I will put it to them; but, vir sapit qui pauca loquitur. A soul feminine saluteth us.

---

The usual translation of the Latin proverb is "It is a wise man who speaks little".

Interesting, arnie. We're citing two different on-line versions of the same text: the site you cited reads ingenious; in the site I read (scroll down to Scene 2) the text reads ingenuous. (The text is at the part of the scene immediately before Jaquenetta and Costard enter.) I'm not able to find anything on the conflict.

Well, I went to an actual book, "The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare, The Complete Works Annotated" and it is printed ingenious in my copy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrossL:
Well, I went to an actual book, "The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare, The Complete Works Annotated" and it is printed _ingenious_ in my copy.

---

I have two hard copy editions. Both of them give it as "ingenuous".

The mystery deepens. What did he actually write ?

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Went to check my paper-and-ink copy, but it's the same edition as TrossL has, and so adds no new "authority" for ingenious. The AHD reference site, which appears to be taking the Oxford Shakespeare as its Shakespeare, gives ingenuous.

I'm not familiar with this play, but noticed a couple of things that might tie in. First, the character speaking whatever-word-it-is is very enamoured with wordplay: he's the same one who, just a few lines earlier, went through the sore/sorel-prick/pricket punning noted in this site a few months ago.

Second, according to a search of the same source that gave shufitz the word ingenuous, Shakespeare's plays nowhere else use that word -- but use ingenious nine times.
-- some of these instances seem to be in the sense of ingenious: skillful, inventive.
-- but in Richard III Shakespeare clearly seems to be using ingenious to mean ingenuous: openly straightforward: "'tis a parlous boy; / Bold, quick, ingenious, forward, capable."

Curiouser and curiouser.

[This message was edited by wordnerd on Wed Apr 30th, 2003 at 16:25.]

...if their sons be ingenious, they shall want no instuctions...

From "William Shakespeare: The Complete Works"
Copyright 1975 by Random House

I'd have thought the web would have a discussion of this, and am seriously disappointed not to find one.

Praiseworthy phraseworthy
Wordcraft Shakespeareans,
This is a scholarly
Gem you've discerned.

Thanks to our casual
Collegiality,
Many and wonderful
Things I have learned.

Hic, how wonderful.

Does anyone know the answer to this yet? If not, I am going to contact a Shakespearean expert at the University of Chicago. I am curious!

Instead of contacting a university scholar I decided first to try the Web. I have asked the question on a site, though I haven't heard yet.

In the process of looking, I came across this site about the play. I thought the word "honorificabilitudinitatibus" interesting. However, the next discussion about the comma (???) really struck a chord for this site!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
However, the next discussion about the comma (???) really struck a chord for this site!

---

Yes, Kalleh, that is interesting. The "comma" is an apostrophe.

Tinman

To me, disingenous is more than just insincere: it has overtones of "acting the innocent".

If someone says something dull to me and I say "that's really interesting" in a bored way, then I am insincere (and maybe sarcastic) but I'm not disingenous.

When Bill Clinton said "I never had sex with that woman", that was dishonest (although true according to his previously-submitted definition of "sex") but still not disingenuous. When he said that he had taken legal advice, and he really thought he could say that and not mislead anyone, that was disingenous.

First, welcome to our site, Pauld! It is wonderful having someone else from U.K.!

I agree with your distinction. However, when all of that developed, I was probably the only person in America who agreed with Mr. Clinton's definition of "having sex". To me, "having sex" means sexual intercourse, period--end of story. But then I am very much a "literalist".

Welcome, pauld! A nice thought.

quote:

---

To me, disingenous is more than just insincere: it has overtones of "acting the innocent".

---

I was about to disagree, but realized that I as thinking of the wrong definition of "innocent".

I'd say that a "disingenuous" person is not one feigning that he is a naif, unsophisticated and unwordly (one sense of "innocent"), but he is necessarily feiging to be "free of evil intent" (another sense of "innocent", as "an innocent remark"). Adding to my confusion, I first tried to conceptualize this by substituting "guileless" for innocent, but of course "guileless" has both of these meanings.

Kalleh, thank you, that's a BIG welcome!

As for sex, I seem to remember that Bill C's lawyer's definition made it sex if his lips touched her breasts or genitalia, but not if hers touched his.

Seems very inequitable, but does explain the cigar. (Not, perhaps that it needed explaining.)

My apologies that that my fourth ever posting here seems to be entirely about sex! Very unbritish.

Paul.

Wordnerd, yes, I think someone being disingenuous has to falsely have something of the wide-eyed innocent about them.

Am I allowed to split my infinitives here?

It is permissible, nay encouraged, to freely split.

"That is a criticism up with which we shall not put!" --attributed to Winston Churchill (although in response to complaint about a different putative grammatical transgression, which shall remain nameless)

quote:

---

Am I allowed to split my infinitives here?

---

Infinitive splitting is allowed, if done discreetly, but you are cautioned to diligently try to not get any drops of infinitive juice on the upholstery of Mr. English's Rolls.

Thanks for asking.

~~~ jerry

Regarding splitting infinitives, to simply split an infinitive like this is common enough and is seen as a problem only to the most chronically constipated pedants. But to, for the sake of proving some nebulous point, for example, split an infinitive this way is, I believe, what should be avoided.

Regarding the Shakespeare ingenious/ingenuous question, after I'm through with the OED maybe I'll rewrite the Bard's work. Especially considering the fact that he coined so many words himself, there are far too many misspellings. Plus that whole "Romeo and Juliet" thing was such an obvious rip-off of "West Side Story."


(Can I assume that I've gone sufficiently over the top here to allow everyone to realize that I'm joking and that irate responses need not be made?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:
such an obvious rip-off of "West Side Story." (Can I assume everyone realizes that I'm joking and that irate responses need not be made?)

---

"Tonight, tonight, won't be just any night ..." [evil grin ]

quote:

---

Plus that whole "Romeo and Juliet" thing was such an obvious rip-off of "West Side Story."

---

And of course as most people know the whole of The Tempest was blatently ripped off from Forbidden Planet.
I don't know why people go on admiring such a plagiarist.

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Just to keep everyone updated, I am still searching the Web for an answer to our Shakespeare question about the use of "ingenious" or "ingenuous" in "Love's Labor Lost", Act IV, Scene 2.

I have sent e-mails to some Shakespeare sites, but I have not received an answer. Yesterday I found a Shakespeare forum, and I posted the question. Of course, this is that lazy way. I suppose I should contact an expert at a university. I just thought the answer would be easy. No such luck! Does anyone here know any Shakespearean experts?

Okay, finally I have gotten 2 answers. Make of them what you will:

First:

"One of the central problems of Shakespeare scholarship is the fact that Shakespeare seems never to have taken any interest in the publication of his plays, and so the original printed versions are often corrupt. We often don't know what Shakespeare originally wrote and modern editors have to choose between alternative texts. I don't have copies of the LLL quartos, but I assume that either

a) the original 1595 printed version has 'ingenuous', a later version has 'ingenious' and modern editors differ as to which one they think is right.

or

b) the 1595 quarto (the first printed version) has ingenuous, and some modern editors have decided this must be a misprint and change it, others leave it as it originally appeared."

Second:

"The Yale Shakespeare edition has ingenuous and there are no text notes saying that it was ever anything but that. My facsimile edition of the First Folio has 'ingennous'; not much help there. If it helps at all, the Latin translates to 'that man is wise who speaks little.'"

Perhaps I should invite this guy to our board...

I got another reply from the Shakespeare board who correctly says, "Ingenuous and ingenious, in their obsolete definitions, which Shakespeare probably intended, don't differ by much in meaning anyway."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Perhaps I should invite this guy to our board...

I got another reply from the Shakespeare board who correctly says, "Ingenuous and ingenious, in their obsolete definitions, which Shakespeare probably intended, don't differ by much in meaning anyway."

---

Actually that's a very good point. We ought to be looking not at what the words mean now but what they meant at the time they were written. Many Shakespearean words have subsequently changed their meaning.
The TES does a weekly article about it. Many of these articles can be found here.

I didn't find ingenuous/ingenious though.

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

quote:

---

I got another reply from the Shakespeare board who correctly says, "Ingenuous and ingenious, in their obsolete definitions, which Shakespeare probably intended, don't differ by much in meaning anyway."

---

I'm just a little skeptical about that "obsolete" usage, at least until we find out whether it was current in Shakespeare's day, and if whether it was the only meaning or an common alternate meaning. It could be that the old authors being cited for that old usage were, like many today, confused persons who misused the term.

Thanks, guys. I posted your responses on that Shakespearean board. It is rather fun having an interboard dialogue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Thanks, guys. I posted your responses on that Shakespearean board. It is rather fun having an interboard dialogue.

---

What a WONDERFUL idea Kalleh! I'm glad you posted it there!

We definitely have a nice thread going on this Shakespearean site. BTW, the site is.
Unfortuntely, it is one of those annoying sites with a lot of pop-ups and ads.

The most recent response was from Mister 4D on that site:

"Something occured to me after my last post. As I said, my First Folio facsimile has 'ingennous'. In all probability, when the printer was compositting the page, he accidently put a 'u' in upside down, making it look like an 'n'. Thus, 'ingennous' should read 'ingenuous'."

Gee, I couldn't find compositting in the AHD. Is that kind of like babysitting a kid with a dirty diaper (filled with "compost")? Of course, some kids can be considered "compost", with or without a dirty diaper. Some adults, too! (Not you, of course.)

Tinman

I know, Tinman. I had the same thought. However, since I was quoting him, I thought I should leave it like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I know, Tinman. I had the same thought. However, since I was quoting him, I thought I should leave it like that.

---

Yes, you were right to leave the quote as it was. If you had corrected it, you would be misquoting. Often sic in parentheses is added after the mispelled word or gramatical mistake to show that it was not your mistake. I believe it's Latin. Maybe someone can help me out here.

Tinman

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I know, Tinman. I had the same thought. However, since I was quoting him, I thought I should leave it like that.

---

Yes, you were right to leave the quote as it was. If you had corrected it, you would be misquoting. Often sic in parentheses is added after the mispelled word or gramatical mistake to show that it was not your mistake. I believe it's Latin. Maybe someone can help me out here.
Tinman

---

It's just Latin for "so" or "thus" and used this way means exactly as you said. It indicates "this is meant as written".

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

From the paper:

quote:

---

There is no way on earth that a woman as intelligent as Hillary Clinton could not understand the true character of her husband. He loves adulation, and he loves women. You don't need a Ph.D. to add it up.

So for Hillary Clinton to claim she was shocked and awed by her husband's admission in the Lewinsky affair is disingenuous. If she didn't have suspicions in this matter, do we really want her protecting us from the al-Qaida?

---

Shufitz, let me remind you, and your source, that often love is blind (perhaps you should be glad about that! ). I completely believe Hillary.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Jun 18th, 2003 at 20:22.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
... often love is blind ...

---

... and deaf and dumb!

Tinman

Disingenuous

Tinman