In is proper to use infer to mean imply?

I'd alway understood that that usage was emphatically wrong. My teeth gnashed when newspaper said, "These are litigious times, so if you want to keep customers away from a competing product, just infer that they might get sued for using it." I dashed off an e-mail to the author, with scathing condescension, and clicked up some dictionary links to show him the error of his ways.

Was I ever surprised! AHD and M-W each, in defining infer, include imply among the meanings.

AHD: 3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.

M-W: 3b: to point out : INDICATE <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him -- Shakespeare> <another survey... infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves -- H. R. Chellman>
4: SUGGEST, HINT <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>

AHD's usage note proceeds to suggest that this is a poor use of infer. But M-W's says (at the bottom) that it is a long and honorable usage and was made "without comment until some time around the end of World War I."

How do you feel about infer being used to mean imply?

Quote "...How do you feel about infer being used to mean imply?..."

Unecessary since we already have perfectly good words already including imply and suggest. We do not, though, have very many words meaning "to draw a conclusion".

OED says "disp imply or suggest" and adds a usage note: the use of infer in sense 2 is considered incorrect by many people since it is the reverse of the primary sense of the verb. It should be avoided by using imply or suggest.

To hear infer used in place of imply does offend me: it makes me imagine that the user is thick or ill-educated. I just can't stop myself and it makes me feel no better than the members of the APS message board for intolerance.

I know full well dictionaries are ambiguous over the matter. I know that it was a Tom Sharpe telly programme that first brought the two words to my intention. I know that i despise grammatical fascism, but I just can't help myself.

Unecessary since we already have perfectly good words already including imply and suggest. We do not, though, have very many words meaning "to draw a conclusion".
But, that's not the point, Richard. You might not have to use "infer" for "imply," but the question was: Is it wrong when people do?

We have discussed this here at various times before, including in Pet Peeves. I agree with the usage note in AHD. It quite clearly shows the difference. I think it is wrong of the dictionaries to cite "infer" as a definition for "imply" merely because people use it that way. It's the same as arnie's dislike of the now-wrong use of "moot." Just because people use a word mistakenly shouldn't mean that the definition should change.

Quote, "...Just because people use a word mistakenly shouldn't mean that the definition should change...."

Sadly, although I would like to be able to agree with you, all lexicographers will surely agree that it is the job of a dictionary to reflect usage. When a change has become well-enough established then dictionaries will reflect the fact and, eventually, the old usage maybe even disappear.

This is a continuous process and examples of where it is currently happening include the change of the plural of "agendum" from "agenda" to "agendas" and the additional meaning of "verbal" (to do with words) of being a simile for "oral" (spoken as opposed to written).

I think that infer/imply are still sufficiently distinct that a strong case can be made for the rejection of "infer" as a simile for "imply". Equally I think it is right for dictionaries to note this current shift in meaning.

I think it is wrong of the dictionaries to cite "infer" as a definition for "imply" merely because people use it that way.

Well, I think it's wrong of you to be upset by the evolution of language. Like it or not people use infer where you and I would use imply. Folks just plain do it, and I don't have a problem with folks who do or dictionaries that note the usage.

Sigh, language changes. There ain't nothing you can do about it. It's interesting that though I hear people use infer for imply all the time, I have never heard one use imply for infer. Maybe there's something henky about implication.

a strong case can be made for the rejection of "infer" as a simile for "imply".

I think of similes as being a rhetorical device that use like or as, but maybe yours is a different usage. No sweat. I think of verbal as having to do with verbs, but that is just another meaning of the word. Also, I think of oral as having to do with the mouths, but of course this is just another meaning of the word, and I don't think that Kalleh or Richard would object to it. An oral surgeon is not somebody who speaks a lot during surgery. Also, I don't think that people who say infer for imply would say a verbal surgeon. That agenda should get reanalysed over time to be a singular is only natural. Same with data. Data and agenda look like singulars, and for people who don't know any Latin, they may very well be. It makes sense.

It's all so hopeless.

When you hint without being explicit,
You 'imply', leaving matters 'implicit'.
And though some folks prefer
To use here 'infer',
With such trash I will not be complicit.

(Their usage is wholly illicit.)

Quote "...I think of similes as being a rhetorical device that use like or as, but maybe yours is a different usage...."

Actually you're right and I was simply being careless or maybe casual. The word I should rather have used is synonym.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:
Like it or not people use infer where you and I would use imply. Folks just plain do it...

---

People also pick their noses - doesn't make it right.

And Hic, well done. Hang on to that one and we should be ready for it in a decade or two.

People also pick their noses - doesn't make it right.

I'd say that wrong is too strong a word. A bit vulgar perhaps. Like reciting risqué limericks in mixed company. But one person's fetish is another's paperweight.

Well, I think it's wrong of you to be upset by the evolution of language.

jheem, I didn't intend to indicate that I was upset. I just don't think it is accurate to use "infer" and "imply" as synonyms....much like you don't think it is accurate to use the word "epicaricacy." I have learned from this site that we all have our language idiosyncracies.

As far as language changing, I love the coming of new words (e.g. "epicaricacy") or coinages (see that thread). However, I don't like to see words that have been used correctly for years having their definition changed because some people, who aren't aware of the distinctions, begin to use the words differently (i.e., "infer" for "imply").

I am not saying that I am upset about this...I just disagree with it.

You're more than free to use epicaricacy to mean either infer or imply. The thing about the e-word is that if you use it people won't know what you're talking about, until you explain it to them, and then you could have easily used the Sch-word. Also, looking it up in a dictionary, they'd be left clueless as well. Now if somebody uses infer when then mean imply, I can understand exactly what they mean even though their choice of words was bad. In fact, it's because of this that I think the lexicographers are more than just in including this new (mis)usage of infer in the entry for same. I feel the same way about a person using infer for imply as I do when somebody says that "to air is human", rather than "to err ...".

There's a word to describe situations
Where a speaker has made implications.
Here's a rule that's eternal:
"'Infer' is infernal,"
Deserving extreme execrations.

Forbear any rude contradiction.
Submit on this matter of diction.
The speaker's implying.
If you say 'infer', I am
Thundering down malediction.

Blame it all on Saint Sir Thomas More (the original fool in Erasmus' Encomium).

Erasmus' Encomium or Erasmus's Encomium?

I have seen both versions.

Well, I personally have standardized on the following rule: a simple apostrophe for the possessive if the name ends in an ess. This, no doubt, is wrong and bad, and for that I am shamed, but it's what I learned in grammar school, and it works for me. If I could afford one, I'd employ an editor for my online postings. (Donations are hugely appreciated.) I suppose Encomium Moræ Desiderii Erasmi could also be used. Oh, and by the way in case it's not obvious:

Quote "...Well, I personally have standardized on the following rule: a simple apostrophe for the possessive if the name ends in an ess..."

But Erasmus doesn't end in "ess"!

The rule I learnt was that words ending in "s sounded vowel s" such as Jesus, Xerses, and of course, Erasmus could take a single apostrophe after the s.

Words ending in "s silent vowel s", such as James, Charles must take "s apostrophe s" (James's, Charles's)

I also heard that the apostrophisation of words like Jesus could done either way (Jesus' or Jesus's)

It's been a topic a great debate on this board in the past.

I meant es: the name of the letter 's'. I've heard of your rule, but it doesn't move me, and I stand by mine. Erasmus ends in an s. However the leter is pronounced, /s/ or /z/ or /Iz/, it's good enough for me. BTW, it's Xerxes.

Sorry about Xerxes. That was just a typo.

And I disagree with the practice, now very common in the USA, of always apostrophising a word ending in "s" as if it were a plural - the more so since I have actually heard Americans write something like "...The boss' office..." (when they mean "...The boss's office...") but still prounounce it as "bossez".

I see no reason for treating singular words ending in an "s" differently from singlular words ending in any other letter. And nobody has yet managed to give a convincing reason for the practice.

jheem, quite happily, you missed our first discussion of the Brit's "s's" versus the American's "s'." My daughter's law professor actually took points off her final exam when she wrote "Charles' case." Obviously, her professor was from England! I have to admit that I have been persuaded to the English way, based on the fact that you really do say "Charleses case." However, we do accept both ways on this site.

In fact, it's because of this that I think the lexicographers are more than just in including this new (mis)usage of infer in the entry for same. I feel the same way about a person using infer for imply as I do when somebody says that "to air is human", rather than "to err ...". Really?

Blame it all on Saint Sir Thomas
That was an excellent link and explained a lot. In fact, while Saint Sir Thomas was the first to publish using those 2 words, he was also the first to use infer to mean imply. Interesting! It wasn't until WWI that people started to criticize that use. Hmmmm.....that changes my mind. I give. You are right, jheem.

Really?

Yes, both A-H and M-W still list my preferred pronunciation (A-H 1st, M-W 2nd), along with the execrable one.

Hmmmm ... that changes my mind. I give. You are right, jheem.

Now, if I could just convince you of the e-word.

Funny that you call it the "e-word." I guess you see it as akin to the "F-word."

I go back and forth over that e-word. I suppose intellectually I think that you are right about it. However, there is much more to my brain than intellectualism, unfortunately! In fact, I had a dream (I hope there are no psychiatrists here!) where I was kidnapped by terrorists...and escaped. When the media started questioning me, I said, "You wouldn't believe the 'epicaricacy' I experienced," whereupon they all ran to their dictionaries. I told them to check Tsuwm's WWFTD, and they reported the word around the world. At that point, it began to be regularly used and soon was added to the OED.

Strange, I know!

That's almost scary enough to trigger an expletive using the G word!

gosh!

golly!

In our local paper there is a regular column by QT on word and language related things. In fact, he has cited us before, and I do believe he reads us periodically, as evidenced from the following that was published yesterday:

Someone had said that Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary states that it is acceptable to say "data is." Here is his response:

"Put it this way: Take your dictionary. Look up "data." If it says "data is" is OK, then throw away the dictionary. The same goes for any dictionary that says 'infer' is the same as 'imply.'

But this is yet another case of the natural evolution of the language. I totally agree with the importance of keeping the distinction between "imply" and "infer" even though, admittedly, I have erred on this very point myself over the years. Regardless of what the history of the two words may be or (especially) how frequently they may be misused today, "imply" is "imply" and "infer" is "infer" and never the twain shall meet and if it does, yes, by all means toss out the offending dictionary.

But "data" is another matter. "Data" used to exclusively mean "more than one datum" or, in short, "facts." In this sense, of course "The data is..." is obviously incorrect.

BUT the word "data" has morphed into "information" and, as such, "The data is..." is flawless. People who make a habit of pointing out this mistake, very often loudly and with people they barely know, mightly rightly be seen as being overly pedantic. I know I avoid them simply by never using the word "data" when "information" will do.


And am I the only one who wonders if this aspect of the English language might have evolved differently had the white-faced android on Star Trek been named, say, "Epicaricacy"?

if this aspect of the English language might have evolved differently had the white-faced android on Star Trek been named, say, "Epicaricacy"?
Oh, wouldn't that have been nice? Someday.... CJ, if you become wildly famous with your OEDILF project, you have to promise me to use "epicaricacy," quite innocently, in one of your interviews.

Speaking of becoming famous, I sent QT an e-mail describing the OEDILF project. Hopefully he will give it some press.

I guess it boils down to your definition of what a dictionary is. If it's a book that describes how language is (or has been) used, or a tool for proscribing how the lexicographer wishes the language be used. Some people use to infer as a synonym for to imply. This whole infer/imply thing is just so shorthand for grumbling how Enlgish (or language X for that matter) has gone to hell in a handbasket (i.e., changed somewhat since I was a youngling in shortpants). Folks for whom infer/imply are synonymous simple hold their conversation and are done with it. Sticklers and the former have a conversation that soon breaks down into open hosility. That's why sticklers are so upset by the change of language, they perfectly understand what the other person is saying but cannot bring themselves to admit it. Same for youse, you guys, or you all as the informal second person plural pronoun.

It seems to me a strange person who would throw a dictionary away, but if you or QT want to do so, I can forward you my shipping address. Send me a private email.

No, jheem, I am not going to throw away my dictionary...and I imagine neither is QT. You make a good point, and I am going to send him your response.

I think it all boils down to educating people the correct use of language in the first place.