Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I revere the late and lamented Jack Kilpatrick, author of two weekly syndicated columns that I read for years. I enjoyed both Following the Courts and The Writer's Art. But occasionally I made free to disagree with him on some of his opinions in the latter. One of them is about "arguably".
A recurring theme in his columns was the proposed elimination of wishy-washy words that modify without actually saying anything. To write that a play is "rather good" is not to say very much about it: Why not just say it's good? What does "rather" add? The same for "pretty good" and a few others.
Now, I haven't agreed to expunge those words from my vocabulary; I'm 'way too cautious with my praise, and my condemnation, and hardly ever say something is good or bad without lots of hedging and qualification. It's a character flaw, I'm sure. But I have taken the message to heart, tried to notice that I overuse such words and to use them less.
But he felt the same way about "arguably". Personally I have no quarrel with this word. It's true that commentators can mask their own opinions and complaints, pretending that they're only quoting others, when they use this word and others:
"But sir, what do you say to those who claim you're only trying to...?"
"The President said he never gave that order. Nevertheless, questions remain...."
You get the idea; we hear it all the time, and I despise such mealy-mouthed dishonesty. But it seems to me there is a place to say that so-and-so is arguably the most capable candidate, or that arguably such-and-such a proverb has done more harm than good. It doesn't mean (at least when I use it) that I believe it's true; it means that I think the argument can be made, that it might be true, that I'm willing to think about it.
Comments? It's not of huge import, I just have been meaning to bring it up for a while to see whether I'm alone.
There is some such fluff that annoys me, like "We will be meeting to discuss..." instead of "We will meet to discuss...". I don't police it when speaking, but I try to weed it out of my writing. (Mainly because the length of a written report is inversely proportional to the probability that anyone in management will read it).
Many attorneys and politicians are practiced in qualifying their speech as a way to raise and dismiss a question in the same breath. e.g.: "Now, you're not on trial for being a low-life scumball, but ..." or "The defense would never think to question the honesty of the arresting officer..." or "I won't speak negatively about my opponent's record on education..." Whether you loathe it or hate it, it has a use and is here to stay.
telemath said:
There is some such fluff that annoys me, like "We will be meeting to discuss..." instead of "We will meet to discuss...".
You are not liking when people are using progressive tenses? I am thinking that you have never been working around people who have been learning their English in India.
(Assimilation works both ways. When our office filled up with contractors fresh from India, I expected to see them adopt American speech and gesture patterns over time. What surprised me was when the Anglo-Irish guys from Nebraska started using present progressive for everything and nodding in figure-eights.)
Bob, yes lots of time they are pretentious, but, arguably, they have utilities that are hard to fulfill any other ways.
"Rather good" says that I have considered other good things too, not just this one.
'Arguably' says that I know this fact is not firm, but I know there is some good case to make for it.
"But sir, what do you say to those who claim you're only trying to…?" - This one says there are lots of opinions against you, but I want to be fair an give you a chance.
"The President said he never gave that order. Nevertheless, questions remain…." - This one says I am impartial and just reporting the point of view of both sides.
People do abuse and overuse them, but when you need to say things that they say, it's hard to find better forms.
Hi, Mary, and welcome.
I don't speak for Bob, but I would say that mealy-mouthed is more evasive than it is wishy-washy; not straight-forward. Like meal, there may be a lot of it, but it has no real form. Politicians, in general, tend to be good at mealy-mouthed speech, talking all around a subject without really saying how they feel about it or what actions they may take regarding it.
Peter
Edit: A quick search shows that it probably comes from a German phrase meaning having meal in the mouth, possibly from Martin Luther.
"Evasive" isn't far from my own feeling about it, but I think Tromboniator's second choice is better, "not straightforward". Probably that's what he mean, anyway, for it fits the rest of his post. I've never looked it up, but from context as well as the feel of the word I take it to indicate that the speaker is trying to avoid committing himself.
RobertB, I pretty much agree with your thoughts on the first two. I said, after all, that I don't eschew them myself, I just try to think about them and use them bit less.
The last two, though, I'm less charitable about. It's perfectly possible for a reporter to say "what do you say to charges that...?" and mean what you said, that he wants both the accusations and your rebuttal on the record in his story—which is very proper. But I believe it's used at least as much to remind those within earshot that you're a scabrous, scandalous scalawag who will of course deny the charges (what could we expect?). And I got heartily sick of "questions remain" back during the Nixon era, when I believed the whole Watergate thing was gleefully played up by Nixon's opponents in order to discredit his administration. Don't get me wrong, I discovered to my dismay that the Watergate crimes were real. But I haven't changed my mind about "questions remain"; it's a sleazy way of attributing to "the people" a doubt that is really the journalistic opponent's (who by the way would squirm at being called a "journalistic opponent", as if it were an oxymoron). Put it this way: "Questions remain" is always true, because as long as a reporter wants them to remain then by definition they do even if he's the only one posing them.</rant>
Shameful admission of the day: I only today noticed the connection between "lagoon", laguna and "lake".
It seems to me that arguably is a twin sister to moot. If a point is moot, it's subject to debate, just as if it's arguable, but it doesn't really matter, because winning the point doesn't change anything. Most commonly, I've seen people use arguably to me "I would say so, but your milage may vary." Otherwise, simply stating the fact implies that someone of another opinion is a damnable fool.
Or, more correctly, simply stating the fact arguably implies that someone of another opinion is a damnable fool.
(Happy 4th day of Christmas!)
Bob Bridges said
I revere the late and lamented Jack Kilpatrick, author of two weekly syndicated columns that I read for years. I enjoyed both Following the Courts and The Writer's Art. But occasionally I made free to disagree with him on some of his opinions in the latter. One of them is about "arguably".... Personally I have no quarrel with this word.... Comments?
I agree, and as an old Kilpo fan, I'll share a little story.
While working as a young newspaper reporter in Virginia, I wrote to The Master and asked if I might visit him some Saturday at his home, White Walnut Hill, outside of Culpeper, Va. He sent back a handwritten* invitation (it was pen and paper in those days, the mid-1970s) and gave me several dates, one of which I accepted. Early on the appointed Saturday I drove to Culpeper and spent a delightful day with Kilpo, met his wife, Marie, and their two loyal collies, Lorenzo di Medici and Bagpiper. I spent some time talking shop with The Master in his office, which was in one wing of a little guest house that stood apart from the main house. We had two stiff bourbons before lunch, hamburgers at the kitchen table next to glass sliders that opened onto a huge deck and a breathtaking view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. This place was, of course, the locus that inspired his wonderful columns that bore the byline Scrabble, Va. To me at that age, it seemed almost magical that I was sitting with him in that office, looking at the manual Remington typewriter on which he composed those very pieces.
I went back to my paper and wrote a nice column about the experience, which is one that I still treasure.
http://s1.postimg.org/o6iw6oey7/Kilpo_Letter.jpg
*Correction: typewritten
Because of our sad history, most Americans, it seems, assume that "segregationist" necessarily means "white people who object to black people". But there are more black segregationists than white, and by no means all segregationists base their beliefs on bigotry. There are people—I've met several—who believe the races are different, and valuable because they're different, and that they should stay different so as not to dilute their value to each other and to humanity as a whole. I had a long conversation about it on a bus ride, decades ago, with a seatmate who believed there's nothing wrong with blacks and whites associating with each other but that they ought to marry within their groups and live in different neighborhoods. (I don't remember what he thought about mixed workplaces.) The conversation went on for some time and I assure you I perceived no hint that he thought the less of me because I'm white.
So it isn't obvious to me that any segregationist views on the part of Kilpatrick are necessarily a moral failing. That aside, I wasn't aware of it; can you point me to some examples in his writing?
James J Kilpatrick, Salesman For Segregation is a book by William P. Hustwit (UNC Press) that goes into great detail. Garrett Epps in The Atlantic goes into Kilpo's newspaper editorials.
I was confused when the SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" was invariably unequal. I didn't know until my 20s that my family was mixed race - I was really high-yella - and some of my siblings still don't want to admit it, but in the late 1950s, my mother sorta drove by certain places in the county that shook me. About 1965, they tore down a school to build an apartment complex. They spent all morning removing windows, and when the crew came back after lunch, the building was a pile of bricks. (Not that the other school, was any great shakes, being 80 years old.)
As I matured, I realized that "separate but equal" is indefensible for government -- and I'm no great fan of those who warned me not to date Catholic girls. I dated a jewish girl for a while, but I didn't want to live in the city, and she insisted we needed to, so any kids could go to Hebrew school.
Barry Goldwater gets called a racist, but the Goldwater Store integrated early, despite many customers who drove hundreds of miles to buy wedding dresses from segregated stores. What he objected to in the equal housing act was a provision that wouldn't allow old widow ladies from refusing to rent to black laborers. He figured your house is your home, and you had a right to decide who you let into your home, even if you asked rent for that room.
I see a lot of hostility to the Amish because Romans 12 says to keep apart from the world. Any time you divide people into multiple groups, members of each group think themselves better than any other group. Look at how many people proclaim the US to be the wealthiest nation on earth, despite stariistics showing a dozen other countries with higher incomes! And when you view yourself as superior, that's where trouble starts.
If someone believes segregation is best, it's not my business. Governments, however, belong to everybody, and corporations are created by government, so they haven't that right. And if I need to take a leak, and the mens room isn't available, I don't hesitate to use the ladies room, even though that's illegal. Making a puddle on the floor is not just illegal, but it creates a fall hazard.
YMMV
I'm arriving late to the party. I want to agree with those who find arguably useful. I also agree that the misuse or overuse of some kinds of language is annoying.
I employ arguably with respect for a position that is credible. I may disagree with the conclusion, or I may not have decided, but I acknowledge that thoughtful and good people have sound reasons for their position.
As for other moderating phrases like pretty good, the problem is not with the words but with the people who overuse them. We need to express degree. Pretty good is not the same as good. I shouldn't need to oversimplify by forcing all things to the extremes, sacrificing reality for the sake of rhetoric.
Frankly, people in the US need fewer extreme positions and more respect for arguments they disagree with. I vote for greater use, and more thoughtful use, of arguably and pretty good.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)