Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

I have never heard "father tongue" used seriously referring to American English.   Google ngram viewer confirms that "mother tongue" is used very much more than "father tongue".

But the question is being begged.   Do people in Armenia believe that English speakers are against feminism?   In your post, it sounds like the person opposed to "mother tongue" believes that.   Most of the people I know are not against feminism.   They may think that certain feminists get a little pushy on certain issues, but feminism is not a bad thing.   Yet, all of these people would only use "mother tongue" in reference to English.

Father tongue?   Really?   I can honestly say I've never heard that phrase before.   It's always mother tongue.   I'm with Glenn.   Father tongue is out.

In Russia they speak of "mother Russia", but I don't know what they call their tongue.   In English, I agree, it's always "mother tongue" rather than "father tongue".   But I don't think it has anything to do with feminism, for or against; it's just the way it's been said for more than half a millennium, long before feminism was a political force.   And "native language" or "native tongue" is even more common.

Just an aside: Back in school I was taking a French class, and the teacher brought in someone who had traveled and perhaps worked in Belgium, or at least that was my initial impression, in order to converse with us in French.   Somehow in the course of the ensuing conversation I discovered that our interlocuteur was actually from Belgium—lived there—and I exclaimed "alors le Français est votre langue native!".   She agreed, but corrected me: langue maternelle.   So there's another language that thinks their language is maternal, not paternal.

Back to feminism: I've never heard anyone say that "father language" or "family language" is preferable, but I agree that feminists—some feminists—can be unnecessarily eager to find offense where none is intended; it's possible that someone, somewhere, thought "mother tongue" a slam at women somehow.

(Another aside: Joseph Sobran has said that "a misogynist is someone who thinks feminists are typical of women".)

You misread, asusena; Dick asked whether in Armenia they believe that Americans oppose feminism.

By the way, I ignored it the first time around but since I'm here:   Dick, I suppose you've already heard (countless times, probably) that "begging the question" doesn't mean what it sounds like?

It took me a long time to get that one straight, Dick.   At some point I picked up something about formal logic, just out of curiosity, and finally twigged.

I would divide Richard Spears' first definition into two parts , Rafee, and define it this way:

1) In formal logic, to use the desired conclusion as one of the the premisses of an argument.
2) More generally, therefore, to evade an issue.
3) Mistaken: To state an argument that raises an obvious question.

My definition #1 corresponds to Mr Spears' 1b, and my #2 to Spears' 1a.   In formal logic, "begging the question" is one of the standard fallacies.   It's often not as obvious as it sounds, and people who do it are usually not aware of it.   Here's an example:

Conclusion: Every father ought to take his son out fishing at least once in his life.

Why?   Because [premiss:] It's a son's right to be taken out fishing by his father.

This is "begging the question" because to say that the father ought to do it is the same as saying it's the son's right; the two statements use different words but they mean the same thing.   So you sound as though you're saying "it's the son's right so the father ought to do it", but you've really said only "the father ought because the father ought".

I don't know why it's called "begging the question".   I have a vague memory that it's a translation from the Latin term, but I don't remember.

'beg the question' can have grey territory, like this one
'The law is constitutional because it is a tax law.'
( which might provoke a question like 'but why is a tax law constitutional?')
By strict standard, it is not a BTQ, because the 'tax' opens a new line of discussion, so there is no circling around.
But someone who is avidly opposed to that legislation might insist that it is a BTQ on the ground that the explanation is too unsatisfactory, and in that sense circles back to the starting point.