I have, in nearly 35 years of using English, come across exactly 1 "correct" usage of "begs the question" outside of comments like yours correcting people.

In other words: You're fighting a lost battle. I suspect if you put the two common uses of it to a representative sample of people, that the majority won't even know the original usage at this point.

The problem is that "begs the question" is a poor textual representation for what it means. "Assumes the conclusion" is a better affordance.

It largely depends on context--in politics/philosophy literature it's used quite often.

People have been using begs the question "incorrectly" for decades.

Which begs the question: Who, then, is wrong?

In a doggy dog world, people will use expressions despite not knowing the origin or meaning of them.

That's a word substitution that doesn't make sense in and of itself.

The 'misuse' of "begs the question" has a meaning that logically follows from the words.

In fact, I'd say that the "misuse" actually makes more logical/linguistic sense than the "correct" meaning.

I've been knowingly (mis)using begs the question to roughly mean suggests the question ever since I learned the "real" meaning. If anyone ever challenges me on it, I just point out that I'm using the words for their actual English meanings—not as an idiom. Unlike so many other language mistakes, this one actually works.

Because the word "begs" is easier to say than the word "suggests," partly because it's one syllable instead of three. It's easier, it's better, and it's the phrase I want to use. (It's also more correct than suggests for what I'm trying to say.)

But really, since I'm using the words for their correct English meanings, I don't see why I have to justify my use at all. I'm not fighting to justify something incorrect; the people correcting me are the ones who are wrong, and they're the ones who then go on to try so hard to justify their incorrect opinion when an easier and better solution would be to just let me use the words for their actual definitions.

This is not a problem unique to this idiom; people often forget that words have general English meanings when there's also a technical meaning for the word in question. For example, some people have made it their personal crusade to claim that backers on Kickstarter are not investing anything because they don't receive any ownership in return for their money. These people are wrong. It's true that by the word's finance definition no investment is taking place, but by the word's English definition they are absolutely correct to say it is an investment (just like one might invest in their college education). Obviously that example has nothing to do with the idiom at hand, but considering how often people make this mistake, I have no problem standing my ground on "begs the question" because I refuse to be limited by other people's inability to crack open a dictionary.

> But really, since I'm using the words for their correct English meanings, I don't see why I have to justify my use at all. I'm not fighting to justify something incorrect;

Ehh, somewhat. Why did you pick beg instead of some other similar word? Probably because you heard the original expression and decided to borrow it. It's unlikely you were just thinking one day of how to describe this thing where an answer really raises more questions and said, "Hey I know, I'll call it begging the question!"

> I have no problem standing my ground on "begs the question" because I refuse to be limited by other people's inability to crack open a dictionary.

Which if they opened, would show them a contradictory meaning. But not drastically contradictory where it'd be obvious - just subtly not what you meant.

> For example, some people have made it their personal crusade to claim that backers on Kickstarter are not investing anything because they don't receive any ownership in return for their money. These people are wrong. It's true that by the word's finance definition no investment is taking place, but by the word's English definition they are absolutely correct to say it is an investment (just like one might invest in their college education).

It's more that they don't receive anything back, except maybe a product, which we call "buying". If you personally said to me - I'm investing in VR for the future by buying an Occulus I wouldn't blink, but when a company does it, it does suggest that they're trying to blur the line. Especially given how many people seem to misunderstand the deal... I'd call shenanigans on Kickstarter's usage, but not yours.

> Because the word "begs" is easier to say than the word "suggests," partly because it's one syllable instead of three. It's easier, it's better, and it's the phrase I want to use. (It's also more correct than suggests for what I'm trying to say.)

Yeah, for me it's exactly not right. Begging is something weak things do to get something. It brings to mind prisoners and cute puppies. It suggests many things that I don't mean and doesn't get at what I'd be trying to say. Maybe it just happens to fit 100% to what you want, but in almost every case I've seen of someone borrowing a term for something else, it's more that people just don't understand the subtleties (or they don't apply in their domain) of the phrases.

And frankly, you seem like you've got an "I can do what I want" chip on your shoulder which may explain your choice more than strict understandability criteria.

I think we've both made our points, but there are two/three last things I want to say:

1. The word beg only suggests a position of weakness in one context. Although that's how it's most commonly used, it's completely correct (and not uncommon) to use it as a synonym for "ask" if you want to imply a stronger request--check out the second definition in Merriam-Webster for formal evidence if you need it (it's not obscure or archaic). I'm normally all for choosing words based on understandability, but since far more people understand my meaning of the phrase than the "true" meaning, I'd say that the people using the idiom (rather than the words themselves) are the ones who have an ulterior motive other than understandability.

1b. I think it's extremely silly to ask me why I used one word instead of another closely related word. Yes, words have near-synonyms, and I could just ask easily ask you why you're not using my word instead. I know you're trying to imply I have an ulterior motive (that I'm doing it just to be contrarian or to feel right or to win an argument or whatever), but that's a weak way to do it since "I like it better this way" is all the justification anyone needs for using a word that isn't outright misleading or insulting. What you're really saying is that you would make a different stylistic choice, which is not much of an argument at all.

2. The "chip on my shoulder" is only in response to you telling me I'm fighting hard to justify something incorrect, which is quite frankly insulting (and, as I said, an incorrect thing to say in its own right, since the dictionary agrees with me, regardless of whether or not you think I have an ulterior motive). This very specific situation (when someone rebukes someone else because they think the other person is ignorant, when it is they themselves that are ignorant) is a huge pet peeve of mine, and it upsets me when people double-down on that position after being shown their misunderstanding. Of course, they're the ones who have convinced themselves that it is the other person who misunderstood and is doubling down, so that just compounds the insult.

> The "chip on my shoulder" is only in response to you telling me ...

Ehh, or to seeing mal-intent where it isn't.

> I'm fighting hard to justify something incorrect, which is quite frankly insulting

I don't tell you if I feel insulted, and if I did I wouldn't expect you to care. Part of having a chip is showing it off.

> (and, as I said, an incorrect thing to say in its own right, since the dictionary agrees with me,

Yes, and the dictionary (Merriam Websters) can't tell the difference between centi and centa, so it's not an authority.

> regardless of whether or not you think I have an ulterior motive).

I think this paragraph is you agreeing that you do have an ulterior motive, and explaining it as getting back at jerks like me.

> This very specific situation (when someone rebukes someone else because they think the other person is ignorant, when it is they themselves that are ignorant) is a huge pet peeve of mine,

I don't think you're ignorant. I think you know more than the average person. However I think it's functionally wrong for you to use something in an ambiguous way, JUST to prove a point - which is that you're technically right because an dictionary agrees, etc.

> Of course, they're the ones who have convinced themselves that it is the other person who misunderstood and is doubling down, so that just compounds the insult.

No, I get that the dictionary agrees. But I think if you weren't set on showing that you're just as allowed to use that phrase as someone else that you'd pick something else from the vast sea of words. Something that actually seemed descriptive.

> I think it's extremely silly to ask me why I used one word instead of another closely related word.

Why is it silly to ask? I like blue more than red for weird little personal reasons - how would you ever know without asking why?

> Yes, words have near-synonyms and I could just ask easily ask you why you're not using my word instead.

Right, and I'd tell you that the original meaning is as good as lost because few get it, and the secondary meaning is wrong because it directly conflicts with the other meaning and causes confusion, so I simply describe what I mean without having a pet phrase.

Why do you feel the need to own that specific phrase when I'm sure you could be more evocative, and thus understandable, by saying almost anything else that came to mind?

> but since far more people understand my meaning of the phrase than the "true" meaning, I'd say that the people using the idiom (rather than the words themselves) are the ones who have an ulterior motive other than understandability.

Frankly the original never meant much to me, the only reason I'm really aware of it is the continual use, misuse, and intentionally unintentional misuse of it. But of the users of those, I find the originalist far less unhelpful in a conversation. They're at least trying to help, as opposed to - what's the verb for exercising your chip?

If you let the phrase die rather than fighting an ideological war around it perhaps someone would coin something better.

Begging is more emotive, and gets across that the question pertains to an important consequence of the statement.

There's no objective standard for language usage, so it's perfectly possible for something to mean one thing in technical jargon of a specific field, and something else in colloquial usage.

Therefore, your claim that "begs the question" can't mean what 99% of people understand it to mean in colloquial conversation because it's a term of art that means something else in logic/rhetoric is invalid.

By the way, this reasoning is independent of etymology. "Beg the question" may at some point have only meant what you claim it means now (I don't know if it did or not) -- but that doesn't change anything, even if it's the case.

The fluidity of language doesn't get around the fact that it's perfectly possible to incorrectly use phrases and words.

An idiom does not own the words inside of it. You're still allowed to use the same words for their literal meaning. Sure, the word 'for' is omitted, but that's acceptable usage.

Note that "begging" in this context is likely a mistranslation in the first place. Therefore using it to actually mean "begging for" is less incorrect than the idiom.

Yes, it's no worse than beg your pardon or beg forgiveness. In fact, omitting "for" is so common after the word "beg" that it could be considered standard (correct) English.

Yeah, if I use "dog" to mean "cat", that's incorrect, since it goes against consensus and nobody would understand it.

"Beg the question" is fine: it means what 99% of native English speakers believe it means, and everybody understands it.

There are many terms that 99% of people use incorrectly and they're still incorrect.

In this case, "begs the question" is what something else is called. By conflating two things you get sloppy thinking. Even may people think they know what they're saying or hearing but they don't because there are two distinct things they can't tell apart. Also, it's a less intuitive way to say "suggests" the question. Begs implies something about unequal power structures, and requests, etc.

I understand that I need to be aware of what people might mean, but I'm in tech - I already see that everywhere. Maybe it's a regionalism but many people here call an entire computer a hard drive. I need to know what they want even though they can't ask for it. But yet, they're wrong and there's a lot that could go wrong for them because of their sloppy language.

Rather than fighting for your right to be wrong, why not just be right?

> There are many terms 99% of people use incorrectly and they're still incorrect.

Incorrect based on what standard? What standard for language correctness exists besides consensus?

> In this case, "begs the question" is what something else is called. By conflating two things you get sloppy thinking.

"Bug" means an error in computer software; it also means "insect". Neither is wrong. Terms mean the same thing all the time and context disambiguates perfectly fine.

> many people here call an entire computer a hard drive

Not a good analogy for several reasons: (1) both of those are from the same field so context can't disambiguate, (2) there's no widespread consensus that "hard drive" means "computer". In practice most people would misunderstand.

> Rather than fighting for your right to be wrong, why not just be right?

Wow, I don't mean to be rude but this sounds extremely smug to me. I'm not fighting for my right to be wrong, because I'm not wrong.

> Incorrect based on what standard? What standard for language correctness exists besides consensus?

Incorrect based on the definition of the word/phrase. Just because most Americans say "I could care less", for example, doesn't mean it's being used/said correctly, and saying that it's ok because language is fluid doesn't get around the fact that it is incorrect.

> Incorrect based on the definition of the word/phrase.

You are missing my point. WHAT definition? Where does it come from? Says who?

(By the way, if we're going to trust definitions, Google's lists the definition of "beg the question" that you are advocating for only third. https://imgur.com/a/zh6bJ )

> > "I couldn't care less"

> WHAT definition? Where does it come from? Says who?

The literal meaning of the words. If you couldn't care less, your caring is at zero. If you could care less you must currently care more than zero.

But that's not even really our point...

Rather than playing this silly game where you declare the majority view (Yay 51%) correct, why not just avoid things that people use incorrectly? Why go our of your way to join them? Most everyone who'd use the incorrect form would understand the correct form, so you're not even making yourself more understandable to them.

Why are you so fixated on "Begs the Question" that you don't use any other combination of words from the entire language to describe that phenomenon? The odds that you independently arrived at this phrase are infinitesimal.

Maybe you should look it up in a dictionary [1,2] before acting like a wise-guy.

The quoted sentence is the dictionary usage of the phrase.

[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beg-the-q...

[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/beg_the_questio...