Is it o.k. to say "Your point is moot." meaning your point is “of no significance or relevance.”, or should I use someting else? At this point it seems like the only people who know about what the 'real' meaning of the word 'moot' is are intellectual types. That is, very few people.
I'm fine with not using moot except to mean what it 'really' means, but I'm having a hard time finding a good synonym for the common usage of moot that feels right to me.
posted
Are you asserting that the 'common usage' conveys a meaning of 'no significance or relevance'? (I'm not disagreeing, just making sure what you are saying.)
Personally I resist using the word moot unless in the 'correct' context and with the 'correct' meaning, anti-intellectualism bedambed
For what I think you are asking, how about: - Your point is irrelevant - Your argument is beside the point - That may be so, but...
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, 'that may be so, but...' really equates to 'moot.' So never mind.
To Rivka: Unlike 'nice' (which I think is an utterly lost battle), I still think there's a useful distinction between moot (common usage) and moot (academic 'correctness').
But maybe it's too nice a distinction.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the fact that it can mean both "debatable" and "irrelevant" that screws things up. Caused a bit of misunderstanding when I used it in a conversation with a friend in high school, just that way.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: To Rivka: Unlike 'nice' (which I think is an utterly lost battle), I still think there's a useful distinction between moot (common usage) and moot (academic 'correctness').
Considering that "nice" has not been used that way in several hundred years, it's good you are willing to concede.
I think the "moot" distinction is moot.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Rivka,
you mean the old tyme usage of nice, as in "nice and accurate"?
See, I have no idea what you mean with this sentence.
I guess what I'm asking with this thread is, isn't it time to just let the 'old' meaning of moot go away for clarity's sake?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swampjedi: How would you do that? I can see if you tried to scoop them out. But pulling? Nah...
On moot: I think it's best to expect others to take the word as meaning irrelevant (wistfully recalls 7of9), even though that is not it's original meaning. The exact meaning of words inevitably changes, so IMO you'd best use it in the way that the majority of the people understands it, otherwise you're just going to create a whole lot of confusion. Unless you post it on Hatrack, where confusion seems to be welcomed (and rightly so).
Also, last night I found out why 'pussy' means wimp/coward. It's short for pussilanimity. I think that's going to be one of my favourite words from now on. Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Also, last night I found out why 'pussy' means wimp/coward. It's short for pussilanimity. I think that's going to be one of my favourite words from now on.
It's clever, but it's not accurate. It was simply a change from cat to girl to effeminate boy. Would the sort of people who use the word "pussy" really know a word like "pusillanimity"? It's also worth noting that "pusillanimity" is an adjective, while "pussy" is a noun.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally I resist using the word moot unless in the 'correct' context and with the 'correct' meaning, anti-intellectualism bedambed.
Both the OED and the Websters define moot to mean "having no practical significance". If its in the OED, then it is a "correct" meaning of the word.
English isn't a dead language which means that words are changing in meaning all the time. OED cites usage of the word moot in legal ruling where it means "irrelevant or of no significance" as far back as 1807. If moot has been used in this way for 200 years, anyone who continues to argue that this is "incorrect usage" is more than a bit dated.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If moot has been used in this way for 200 years, anyone who continues to argue that this is "incorrect usage" is more than a bit dated. [/QB]
From rivka's link to the definition of "nice: 1 obsolete a : WANTON, DISSOLUTE." So calling someone a "nice girl" *nudge, nudge* used to be an insult? Wow.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hinted at this above, but the legal use typically involves both definitions. A "point" or an "issue" is said to be moot when the case can be decided without deciding the issue. Essentially, this means the issue is irrelevant. But no one would bother to use the word "moot" to describe the issue unless the issue were also debatable.
For example, in many states, if someone writes a will in their own handwriting and signs it, no witnesses are required at the signing. So, if there's a factual dispute about whether a will was properly witnessed, that dispute would be moot if the will were in the decedent's handwriting, because the case would come out the same way whether the witnessing was proper or not.
If the signed will were witnessed and no one disputed that, then whether the handwriting was the decedent's would be moot. If neither fact were disputed, there wouldn't be an issue, so no one would call it "moot."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost feel like the word shouldn't be used unless someone is in law where the meaning is clear.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A "point" or an "issue" is said to be moot when the case can be decided without deciding the issue. Essentially, this means the issue is irrelevant. But no one would bother to use the word "moot" to describe the issue unless the issue were also debatable.
Is this the "original" meaning everyone keeps talking about? 'Cause I'd always used it (and heard it used) in cases in which the point is simply irrelevant, whether or not it's true. Example: Someone [In the midst of a debate on abortion]: But one plus one is two!
Unless the sum of one and one actually has some relevance to the discussion at hand (maybe someone used it in an analogy or something), it's a moot point, although it may be true. Sometimes people use it to cut short a possible tangential discussion that could very well derail the entire discussion (God's existence or lack thereof, the truth of different religions, whether or not Bush is evil or stupid, how the Great Pumpkin decides which pumpkin patch is the most serene) in order to keep it on the issue at hand.
That's how I use it, anyway.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, of course! Moot does mean debatable! I see now! To be moot it must be debatable, with the outcome of the debate having no practical importance. That is, we could argue it all day long, but it makes no practical difference what we decide.
Sometimes I'm tempted to think the debates and discussions at hatrack have no practical outcomes. Do you guys think that's true? Are we just enjoying the sound of our own voices here? Honing our skills and enjoying the thrill of the argument? I think my feeling that much of the time, that's all we're doing, keeps me out of the serious threads mostly.
On the other hand, I've learned some important things from hatrack, from interacting with the people, if not necessarily from the substance of our arguments. I've learned that getting angry over these things, no matter how heartfelt, is counterproductive. I've learned to value the contributions of everyone more, even people who may passionately disagree with me.
Are those sorts of meta-points the things we are here to learn? It's interesting that I can't think of a single issue on which I've changed my mind completely, and yet, I did convert to a whole new religion, so hatrack obviously is having real effects. Also, there are couples who wouldn't have met and children who wouldn't have been born if hatrack hadn't existed. So I suppose not everything that happens here is moot. I just wonder about the passionate debate side of things. I had this feeling that it really matters somehow, yet my faith wavers. Obviously, I rarely participate anymore, so on some level I must not think it really does.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er, I didn't make this thread as a way to comment on the debates at Hatrack. I'm not saying you're sayint that, Tatiana, but it's not clear to me that you aren't saying it....
I've learned a lot from Hatrack and Ornery, too. Probably the largest thing that is continually reinforced is to not get angry at someone's opinion. It just doesn't do any good.
quote: I had this feeling that it really matters somehow, yet my faith wavers. Obviously, I rarely participate anymore, so on some level I must not think it really does.
I think it matters, if only on a personal level. Even if people we aren't talking to don't listen to our points, we can gain insight and wisdom from them and enrich ourselves.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm Saxon, I didn't think that you did it as a comment on hatrack. I just got to thinking about it, when pondering on the word moot. I guess I go off on tangents, sorry.
Maybe the real reason we are here is to learn how to truly listen. I know I have a lot to learn there.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
