I blame the lawyers. It seems to be standard practice for those in the public eye accused of wrongdoing, or their lawyers, to make public statements asserting that they “refute” whatever allegations are being made.
But while they might deny them, or reject them, or dispute them, they do not “refute” them.
Here is the definition of that word:
Verb
- Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
- Prove that (someone) is wrong.
As the lawyers that make these statements know, denying something is not the same as proving it to be wrong. So I urge my fellow lawyers: stop this assault on the English language. Strongly dispute, wholeheartedly reject and completely deny to your heart’s content, but please, stop your “refuting”.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
expats
David Raw
Tom Reeve
Nonconformistradical
Sam Ammar
18 Comments
Everyone has their bugbears. I, for one, can’t stand the use of the word “issue” as a feeble euphemism for “problem”, “fault” or “difficulty”. I also hate the word “impact” as a verb.
I can’t bear the use of the word ‘medal’ as a verb:
http://livingonwords.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/london-2012-when-did-medal-become-verb.html
Refute, dispute, reject. These people need to refudiate the allegations and be done with it.
At best they are repudiating.
I completely agree with you – but I’m not sure it’s really a lawyers’ word, is it? Lawyers make all sorts of horrible linguistic missteps – but don’t we just love to use the word “deny”? I suspect “refute” is a more of a PR word that politicians have picked up on.
Where did “going forward” come from? Everyone uses it now, especially politicians and media pundits. It seems to have replaced the much clearer “in the future”. Then there is its tautological close cousin “planning forward”; how do you plan backwards?
@ Carl Gardner
Yes, I did consider whether this was more a PR phenomenon. But the thing is, a lot of the statements are put out by lawyers, though they might often be drafted with the assistance of PR types.
My work means that I see a lot of press releases from local authorities, housing associations, interest groups and think tanks of various kinds.
It is noticeable that nobody now builds homes. Instead they build “much needed homes”, presumably for the benefit of people who are not in need but in “very real need”.
No doubt there is some public relations course where people are told that these superfluous terms somehow bolster their claims.
@ Mark Smulian
You’re right. Press releases are the worst for this kind of nonsense. I think the problem is that as journalistic resources have been cut back, the time available to sit back for a second and ask crucial questions, namely: “What is actually happening here and what does this really mean?” has been lost entirely.
@ Mark Smulian: I generally prefer “desperately needed homes”.
On topic: This mistake gets made so often that I wonder whether ‘refute’ has evolved away from its original meaning.
@Mark Smulian, nobody ever built homes in the first place. They built, and build, houses.
They aren’t homes until someone moves in, and then only for the people who live in them.
Well said. It’s the tip of an iceberg of unprecedented enormity. And ignore the sceptics who will rush in to claim this begs the question of why there is such a gargantuan amount of articles about issues they are completely disinterested in.
Most of these examples are annoying or lazy but there are really dangerous ones out there – how about “evidence based” ?
David Falchicov – for what it’s worth ‘medaling’ has been used as a transitive verb for almost 200 years. It’s first recorded use is by Lord Byron in a letter in 1822.
I’ll get my coat…..
‘Principal’ and ‘principle’, now being interchanged by the TV caption writers.
Though the Oxford Dictionaries website notes :-
“The core meaning of refute is ‘prove a statement or theory to be wrong’, as in attempts to refute Einstein’s theory. In the second half of the 20th century a more general sense developed, meaning simply ‘deny’, as in I absolutely refute the charges made against me. Traditionalists object to this newer use as an unacceptable degradation of the language, but it is widely encountered.”
Duncan and Stuart: there is sound reason why this weakening of the meaning of “refute” should be resisted. The original, clear, strong meaning survives, and will not die, because mathematicians, scientists and chess players use it that way frequently – to refute a hypothesis or a chess move. This absolutely does not mean just “to deny it” or “to deny that it’s a good move”. Since this meaning will continue, not only among these people but also, for example, among other academics like historians, the use of the word to mean “rebut” or “strongly deny” (already slipping into merely denying) is ambiguous. Has the actress disproved the allegations of an affair with a bishop, or merely denied them? If on this site, someone said Keynes’ ideas about getting out of a slump had been refuted, would we take it to mean “disproved” or “disputed”? There’s a big difference.
As for my own pet hates, the dreadfully sloppy use of “iconic” is one. Yes, using it by analogy from holy pictures (icons) to refer to the extraordinary and legendary reputation of, say, Humphrey Bogart or Marilyn Monroe is legitimate, but it now gets applied to anything people have noticed for more than a second. Time for an iconoclastic movement!
Another, having been a local government officer till not long ago, is “transformational”, which is now something every public agency or programme must be. A transformation is any big change – from an efficient, honest organisation to an inefficient, corrupt one, for example.
Do you feel the subject of International Child Abduction is a worthwhile option to be interested in?
If not, why is it that MP’s like Stephen Timms will give the subject their all?
There is not even an MP from your Party in the All Party Group on the subject. The previous representative is not available.
It is a case of postcode lottery, if you have a Lib Dem MP, chances are he will not be interested.
This can effect those like myself who struggle with the subject and little ends up in a place where it can be helped. Having went to a meeting in London on the subject last week, I have realized what I don’t have.