Begging (you to stop) the Questions

There are a couple of things that really irk me...usually it's the English teacher in me (though I'm no Grammar Nazi)--things like "irregardless", stuff like that.

But there's a new one that's becoming more and more prevalent and it's really quite upsetting because this one falls into the realm of logic, not grammar and usage.

My feeling: the world is already too freakin' illogical as it is. We don't need to compound the problem with sloppy language.

The problem: "begging the question"; "that begs the question..."

Here's how I just heard this used on NPR (for goodness sake!):

Interviewee: ...and his leaving the World Bank has made a lot of folks happy.
Interviewer: Well, that begs the question, of course...why did it take so long?

Um. No.
See it, "leads to the quesiton," it "raises the question," but it does not BEG the question. That's a term of logic--a material or informal fallacy in fact.

Here's what the (sometimes dubious but in this case correct) Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises ([1] [2] [3] [4] ). Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.

The phrase is sometimes used to simply mean "poses the question" [5]. This recasting of the term more directly describes a related fallacy, known as the Fallacy of many questions, that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself

And for those who like Logic (again, from the Wiki site):

The following structure of an argument in which the question is begged is common:

* p implies q
* q implies r
* r implies p
* suppose p
* therefore, q
* therefore, r
* therefore, p.

Which, when simplified, shows itself as obviously flawed:

* p implies p
* suppose p
* therefore, p.

Okay, so the end of that is pretty darn clear, you can't use something to prove itself.

That food is awful because it's disgusting.
He's a jerk--you can tell becuase he's so unpleasant.
You can't trust that politician--I mean, come on! He's a politician.

See the difference between that and the NPR example above?

Normally I'm not such a stickler. But when someone like Aristotle put pen to paper a couple thousand years ago and preserved this idea--an idea which has been used correctly for a couple thousand years--well... I'm just a little uncomfortable having we lazy Americans just...you know...change it. 'Cuz it's easier that way.

I generally distrust "easy."

My two cents.