Apologist
John Dean
author of 'The Apologist' (though in America it's called 'Eating Crow' -
talk about underestimating your audience - Joanne Rowling eat your heart
out).
The novel features a hero who gets employment apologising on a
professional basis on behalf of the UN.
I've always seen 'apologist' as related to 'apologia' in the classical
sense rather than to 'apology' in the more modern usage - one who
defends rather than one who says sorry.
Am I being picky?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Adrian Bailey
news:cet5gh$k8h$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
No.
Adrian
Arcadian Rises
>The novel features a hero who gets employment apologising on a
>professional basis on behalf of the UN.
>I've always seen 'apologist' as related to 'apologia' in the classical
>sense rather than to 'apology' in the more modern usage - one who
>defends rather than one who says sorry.
>Am I being picky?
Have you read the novel? Perhaps the title is a double meaning: an apparent
apologizer who is actually an apologist. Just speculating.
CyberCypher
I don't think so, but none of the reviewers linked to on that Web site
complained about the misuse of either "apologist" or "eating crow"
(W3NID: " –eat crow : to accept what one has fought against : recede
from a position taken").
You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens, however, those
who believe that the way people actually use words is the way these
words should actually be used and that, therefore, their usage ought to
be accepted as standard and, therefore, acceptable.
Is there another word he could have used?
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Qp10qp
>From: CyberCypher
>You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens, however, those
>who believe that the way people actually use words is the way these
>words should actually be used and that, therefore, their usage ought to
>be accepted as standard and, therefore, acceptable.
So, we can take that as an apology, then?
Peasemarch.
CyberCypher
Not at all. It's merely an observation. I find myself unable to argue
for or against such a radical position. If I were to advocate that
position, I'd have to say that the only purpose of this group would be
to ask only questions of the type Maria did about the usage of "at" in
"at the same token", a usage she is not familiar with and wondered if
anyone else had heard or read. And then we'd be restricted to answers
such as "No, I've never heard or read that usage before today"; "No,
but obviously someone uses it, so it must be used by someone"; or "Yes,
but spoken or written only by those inept at English". We wouldn't be
able to say, as some of us did, that it was an incorrect or unheard-of
usage. And if I were to attack that position, I'd be advocating Miss
Thistlebottom's untenable prescriptivism rather than shibbolethism (ie
Usage as Shibboleth).
Qp10qp
>From: CyberCypher
>>
>>>You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens, however,
>>>those who believe that the way people actually use words is the
>>>way these words should actually be used and that, therefore, their
>>>usage ought to be accepted as standard and, therefore, acceptable.
>>
>> So, we can take that as an apology, then?
>
>Not at all. It's merely an observation. I find myself unable to argue
>for or against such a radical position.
I was only pulling your leg.
*
My position, for what it's worth, is that new usages add to existing ones and
don't necessarily supersede them. For example, just because many people use
"beg the question" to mean "raise the question", doesn't make what they are
saying incomprehensible. The precise application is still there for those who
wish to avail themselves of it. The same with "irony". The main thing is that
people are understood; the exact uses of a word aren't excluded by the looser
ones that prevail.
In any case, using a presumably skunked word can be fun. "Gay", for example,
may still be used in the old way, but more richly.
Peasemarch.
CyberCypher
>>Subject: Re: Apologist
>>From: CyberCypher
>
>>>
>>>>You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens,
>>>>however, those who believe that the way people actually use
>>>>words is the way these words should actually be used and that,
>>>>therefore, their usage ought to be accepted as standard and,
>>>>therefore, acceptable.
>>>
>>> So, we can take that as an apology, then?
>>
>>Not at all. It's merely an observation. I find myself unable to
>>argue for or against such a radical position.
>
> I was only pulling your leg.
Once again my sense of humor has missed the mark. I thought you were
making a wry remark. I was trying to respond in kind. I know my humor
isn't all that dry. We had our afternoon torrential tropical
thundershower an hour before I pushed the "Send Now!" button. My son
and were soaked.
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns953CD5262...@130.133.1.4...
> Qp10qp wrote on 05 Aug 2004:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Apologist
> >>From: CyberCypher
> >
> >>You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens, however,
> >>those who believe that the way people actually use words is the
> >>way these words should actually be used and that, therefore, their
> >>usage ought to be accepted as standard and, therefore, acceptable.
> >
> > So, we can take that as an apology, then?
>
> Not at all. It's merely an observation. I find myself unable to argue
> for or against such a radical position. If I were to advocate that
It makes no sense to call it a "radical position," considering that it is a
position held by most linguists and lexicographers. I say "most" only to
cover a theoretical possibility: To the best of my knowledge *all* linguists
and lexicographers hold that position.
With that in mind, I looked at the entry for "apologist" in the usual
dictionaries[1]. Only the "defender" definition was given. The "apologizer"
definition thus, for now, remains a nonstandard use of the word "apologist."
> position, I'd have to say that the only purpose of this group would be
> to ask only questions of the type Maria did about the usage of "at" in
> "at the same token", a usage she is not familiar with and wondered if
> anyone else had heard or read. And then we'd be restricted to answers
> such as "No, I've never heard or read that usage before today"; "No,
> but obviously someone uses it, so it must be used by someone"; or "Yes,
> but spoken or written only by those inept at English". We wouldn't be
> able to say, as some of us did, that it was an incorrect or unheard-of
> usage. And if I were to attack that position, I'd be advocating Miss
> Thistlebottom's untenable prescriptivism rather than shibbolethism (ie
> Usage as Shibboleth).
>
> --
> Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
> For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Note:
[1] Those dictionaries available online which I know to be published in a
paper version.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Adrian Bailey
> John Dean wrote on 05 Aug 2004:
>
> > There's a website at http://www.the-apologist.co.uk/ from Jay
> > Rayner, author of 'The Apologist' (though in America it's called
> > 'Eating Crow' - talk about underestimating your audience - Joanne
> > Rowling eat your heart out).
> > The novel features a hero who gets employment apologising on a
> > professional basis on behalf of the UN.
> > I've always seen 'apologist' as related to 'apologia' in the
> > classical sense rather than to 'apology' in the more modern usage
> > - one who defends rather than one who says sorry.
> > Am I being picky?
>
> I don't think so, but none of the reviewers linked to on that Web site
> complained about the misuse of either "apologist" or "eating crow"
> from a position taken").
>
> You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens, however, those
> who believe that the way people actually use words is the way these
> words should actually be used and that, therefore, their usage ought to
> be accepted as standard and, therefore, acceptable.
You imply that the word "apologist" is usually used to mean "apologiser". I
doubt it. Maybe Jay Rayner, being a restaurant critic turned novelist, has
little feel for the language.
Adrian
CyberCypher
> "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns953CD5262...@130.133.1.4...
>> Qp10qp wrote on 05 Aug 2004:
>>
>> >>Subject: Re: Apologist
>> >>From: CyberCypher
>> >
>> >>You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens,
>> >>however, those who believe that the way people actually use
>> >>words is the way these words should actually be used and that,
>> >>therefore, their usage ought to be accepted as standard and,
>> >>therefore, acceptable.
>> >
>> > So, we can take that as an apology, then?
>>
>> Not at all. It's merely an observation. I find myself unable to
>> argue for or against such a radical position. If I were to
>> advocate that
>
> It makes no sense to call it a "radical position," considering
> that it is a position held by most linguists and lexicographers. I
Once again, I have to advise you to go to the closest mini-mall and
buy yourself a sense of humor.
> say "most" only to cover a theoretical possibility: To the best of
> my knowledge *all* linguists and lexicographers hold that
> position.
I would bet a great deal that no respectable linguist or
lexicographer would express it in the way I expressed it above. If
you look at it a little more carefully, you will see that everything
I said was a tautology or two. Quite deliberately, too. To be funny.
Geez, did everybody miss that?
> With that in mind, I looked at the entry for "apologist" in the
> usual dictionaries[1]. Only the "defender" definition was given.
> The "apologizer" definition thus, for now, remains a nonstandard
> use of the word "apologist."
I found the same in all my electronic dictionaries, but if all the
linguists and lexicographers you know of hold the position you think
I stated above, then they are bound to accept these usages of
"apologist" and "eating crow" as well as the usage of "at the same
token" reported by Maria. If you weren't so ready to jump on what I
say about things like this, you might save yourself a bit of
embarrassment.
CyberCypher
You haven't done your homework, Adrian. I checked with my Thomas Y.
Crowell Company Roget's International Thesaurus_, third edition
(1962), and discovered that it contains "apologizer" as a nominal
synonym for "justification" (1004.8, p 638) but not for "atonement"
(1010).
When I read or hear "X is an spologist for Y", I always assume that
it means "X is a defender/justifier of Y", not someone who says "I'm
sorry about Y; it shouldn't have happened".
> I doubt it.
One should not doubt to what lengths the ignorant will go in their
unconscious abuse of the language. Maybe those who are sufficiently
educated know what an apologist is, but those who disdain clarity,
precision, discrimination, and accuracy when attempting to express
themselves will write or say anyoldhumptything.
> Maybe Jay Rayner, being a restaurant
> critic turned novelist, has little feel for the language.
Ah, yes. He's a restaurant critic. That's why the American edition is
called _Eating Crow_.
CB
Like everybody so far, I think, I'm posting without having read the book.
Nevertheless: maybe the author and his copy editors should get a little more
slack. Maybe he was trying to draw a distinction between someone who makes
an apology (not an apologia) once and someone who does it for a living. As
Peasemarch said above, it can enrich the language. Or not, of course. I
don't like "shootist" either, but there the damn word is. CDB
Laura F Spira
No, I think you're quite right. We should probably demand an apology.
I suspect that his novels are about as good as his mother's oeuvre, some
of which I read at a point in my life where my brain was in hibernation.
Why is it that people who achieve celebrity in one field decide to
reinvent themselves as novelists? My guess is that they get published on
the back of their existing renown: their books rarely seem very good.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
CyberCypher
[...]
> Like everybody so far, I think, I'm posting without having read
> the book. Nevertheless: maybe the author and his copy editors
> should get a little more slack. Maybe he was trying to draw a
> distinction between someone who makes an apology (not an apologia)
> once and someone who does it for a living.
There really isn't a single term for someone who goes around
apologizing all the time, other than "guilt-ridden" and "neurotic".
> As Peasemarch said
> above, it can enrich the language. Or not, of course. I don't
> like "shootist" either, but there the damn word is.
I agree that the adoption of new words or even new meanings for old
words can and often does enrich the language. But that doesn't happen
if the effect the same as the unwitting adoption of a cuckoo's egg in a
robin's nest.
http://www.crazyaboutcuckoos.com/cuckoobird.html
David Dyer-Bennet
So you're suggesting maybe the US title actually makes more sense?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Um, yes, I agree that "apologist" actually
means someone who *supports* something.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Mike Lyle
be all right. It would depend on the text, I think: if a character
makes even a passing issue of the word, then it may simply be a bit
witty, echoing _L'Immoraliste_ and _The Shootist_, as well as
countless dentists, alienists, and Hellenists.
But even if not, isn't this a special case? Since there _isn't_
actually any such thing as a professional apologizer or sorry-sayer to
latch it onto, I don't feel this usage is very likely to do damage to
the existing sense of the word, even if in an occasional context --
which would have to be set up pretty carefully, anyhow -- it sets a
tentative foot into the wild.
Beats the shit out of the depressingly vulgar _Eating Crow_, I reckon.
Mike.
CB
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fa4d950.0408...@posting.google.com...
pun on "crow" the noun and "crow" the verb. Hoarse shit now, of coarse.
CDB
Steve Hayes
wrote:
No. There's still a distinction between an apologist and a spin doctor.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Charles Riggs
<cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>Raymond S. Wise wrote on 05 Aug 2004:
>> It makes no sense to call it a "radical position," considering
>> that it is a position held by most linguists and lexicographers. I
>
>Once again, I have to advise you to go to the closest mini-mall and
>buy yourself a sense of humor.
Hold on there, Franke, that's a remark, nearly so, I thought I'd
trademarked, not that it is applicable to Raymond only. (Hi, Michael
N)
--
Charles Riggs
CyberCypher
I haff to agree with you on that last statement.
I reinvented it without ever reading it in any of your posts. But I
haven't filed a copyright on it. I'll leave that for you to do.
Raymond S. Wise
Allow me to test your assertion: Did anyone else (even Charles) think that
Franke was joking in the post in question?
Charles Riggs
<mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>Allow me to test your assertion: Did anyone else (even Charles) think that
>Franke was joking in the post in question?
Calling, in this assembly of descriptionists, their position on usage
a 'radical position' was clearly said tongue-in-cheek. TIC remarks are
jokes, no?
--
Charles Riggs
CyberCypher
Thank you, Charles, for demonstrating that *someone* out there *is*
capable of understanding my sense of humor. You've hit the bull's-eye.