It's not a coincidence...
Benjamin D Lukoff
dav...@hq.westerman.com (David Carson) writes:
>One common word that seems to be misused almost every time it is
>spoken or written is "coincidence." Consider this sentence, which a
>sporstcaster just said on the radio a few mintues ago: "It's no
>coincidence that attendance has gone up at the same time that the team
>has been winning more." Yes, it is. "to coincide" means "to exist or
>take place together." Coincidence is the fact of coinciding. If two
>things are happening at the same time, it is a coincidence, regardless
>of the reason or likelihood of such. What this speaker meant was,
>"It's no mere coincidence that..." or "It's not just a coincidence
>that...," thereby implying that a causal effect exists.
But 'coincidence' *doesn't* just mean "to exist or take place together."
It is commonly understood to have a second meaning as well. From Webster's:
1: the act or condition of coinciding: CORRESPONDENCE
2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident
but seem to have some connection; also: any of these occurrences
The speaker may have meant "It's no mere coincidence," but "It's no
coincidence" conveys the same meaning to most people.
I myself rarely use 'coincidence' to mean 'the act or condition of
coinciding'...when I use it, I mean 'the occurence of events that happen
at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection.' I don't
consider this an error.
>For another example of this near-universal error, let's pretend that a
If an error is near-universal -- in language usage -- is it still an
error?
>black cat crosses Amos' path, and subsequently a safe falls from the
>sky and lands on top of him. Barton, the superstitious one, says,
>"the safe fell upon Amos because a black cat crossed his path."
>Caleb, the cynical one, says, "no it didn't, it was a coincidence."
>Caleb thinks he has expressed his disbelief in superstition when
>actually he has just uttered a truism--he has said that a word equals
>its own definition.
He has not, though. See above. Caleb not only thinks he has expressed
his disbelief in superstition, he has in fact done so. Very few people
would disagree, I think.
>Now that I have explained the problem with "coincidence," I seek your
>opinions. Should I just concede that the word "coincidence" is almost
>always going to be misused, or should I maintain my opposition to said
>misuse? Should we consider the word to have evolved into a nearly
>opposite meaning and just be done with it, or should we try to use it
>correctly?
It already has evolved. It's too late. Sorry.
BDL
John Crane
In article <4tbu61$m...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, dav...@hq.westerman.com (David
Carson) wrote (in part):
> One common word that seems to be misused almost every time it is
> spoken or written is "coincidence."... "It's no
> coincidence that attendance has gone up at the same time that the team
> has been winning more." Yes, it is.
No, it would be a coincidence if the team's winning streak had nothing to
do with the increase in attendence.
American Heritage Dictionary, Deluxe Edition: Coincidence: 1. The state or
fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space. 2. A
sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or
arranged.
David, you're overlooking or denying the second definition, yet that's the
way the word is most commonly used.
John
David Carson
One common word that seems to be misused almost every time it is
coincidence that attendance has gone up at the same time that the team
take place together." Coincidence is the fact of coinciding. If two
things are happening at the same time, it is a coincidence, regardless
of the reason or likelihood of such. What this speaker meant was,
"It's no mere coincidence that..." or "It's not just a coincidence
that...," thereby implying that a causal effect exists.
For another example of this near-universal error, let's pretend that a
black cat crosses Amos' path, and subsequently a safe falls from the
sky and lands on top of him. Barton, the superstitious one, says,
"the safe fell upon Amos because a black cat crossed his path."
Caleb, the cynical one, says, "no it didn't, it was a coincidence."
Caleb thinks he has expressed his disbelief in superstition when
actually he has just uttered a truism--he has said that a word equals
its own definition.
Now that I have explained the problem with "coincidence," I seek your
opinions. Should I just concede that the word "coincidence" is almost
always going to be misused, or should I maintain my opposition to said
misuse? Should we consider the word to have evolved into a nearly
opposite meaning and just be done with it, or should we try to use it
correctly?
If anyone else has asked raised this issue already, it is a
coincidence.
David Carson
-------------------------
If we could surround ourselves with forms of beauty,
the evil things of life would tend to disappear and
our moral standards would be raised. Through our
contact with the beautiful we see more of the truth
and are brought into closer contact with the infinite.
-- Calvin Coolidge
David Carson
jcr...@digital.net (John Crane) wrote:
>American Heritage Dictionary, Deluxe Edition: Coincidence: 1. The state or
>fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space. 2. A
>sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or
>arranged.
>
>David, you're overlooking or denying the second definition, yet that's the
>way the word is most commonly used.
>
> John
A dictionary lists the common usages of words, regardless of how
correct they are. I am clearly aware of the fact that "coincidence"
is commonly used according to definition #2. But the fact that a
lexicographer has observed and recorded this usage does not make it a
correct one, unless you consider the meaning of "correct" to be "what
most people do."
For words, I consider it more important that the usage be consistent
with the etymology. I also consider it more important that the verb
and noun forms of the same word mean approximately the same thing. To
associate causality with the noun "coincidence" but not to its verb
form, "coincide" is, in my judgment, incorrect.
I still think the issue here is whether or not to accept an
etymologically and grammatically incorrect usage that is so pervasive
as to have made it into the dictionary. I take it that you have
accepted this usage. I have not yet been able to do so.
David
[posted and mailed]
Rainer Thonnes
In article <4tdtbg$g...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
blu...@u.washington.edu (Benjamin D Lukoff) writes:
>
> But 'coincidence' *doesn't* just mean "to exist or take place together."
> It is commonly understood to have a second meaning as well. From Webster's:
> 1: the act or condition of coinciding: CORRESPONDENCE
> 2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident
> but seem to have some connection; also: any of these occurrences
>
> The speaker may have meant "It's no mere coincidence," but "It's no
> coincidence" conveys the same meaning to most people.
>
> I myself rarely use 'coincidence' to mean 'the act or condition of
> coinciding'...when I use it, I mean 'the occurence of events that happen
> at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection.' I don't
> consider this an error.
But in that case the sportscaster was still wrong.
If he was implying that there "seems to be a connection" between higher
attendance and the team winning more, then that meaning is conveyed by
"it's a coincidence," not "it's no coincidence."
Bob Cunningham
dav...@hq.westerman.com (David Carson) wrote:
[...]
> But the fact that a
>lexicographer has observed and recorded this usage does not make it a
>correct one, unless you consider the meaning of "correct" to be "what
>most people do."
It doesn't even have to be "what most people do" to be correct.
All that's necessary for a usage to be considered correct is that it be
used by a significant number, possibly a minority, of respected speakers
and writers.
>For words, I consider it more important that the usage be consistent
>with the etymology.
If we used words only with meanings that were consistent with their
etymology, we would be speaking a quite different language. The only
modern meanings of many English words have strayed so far from their
etyma that the connections aren't apparent until they have been analyzed
diachronically.
>I also consider it more important that the verb
>and noun forms of the same word mean approximately the same thing. To
>associate causality with the noun "coincidence" but not to its verb
>form, "coincide" is, in my judgment, incorrect.
>
>I still think the issue here is whether or not to accept an
>etymologically and grammatically incorrect usage that is so pervasive
>as to have made it into the dictionary. I take it that you have
>accepted this usage. I have not yet been able to do so.
To borrow an apt phrase that has appeared before in a.u.e., he who
refuses to accept the modern meanings of words "pisses into the wind".
To put it more delicately, to attempt to resist the overwhelming tide of
language evolution is like tilting with windmills.
Denying the correctness of usages that are accepted by respected
modern writers is not unlike saying "Just say NO to continental drift^".
^ (a tagline I saw recently in an article posted by Lee Rizor).
(Posted)
Keith C. Ivey
No, he was implying that the higher attendance and the team's
winning more did not "happen at the same time by accident".
"It's no coincidence" was the right thing to say.
Would you say "What a coincidence!" if I told you that a
terrible pain had just started in my thumb and that I had just
hit my thumb with a hammer?
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
David Carson
r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
[citations and other comments snipped]
>In common use, the phrase "the occurrence of events that happen at the same
>time by accident but seem to have some connection" seems to be a pretty good
>definition of "no coincidence" rather than of "coincidence".
Yes. I have noticed that the people in this thread who agree with the
common usage of "coincidence" have gotten in backwards. "Coincidence"
implies an _absence_ of causality to those of you who want to use the
word that way.
The trouble is that if "coincidence" has evolved so that it is
generally meant and understood to mean "the simultaneous occurrence of
events without a related cause," then what is our causality-neutral
term going to be? If I simply want to refer to a simultaneous
occurrence of events but not speculate as to the reason, I can't call
it a "coincidence" because most people will misunderstand what I mean.
For example, I can say the sentence below and everyone will understand
that I'm just stating an observation, not trying to explain it:
"The arrival of the killer bees coincided with the start of summer."
But if I choose a technically equivalent wording, people
misunderstand:
"There was a coincidence of the killer bees' arrival and the start of
summer."
Okay, I admit that the first sentence is superior anyway. But I still
would like to have a noun to use in sentence #2 that will give it the
same meaning as sentence #1.
David Carson
------------------------------------------------------
Keith C. Ivey
r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
>In common use, the phrase "the occurrence of events that happen
>at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection"
>seems to be a pretty good definition of "no coincidence" rather
>than of "coincidence".
I still don't understand how you get that out of the definition
presented. You seem to be ignoring the words "seem to", which
are essential to the definition. I think it fits the common
meaning of "coincidence" rather well. Two events that occur
simultaneously by chance won't normally be called a coincidence
unless they "seem to have some connection". There has to be
something interesting about it. Or would you call the fact that
a fire engine went by while I was writing this message a
coincidence?
Bob Cunningham
r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
[...]
>In common use, the phrase "the occurrence of events that happen at the same
>time by accident but seem to have some connection" seems to be a pretty good
>definition of "no coincidence" rather than of "coincidence".
"It's no coincidence" means "Even though the events may appear to
have happened by chance with no causal relationship, they are in fact
related by more than chance."
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of David Carson <dav...@hq.westerman.com> created
this pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>For example, I can say the sentence below and everyone will understand
>that I'm just stating an observation, not trying to explain it:
>
>"The arrival of the killer bees coincided with the start of summer."
>
>But if I choose a technically equivalent wording, people
>misunderstand:
>
>"There was a coincidence of the killer bees' arrival and the start of
>summer."
>
Then say simply "the killer bees arrived at the start of summer".
Regards, Mike.
--
Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
This week's hot tips for the lottery: 12, 14, 23, 32, 38, 34.
Bob Cunningham
Mike Barnes <mi...@exodus.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Then say simply "the killer bees arrived at the start of summer".
But now you're not illustrating the use of the word "coincidence".
To do that you can expand it to:
The killer bees arrived at the start of summer, which
was no coincidence, because killer bees prefer warm
weather to cold.
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of Bob Cunningham <exw...@ix.netcom.com> created
this pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>Mike Barnes <mi...@exodus.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>Then say simply "the killer bees arrived at the start of summer".
>
> But now you're not illustrating the use of the word "coincidence".
I know, I'm illustrating the non-use of the word "co-incidence".
Obviously I should have taken more time to explain myself. Your
assertion that...
>I can say the sentence below and everyone will understand
>that I'm just stating an observation, not trying to explain it:
>
>"The arrival of the killer bees coincided with the start of summer."
... is false. I would not understand that at all. I would be uncertain
whether or not you meant to imply any connection other than simultaneity
(sp?).
Your revision...
>"There was a coincidence of the killer bees' arrival and the start of
>summer."
... is no better for me in this regard.
If you really want to avoid misunderstanding, the sensible course of
action is to avoid the word "co-incidence" altogether, except where its
use is essential, in which case the meaning would no doubt be clear.
Then you say...
>To do that you can expand it to:
>
> The killer bees arrived at the start of summer, which
> was no coincidence, because killer bees prefer warm
> weather to cold.
But, as quoted above, you said you were *not* trying to explain the
observation. I'm more puzzled than ever.
David Carson
Mike Barnes <mi...@exodus.co.uk> wrote:
>The dancing digits of Bob Cunningham <exw...@ix.netcom.com> created
>this pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>
>>To do that you can expand it to:
>>
>> The killer bees arrived at the start of summer, which
>> was no coincidence, because killer bees prefer warm
>> weather to cold.
>
No, this is my whole point! It is self-contradictory to point out two
things that happened together and then say that they were not a
coincidence! Think about what "coincide" means.
>But, as quoted above, you said you were *not* trying to explain the
>observation. I'm more puzzled than ever.
>
Haven't you ever wanted to just point something out, without trying to
explain it? Must every observation be accompanied by explanation?
Often it is useful to simply state an observation, to see if others
have noticed the same thing, and in the same fashion, before
attempting to explain it. "Coincidence" should be the right word,
because it means "the fact of coinciding," and "to coincide" means "to
occur together." This idea that "coincidence" means " the fact of
coinciding _without any apparant reason_" is bizarre to me.
Bob Cunningham
(I will use "/...\" to indicate material that is italicized in a
quoted source.)
dav...@hq.westerman.com (David Carson) wrote:
[In a posting by Mike Barnes, Mike quoted me (BC):]
>>>To do that you can expand it to:
>>>
>>> The killer bees arrived at the start of summer, which
>>> was no coincidence, because killer bees prefer warm
>>> weather to cold.
[In his reply to Mike Barnes' posting, David Carson commented on
my statement:]
>
>No, this is my whole point! It is self-contradictory to point out two
>things that happened together and then say that they were not a
>coincidence! Think about what "coincide" means.
Now I see the problem. You are using an analytical interpretation
of the meaning of "coincidence" that doesn't agree with the most common
modern meaning of the word. You are assuming that the most frequently
used meaning of "coincidence" can be fully inferred from the meaning of
"coincide" when in fact it cannot.
The order of definitions in a dictionary can be misleading unless
you have read the introductory material at the front of the dictionary
carefully enough to know what the order implies. This varies from one
dictionary to another.
In _The Random House Dictionary of the English Language Second
Edition Unabridged_ (RHD2U) the order is explained as follows:
In each part of speech group, the most frequently
encountered meanings generally come before the less
common ones.
In contrast to that _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth
Edition_ (MWCD10) says:
The order of senses within an entry is historical:
the sense known to have been first used in English
is entered first.
The meanings given for "coincidence" in RHD2U are:
1. a striking occurrence of two or more events at one
time apparently by mere chance: /Our meeting in
Venice was pure coincidence\.
2. the condition or fact of coinciding.
3. an instance of this.
The meanings given in MWCD10 are:
1 : the act or condition of coinciding
[A synonym is]: CORRESPONDENCE
2 : the occurrence of events that happen at the same
time by accident but seem to have some connection;
/also\: any of these occurrences
From the definitions in RHD2U you can infer that the most
frequently used sense of "coincidence" is probably the one that implies
occurrence *by chance*. You can't infer that it is the most modern
definition.
From the definitions in MWCD10 you can infer that the most recently
appearing definition of "coincidence" is the one that implies happening
*by accident*. You can't infer that it is the most frequently used
meaning.
By combining the opinions of the two dictionaries you can infer
that the sense implying accident or chance is both the most modern and
probably the most frequently used.
If you want to reject any definition of "coincidence" that doesn't
follow completely from its etymon, then as I've mentioned before you're
tilting with windmills.
Please look again at my example:
>>> The killer bees arrived at the start of summer, which
>>> was no coincidence, because killer bees prefer warm
>>> weather to cold.
Suppose you have recognized that there are indeed two different
definitions (I realize that this may never happen), but you are not at
first sure which one I'm using (even though it's probably safe to assume
that I'm using the more modern and more prevalent one). A little
reflection on the context should leave no doubt that I'm using the more
modern one, the one that implies coinciding but by accident.
(Posted)
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of David Carson <dav...@hq.westerman.com> created
this pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>Mike Barnes <mi...@exodus.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The dancing digits of Bob Cunningham <exw...@ix.netcom.com> created
>>this pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>>
>>>
>>> The killer bees arrived at the start of summer, which
>>> was no coincidence, because killer bees prefer warm
>>> weather to cold.
>>
>
>things that happened together and then say that they were not a
>coincidence! Think about what "coincide" means.
>
>>observation. I'm more puzzled than ever.
>>
>
>Haven't you ever wanted to just point something out, without trying to
>explain it? Must every observation be accompanied by explanation?
>Often it is useful to simply state an observation, to see if others
>have noticed the same thing, and in the same fashion, before
>attempting to explain it.
I think you might be getting confused between Bob's and my postings. I
agree with most of what you say there, which is why I suggested "the
killer bees arrived at the start of summer". The thing I *don't* agree
with is "to see if others noticed the same thing...", since none of the
proposed sentences invites the reader to express an opinion.
> "Coincidence" should be the right word,
>because it means "the fact of coinciding," and "to coincide" means "to
>occur together." This idea that "coincidence" means " the fact of
>coinciding _without any apparant reason_" is bizarre to me.
The word "at" in "the killer bees arrived at the beginning of summer"
means that the events occurred together. It's a simple and direct way
of expressing the co-incidence (in the way you are using the word). Why
complicate things?
Rainer Thonnes
In article <4tmant$8...@news3.digex.net>, kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
> r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
>
> >In common use, the phrase "the occurrence of events that happen
> >than of "coincidence".
>
> simultaneously by chance won't normally be called a coincidence
> unless they "seem to have some connection". There has to be
> something interesting about it.
Indeed. I wasn't really ignoring "seem to", but rather reading more
into "connection" than you seem to be.
> Or would you call the fact that
> a fire engine went by while I was writing this message a
> coincidence?
Not unless there also was when you wrote the last reply to one of
my ramblings. Surely that would set alarm bells ringing.