We know a point can become "moot" but can a point also become "mute"?
key...@pacific.net.sg
Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
contained the following sentence:
"So, it becomes a mute point."
and also another that read:
"... since we are a Singapore company and it is being developed in
Singapore this is probably a mute point."
Someone wrote back and complained that I stop confusing the word
"mute" with "moot".
But.....
I actually meant "mute" as in "silent" or "muffled".
"So it becomes a "silent" point" .
Or, in other words, a point that is not heard anymore because it
has become irrelevant.
This is perhaps bad english. I asked my wife, who has an
honors degree in English, and she tells me, yes it is bad English.
But, I am still not so sure it is! It makes sense to me.
Nevertheless, whether it is or is not bad English, I did not confuse
it with "moot" which means debatable. I did not mean "moot".
"Moot" means something is still alive and open to
discussion or debate. I really meant "mute" as in silent forever,
dead, no longer heard.
The question is, am I guilty of bad English or not?
Any experts out there care to comment?
j
>Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
>contained the following sentence:
>
>"So, it becomes a mute point."
>
>and also another that read:
>
>"... since we are a Singapore company and it is being developed in
>Singapore this is probably a mute point."
>
>Someone wrote back and complained that I stop confusing the word
>"mute" with "moot".
[...]
>Nevertheless, whether it is or is not bad English, I did not confuse
>it with "moot" which means debatable. I did not mean "moot".
>
>"Moot" means something is still alive and open to
>discussion or debate. I really meant "mute" as in silent forever,
>dead, no longer heard.
>
>The question is, am I guilty of bad English or not?
>
>Any experts out there care to comment?
Well, I ain't no expert, but just judging from this extract from my trusty
electronic version of RHW dictionary:
moot adj., v. moot・ed, moot・ing n.
adj.
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
It would of course be the second and possibly the third definitions that
are active in something being a moot point and therefore not worthy of
further discussion.
As for the bad English- that's always a matter that's moot- as in debatable. :-)
If you are aware that the 'standard' expression is "a moot point", and want
to express yourself as saying "a mute point", that's your right- but don't
be surprised to be requested to explain your choice of usage.
Hope this avoids some marital discord,
j
--
Why do vegetarians/vegans have so little regard for plant life?
Thomas Schenk
key...@pacific.net.sg wrote:[snip]
> "So, it becomes a mute point."
>
> and also another that read:
>
> "... since we are a Singapore company and it is being developed in
> Singapore this is probably a mute point."
>
> Someone wrote back and complained that I stop confusing the word
> "mute" with "moot".
>
> But.....
>
> I actually meant "mute" as in "silent" or "muffled".
>
> "So it becomes a "silent" point" .
[snip]
> The question is, am I guilty of bad English or not?
You are not guilty of using bad English, but you may be guilty of
miscalculation in judging your audience. There is nothing wrong with
creative use of the language, as in a play on words or punning, but
such attempts will sometimes backfire, as in this case. This is a
particularly good example. It is made even more problematic by the
fact that a large segment of the English-speaking population
regularly confuses the meaning of "moot point", some thinking that it
means "open to debate", others accepting only the meaning of "of no
practical significance". Interpretation of your phrase, "mute point",
thereby becomes a triple whammy, with a very high risk of being
misinterpreted by most people.
Best regards,
Tom
--
*******************
Dr Thomas M Schenk
Laguna Beach, California
Don Livingston
In article <34AA64D8...@pol.net>,
>> "... since we are a Singapore company and it is being developed in
>> Singapore this is probably a mute point."
>>
>> Someone wrote back and complained that I stop confusing the word
>> "mute" with "moot".
For most Americans the phrase "moot point" means "irrelevant point", that
is, if they know the phrase at all. The use of "moot" in the sense of
"debatable" is known only to very well educated people who are obsessed
with looking up words in the dictionary. (Alas, I myself am one such
obsessive, as are most readers of this newsgroup, I imagine.) So you have
a choice to make in regard to the phrase "mute point":
1. You may use it, thus showing your creativity, but making the
impression on most readers that you have made an error.
2. You may replace it with "moot point", which will be understood by a
wider audience, but will attract the censure of dictionary-obsessives.
Also, for those who know both meanings of the word "moot", your sentence
may be ambiguous.
3. You may replace it with "irrelevant point", which will be crystal
clear to all audiences.
My advice is to go for option three.
Truly Donovan
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 09:37:05 GMT, key...@pacific.net.sg wrote:
>Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
>contained the following sentence:
>
>"So, it becomes a mute point."
>
>and also another that read:
>
>"... since we are a Singapore company and it is being developed in
>Singapore this is probably a mute point."
>
>Someone wrote back and complained that I stop confusing the word
>"mute" with "moot".
>
>But.....
>
>I actually meant "mute" as in "silent" or "muffled".
>
>"So it becomes a "silent" point" .
>
>Or, in other words, a point that is not heard anymore because it
>has become irrelevant.
>
>This is perhaps bad english. I asked my wife, who has an
>honors degree in English, and she tells me, yes it is bad English.
>
>But, I am still not so sure it is! It makes sense to me.
>
>Nevertheless, whether it is or is not bad English, I did not confuse
>it with "moot" which means debatable. I did not mean "moot".
>
>"Moot" means something is still alive and open to
>discussion or debate. I really meant "mute" as in silent forever,
>dead, no longer heard.
>
>The question is, am I guilty of bad English or not?
Well, you're certainly guilty of not knowing the several meanings of
"moot."
I think you are also guilty when you try to defend "mute" as
meaningful in this context. If you substitute "mute" with "silent"
and say "it is a silent point" and therefore has meaning, I would
wonder to just whom it would have meaning if you actually used it that
way. The point is that the point itself is not silent, but a point
about which people should be silent -- it is just not worthy of
debate, perhaps because it is irrelevant or because it is immutable
(oh dear -- I don't think *that* will help this discussion at all).
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Stan Brown
>Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
>contained the following sentence:
>"So, it becomes a mute point."
>it with "moot" which means debatable. I did not mean "moot".
Sorry, but "moot" is the word for the concept you were trying to express.
Your wife is correct, and "mute" is not correct in that sense. "Mute"
means either unable or unwilling to speak. A person can be mute; a point
cannot.
Many native English speakers make the same mistake, perhaps because the
words sound similar.
There is a verb "moot", meaning to put forth for discussion. This meaning
is different from the meaning of the adjective, which is "of no practical
significance; irrelevant", what I like to call "nugatory".
source: AHD3 for moot, mute, nugatory
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
"If you have nothing to say, say nothing." --Yes, Prime Minister
Stan Brown
[posted and emailed]
In article <34AA64D8...@pol.net>, tmsc...@pol.net (Thomas Schenk)
wrote:
> a large segment of the English-speaking population
>regularly confuses the meaning of "moot point", some thinking that it
>means "open to debate", others accepting only the meaning of "of no
>practical significance".
I agree with you in rejecting the "open to debate" meaning. I suspect it
leaks over from the _verb_ "moot", meaning to put up for discussion, and
from the law-school "Moot Court", which certainly involves lots of
discussion (wrong meaning) but whose decision has no practical
consequence (right meaning).
Stan Brown
In article <34aabc75...@news3.ibm.net>, tru...@ibm.net (Truly
Donovan) wrote:
>I think you are also guilty when you try to defend "mute" as
>meaningful in this context. If you substitute "mute" with "silent"
>and say "it is a silent point"
I have seen this usage occasionally. Is it now considered correct?
The rule I learned was that "replace A with B" means to put B in the
place formerly occupied by A. But "substitute", I learned, requires
"for" not "with". You don't "substitute A with B", but "substitute B for
A" to put B in A's old place.
I don't mean to rag on Truly, it's just that her use of "substitute with"
reminded me that I've been wondering about this idiom for some time.
Robert Lieblich
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> In article <34aabc75...@news3.ibm.net>, tru...@ibm.net (Truly
> Donovan) wrote:
>
> >I think you are also guilty when you try to defend "mute" as
> >meaningful in this context. If you substitute "mute" with "silent"
> >and say "it is a silent point"
>
> I have seen this usage occasionally. Is it now considered correct?
>
> The rule I learned was that "replace A with B" means to put B in the
> place formerly occupied by A. But "substitute", I learned, requires
> "for" not "with". You don't "substitute A with B", but "substitute B for
> A" to put B in A's old place.
>
> I don't mean to rag on Truly, it's just that her use of "substitute with"
> reminded me that I've been wondering about this idiom for some time.
Fowler disliked it intensely. He thought it created an ambiguity and
used a word like "treacherous" (the book's at the office and I'm at
home) to describe this usage of "substitute." He attributed the problem
to a misplaced fear of "replace" in the sense of "put back."
Until I first read Fowler on "substitute" I had no idea there was any
such problem; I had never seen the word used as described above (or else
I had seen it but not made aeven a mental note of it). After that, I
spotted an occasional usage of the sort Fowler complained above, but I
never had any problem understanding what was meant.
My current position (if anyone cares): I don't use "substitute" when I
mean "replace," and I will edit out such usages when I have the power to
do so, but I have found that I never fail to understand the usage when I
encounter it.
Short version: No big deal.
Bob Lieblich
Steve Barnard
Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> My current position (if anyone cares): I don't use "substitute" when I
> mean "replace," and I will edit out such usages when I have the power to
> do so, but I have found that I never fail to understand the usage when I
> encounter it.
To me, "substitute" has a connotation of temporariness that "replace"
doesn't have. Consider, for example,
- a substitute teacher
- a substitute quarterback
- I'd substitute one ingredient for another in a recipe if I were merely
out of the ingredient called for. I'd replace one ingredient for
another if I thought it made a better dish.
Steve Barnard
David McMurray
Stan Brown wrote:
> (Thomas Schenk) wrote:
>
> > a large segment of the English-speaking population
> >regularly confuses the meaning of "moot point", some thinking that it
> >means "open to debate", others accepting only the meaning of "of no
> >practical significance".
>
> I agree with you in rejecting the "open to debate" meaning.
I didn't know Thomas *had* rejected it.
> I suspect it
> leaks over from the _verb_ "moot", meaning to put up for discussion, and
> from the law-school "Moot Court", which certainly involves lots of
> discussion (wrong meaning) but whose decision has no practical
> consequence (right meaning).
Thank you for giving us an American English view.
In both the SOD3 and the 1997 Gage, what you call the "wrong" meaning is
listed as the *only* meaning for the adjective.
In Canada, your "right" meaning is appropriate only in a court of law.
--
David (eliminate "hitch" to reply)
Thomas Schenk
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> Fowler disliked it intensely. He thought it created an ambiguity and
> used a word like "treacherous" (the book's at the office and I'm at
> home) to describe this usage of "substitute." He attributed the problem
> to a misplaced fear of "replace" in the sense of "put back."
>
Fowler could be a major fussbudget at times, but even in his day the use of
"substitute" and "replace" as interchangeable words was generally accepted. MW2
accepted it as such in 1934. The OED canonized the usage in the supplement of
1986 as "correct".
Regards,
Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 09:59:40 -0800, Thomas Schenk <tmsc...@pol.net>
said:
[ . . . ]
>Fowler could be a major fussbudget at times, but even in his day the
>use of "substitute" and "replace" as interchangeable words was
>generally accepted. MW2 accepted it as such in 1934. The OED
>canonized the usage in the supplement of 1986 as "correct".
The word 'interchangeable' is misleading here. They aren't really
interchangeable in the sense that one word can be lifted from a sentence
and the other inserted in its place. Equivalent statements are:
Replace A with B.
Substitute B for A.
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
To send e-mail, delete an 'r', an 'i', and an 'o' from
the lefthand part of my address.
E-mail is welcome, but copies of postings aren't necessary.
Charles A. Lee
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 09:37:05 GMT, in a.u.e., you wrote:
>Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
>contained the following sentence:
>
>"So, it becomes a mute point."
>. . . .
>But, I am still not so sure it is! It makes sense to me.
This usage has two problems: 1) confusion, and 2) meaning.
First, you have already experienced the confusion problem. It is much
more common to hear "moot point." Your use of mute point looks odd to
most readers because the other word is so familiar, especially when
combined with point.
Second, and more helpful I hope, the meaning of mute in this context
is inappropriate. If you think of mute's opposite, you may see that
mute is a poor adjective for point. My thesaurus carries only one
opposite for mute: loud. You would confuse most readers with "loud
point" as much as you would with "mute point."
RHUD2's fifth definition of moot reads, "to reduce or remove the
practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic." This
fits one of your sentences very well.
"... since we are a Singapore company and it is being developed in
Singapore this is probably a mute point."
Whatever the point of contention was, its practical significance was
probably removed by the Singapore relationships. So moot really does
fit better here.
To remove the confusion about arguments that are rarely or no longer
discussed, you might try "unheard," "agreed," "granted," "decided,"
"arcane," or "understood." It's difficult to suggest the best word
since you didn't supply the entire sentence.
Cheers.
Charles A. Lee
http://www.concentric.net/~azcal
================================
= "Nobody goes there anymore; =
= it's too crowded. =
= - Yogi Berra =
================================
Fred Galvin
On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Stan Brown wrote:
> In article <34ad0dac....@snews.zippo.com>, key...@pacific.net.sg
> (key...@pacific.net.sg) wrote:
> >Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
> >contained the following sentence:
> >"So, it becomes a mute point."
> >Nevertheless, whether it is or is not bad English, I did not confuse
> >it with "moot" which means debatable. I did not mean "moot".
>
> Sorry, but "moot" is the word for the concept you were trying to express.
> Your wife is correct, and "mute" is not correct in that sense. "Mute"
> means either unable or unwilling to speak. A person can be mute; a point
> cannot. [...]
Isn't a mute point the opposite of a talking point?
key...@pacific.net.sg
Charles,
My Chambers, Oxford and Webster dictionary only give one meaning
for "moot" and that is "debatable or open to question" and that is not
the meaning I intended.
The dictionary you cite has it as its fifth definition. Does this mean
that it is perhaps not as common as you suggest? What is the first
definition in your dictionary?
Could it be that where you come from it is common but perhaps it is
not so common in Singapore or East Anglia?
It seems like the word "moot" can have quite opposite meanings
depending on which dictionary you use or even which definition you
choose in a dictionary. It appears moot is a very ambiguous word.
At least the word "mute" has no such ambiguity. It means "silent" or
"unpronounced" I personally have no problem with a point being
"mute", or silent. To me, the intended meaning is a lot clearer
than with the use of the ambiguous "moot".
I don't know, it is confusing for sure. You may find "mute" wrong
but it seems "moot" is not correct either.
So far, from all the feedback I have seen, I like the idea of a
"mooted" point. At least to me that imples the debate has concluded.
Hey wait...hmmm, maybe it should be a "muted" point!
I love this language called English. It is so much fun, isn't it.
az...@concentric.net (Charles A. Lee) wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 09:37:05 GMT, in a.u.e., you wrote:
>
>>Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
>>contained the following sentence:
>>
>>"So, it becomes a mute point."
Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 07:46:52 GMT, key...@pacific.net.sg said:
>Charles,
>
>My Chambers, Oxford and Webster dictionary only give one meaning
>for "moot" and that is "debatable or open to question" and that is not
>the meaning I intended.
>
>The dictionary you cite has it as its fifth definition. Does this mean
>that it is perhaps not as common as you suggest? What is the first
>definition in your dictionary?
Charles cited definition 5 in RHDEL2 (a.k.a. RHUD2), but that definition
pertains to 'moot' used as a transitive verb. The definition he quoted
is the second definition of the transitive verb. Since you were both
talking about 'moot' used as an adjective, I think the definition he
should have quoted is the second definition of the adjective 'moot',
which also happens to be the second definition overall.
Here's what Charles said:
| RHUD2's fifth definition of moot reads, "to reduce or remove
| the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or
| academic." This fits one of your sentences very well.
The three definitions of the adjective 'moot' in RHDEL2 (1987 version)
are:
| 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful:
| /a moot point\.
| 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely
| academic.
| 3. /Chiefly law\. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
[ . . . ]
> It seems like the word "moot" can have quite opposite meanings
Yes indeed, and that is why the a.u.e FAQ includes 'moot' in the section
headed 'What words are their own antonym?' (at line 6421 in my copy of
the FAQ).
>depending on which dictionary you use or even which definition you
>choose in a dictionary.
I've mentioned before in a.u.e -- probably more than once -- that the
significance of definition ordering varies greatly from one publisher's
dictionaries to another. In a Merriam-Webster dictionary, definitions
are ordered historically, so there's no way to tell which is the most
frequently used definition. In Random House dictionaries, definitions
are ordered by descending frequency of use, so there's no way to tell
which is the oldest definition.
key...@pacific.net.sg
Stan,
My Chambers, Oxford and Webster's list only one meaning for the
adjective "moot" and that meaning is "debatable".
Likewise they say "mute" means without vocal utterance or
unpronounced or faintly pronounced. So why can't a point be
unpronounced? I think it can be "silent" or "mute" in that way.
Fred Galvin has suggested a "mute point" is the opposite of a
"talking point". I agree with him. Points don't talk either, people
do. But, we all agree there are "talking points". Don't we?
I still think "mute point" is a very correct usage albeit a "moot"
(debatible) one.
brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown) wrote:
>In article <34ad0dac....@snews.zippo.com>, key...@pacific.net.sg
>(key...@pacific.net.sg) wrote:
>>Recently I posted to another newsgroup some dialogue that
>>contained the following sentence:
>>"So, it becomes a mute point."
>>Nevertheless, whether it is or is not bad English, I did not confuse
>>it with "moot" which means debatable. I did not mean "moot".
>
>Sorry, but "moot" is the word for the concept you were trying to express.
>Your wife is correct, and "mute" is not correct in that sense. "Mute"
>means either unable or unwilling to speak. A person can be mute; a point
>cannot.
>
K. Edgcombe
In article <34ABD98A...@pol.net>,
Thomas Schenk <tmsc...@pol.net> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>> Fowler disliked it intensely. He thought it created an ambiguity and
>> used a word like "treacherous" (the book's at the office and I'm at
>> home) to describe this usage of "substitute." He attributed the problem
>> to a misplaced fear of "replace" in the sense of "put back."
>>
>
>"substitute" and "replace" as interchangeable words was generally accepted. MW2
>accepted it as such in 1934. The OED canonized the usage in the supplement of
>1986 as "correct".
Apologies if someone's already said this, but surely the difficulty is not the
word "substitute" but the preposition which follows it.
(i) "Replace X with Y" is interchangeable in my dialect with
(ii) "Substitute Y for X",
but if I see
(iii) "Substitute X with Y"
I am actually (at least momentarily) uncertain which came first, X or Y.
From what has been said here, I suppose that most people would take all
three of the above as meaning the same thing, but in that case it is necessary
to observe the preposition carefully to be sure which way round to interpret
the phrase.
I think (iii) may be commoner in the US than in the UK, and perhaps it is
universally understandable there; but it certainly trips me up.
Katy
Eric Landau
Only if it started out as a talking point.
Eric Landau, APL Solutions, Inc.
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger" - Abbie Hoffman
Larry Krakauer
key...@pacific.net.sg wrote:
> My Chambers, Oxford and Webster dictionary only give one meaning
> for "moot" and that is "debatable or open to question" and that is not
> the meaning I intended.
>
> The dictionary you cite has it as its fifth definition. Does this mean
> that it is perhaps not as common as you suggest? What is the first
> definition in your dictionary?
I grew up in New York (USA), and throughout most of my life, the only
definition of "moot" that I ever heard or used was "irrelevant". I
always
associated this with the term "moot court", a practice court in which
the arguments made were of no import, because the case was imaginary.
I was quite astounded the first time I heard someone use "moot" to mean
"debatable", and then even more astounded when I looked it up and found
that to indeed be one of the dictionary meanings.
Others have mentioned that "moot" is listed in the a.u.e faq as an
English word that is its own antonym.
I have always thought that all uses of "a mute point" are just errors
made by people who *heard* the term "moot point", didn't know the word
"moot", and so heard it as "mute", a more common word.
>I love this language called English. It is so much fun, isn't it.
[...]
Agreed.
--
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Robert Lieblich
Venturing bravely into the thicket, I seek to argue that the allegedly
antonymical senses of "moot" really derive from the same notion.
To lawyers a point is moot when its resolution serves no practical
purpose in the particular lawsuit in which it arises, even though the
issue may be of great legal importance. Thus, for example, arguments
about the law of historic preservation may be of great importance to
the public, but they are moot in a case seeking to enjoin the
destruction of a historic building if that building has already been
torn down. The point remains both important and highly debatable--but
with rare exceptions [1] the court won't hear it debated if nothing will
result from the resolution of the issue *other than the resolution of
the issue*. "Moot court" is so called precisely because it is an
academic exercise; it involves (ideally) debate over a point that may be
of great interest to the persons involved, and even to the community at
large, but by definition cannot affect the conduct of actual persons in
real life, there being no actual court with power to do anything.
To say that a point is moot, then, can simultaneously convey both that
there is no reason to continue debating it and that it is of interest.
[1] In US law, at least, there can come a time where repeated mootness
is itself a reason for resolution of an issue. The most obvious example
is *Roe v. Wade*, which legalized abortion. In the time it takes to get
a case involving pregnancy to the Supreme Court, the pregnancy has ended
(one way or another). The Supreme Court used the phrase: "capable of
repetition but evading review" to declare the case worthy of resolution
even though the immediate parties to it would not be affected. I
successfully used this line of reasoning in a case on which I worked
(involving a much, much less sensitive issue).
Bob Lieblich
Geoff Butler
key...@pacific.net.sg writes:
>
>My Chambers, Oxford and Webster's list only one meaning for the
>adjective "moot" and that meaning is "debatable".
The word has changed meanings slightly on various sides of various
ponds. In some places it means "worth debating to make a decision", in
others it means "worth debating only for the sake of academic debate".
This difference actually makes "moot point" have two pretty well
diametrically-opposed meanings, and therefore is not much use unless
you're sure of your audience.
>I still think "mute point" is a very correct usage albeit a "moot"
>(debatible) one.
I still don't agree with you, for the reasons that others have
suggested.
-ler
Berna L Massingill
In article <MPG.f14f24c5...@news.concentric.net>,
Stan Brown <brow...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <34aabc75...@news3.ibm.net>, tru...@ibm.net (Truly
>Donovan) wrote:
>
>>I think you are also guilty when you try to defend "mute" as
>>meaningful in this context. If you substitute "mute" with "silent"
>>and say "it is a silent point"
>
>I have seen this usage occasionally. Is it now considered correct?
>
>The rule I learned was that "replace A with B" means to put B in the
>place formerly occupied by A. But "substitute", I learned, requires
>"for" not "with". You don't "substitute A with B", but "substitute B for
>A" to put B in A's old place.
>
>I don't mean to rag on Truly, it's just that her use of "substitute with"
>reminded me that I've been wondering about this idiom for some time.
>
>
>Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
> http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
>"If you have nothing to say, say nothing." --Yes, Prime Minister
I too have wondered about the "substitute with" usage -- it sounds
wrong to me. Then again, "replace" has -- to me anyway -- a
connotation of "complete and equivalent replacement" that
"substitute" doesn't, so perhaps there's some justification for the
"substitute with" usage. But it still sounds wrong to me. I'd be
interested to hear the opinions of the knowledgeable regulars in
this newsgroup.
-- blm