Prevaricate vs. Procrastinate
John Morris
to be taking place: the use of "prevaricate" to mean "procrastinate".
For example, a politician returning from negotiations said during an
interview on television something like "...<x> said he would do <y>
but he is prevaricating."
The only meaning for prevaricate in my dictionary boils down to
"lying", which is what I have always taken as the meaning.
Politicians usually try to avoid such unparlimentary language,
and the tenor of the rest of the interview made it plain that
"procrastinating" was the intended meaning.
Is this a general shift in usage? Or does the word really have a
legitimate second meaning? Is this a UK thing? Should I get a better
dictionary?
John.
--
John Morris != Spider Systems jmo...@spider.co.uk GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU
whee...@logica.co.uk
According to my trusty OED (as far as I am concerned, *the* reference for
meaning and usage of English words), "prevaricate" means to make evasive or
misleading statements, to quibble, or to equivocate. In other words, just
what you might expect from a politician. "Procrasinate", on the other hand,
means to put off (literally, from its Latin source, until tomorrow).
Therefore, there is some overlap in usage and meaning between the two words,
especially if you prevaricate with the purpose of procrastination in mind!
I would say, however, that "prevaricate" is not a synonym either for "lie"
or "procrastinate"; its usage implies that the full intentions of the
prevaricator cannot be understood by his audience.
I hope this is clear and that nobody gets annoyed that I've made reference
to standard English usage (the OED).
Ta. Steve
Franz Delahan
>A friend recently pointed out an apparent change in usage which seems
>to be taking place: the use of "prevaricate" to mean "procrastinate".
>
>For example, a politician returning from negotiations said during an
>interview on television something like "...<x> said he would do <y>
>but he is prevaricating."
>
>The only meaning for prevaricate in my dictionary boils down to
>"lying", which is what I have always taken as the meaning.
>
Although prevaricating may boil down to lying, it loses a lot of its
flavor in the process. Prevaricating implies equivocation. It often
results from attempting not to lie but at the same time avoiding the
truth, usually in response to an embarrassing question. This kind
of "dancing around a question" could be considered procrastination
in telling the truth.
>Politicians usually try to avoid such unparlimentary language,
>and the tenor of the rest of the interview made it plain that
>"procrastinating" was the intended meaning.
>
He probably was misusing the word.
>Is this a general shift in usage? Or does the word really have a
>legitimate second meaning? Is this a UK thing? Should I get a better
>dictionary?
>
It seems to be the same phenomenon as the misuse of "reticent" for
"reluctant." Reticence is a reluctance to speak. Prevarication is
a procrastination of telling the truth. Therefore some people
use "reticence" to mean "reluctance" and "prevarication" to mean
"procrastination" in more general contexts. They may eventually
prevail, but I hope not.
--
Franz Delahan, Math. Dept., University of California at Irvine
Roger Lustig
>I hope this is clear and that nobody gets annoyed that I've made reference
>to standard English usage (the OED).
No, but I'm puzzled as to why you cite the OED as a source of "Standard
English Usage." To be sure, one can find lots of good stuff about
that in there, but it's far more: it's a dictionary on historical
principles, as the title page says. It also makes careful distinctions
between formal and informal usages, without calling either one wrong,
and notes regional variants as well as ones that have come and gone
over time. It often notes that writers on language consider a usage
incorrect, and sometimes uses their discussions as sources for citations.
In short, it makes all the distinctions that interest me.
Roger
whee...@logica.co.uk
I'm sorry, Roger, if I sent you scuttling for your OED. I should have written
"THE standard IN English WORD usage" (added words in bold).
In my (concise) OED (7th Ed., 1982) (you have sent me scuttling for mine) the
preface (admittedly to the 1st Ed.) reads:
"The book is designed as a dictionary, but not as an encyclopaedia;
that is, the USES [my emphasis added] of words and phrases are its
subject matter, and it is concerned with giving information about the
things for which those words and phrases stand for so far as correct
use of the words depends upon knowledge of the things."
OED: QED.
The OED is also a reference for pronunciation, inflexion and etymology, as you
point out.
I also refer to Roget's Thesaurus, and, if I get stuck on issues of grammar, to
Fowler's Modern English Usage. The latter is a little stuffy and dated, and a
little difficult to use (Fowler was one of the original OED lexicographers and
would NOT have sided with you in your debate over the issue of 'correctness',
since he was trying to define it).
Many of the points raised in alt.usage.english can be answered by making
reference to these sources.
Once again, I hope none of the above causes anyone's blood to boil! (Insert
huge smileys so as to avoid the continuation of this discussion in the erudite
columns of alt.flame.)
Must get back to work - Steve
Roger Lustig
>In article <1993May29.0...@Princeton.EDU>, ro...@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>> In article <1993May28.170317.1@condor> whee...@logica.co.uk writes:
>>>I hope this is clear and that nobody gets annoyed that I've made reference
>>>to standard English usage (the OED).
>> No, but I'm puzzled as to why you cite the OED as a source of "Standard
>> English Usage." To be sure, one can find lots of good stuff about
>> that in there, but it's far more: it's a dictionary on historical
>> principles, as the title page says. It also makes careful distinctions
>> between formal and informal usages, without calling either one wrong,
>> and notes regional variants as well as ones that have come and gone
>> over time. It often notes that writers on language consider a usage
>> incorrect, and sometimes uses their discussions as sources for citations.
>I'm sorry, Roger, if I sent you scuttling for your OED. I should have written
>"THE standard IN English WORD usage" (added words in bold).
>In my (concise) OED (7th Ed., 1982) (you have sent me scuttling for mine) the
>preface (admittedly to the 1st Ed.) reads:
> "The book is designed as a dictionary, but not as an encyclopaedia;
> that is, the USES [my emphasis added] of words and phrases are its
> subject matter, and it is concerned with giving information about the
> things for which those words and phrases stand for so far as correct
> use of the words depends upon knowledge of the things."
Yet they leave open what "correct use" is. This is a key point: and
their scholarship has confirmed this again and again. The Dictionary
is an object-lesson in how "correct use" can change and vary, and how there
may be several "correct uses" at once.
>OED: QED.
>I also refer to Roget's Thesaurus, and, if I get stuck on issues of grammar, to
>Fowler's Modern English Usage. The latter is a little stuffy and dated, and a
>little difficult to use (Fowler was one of the original OED lexicographers and
>would NOT have sided with you in your debate over the issue of 'correctness',
>since he was trying to define it).
a) Fowler was not one of the originals; he came in rather late in the
game.
b) Fowler most definitely *did* use the standard of actual usage by
respected speakers and writers. Occasionally he diverged from that
(we've discussed various specifics here before); but he generally
worked on historical principles. He had his cranks, to be sure, such
as his distaste for mixing roots from different languages of origin,
but this represents a minority of his judgments.
>Many of the points raised in alt.usage.english can be answered by making
>reference to these sources.
Alas, many cannot. Fowler will not tell us how a word has been used since
his time. (The OED can! The Second Edn. is pretty up-to-date.) He will
not tell us about American usage.
>Once again, I hope none of the above causes anyone's blood to boil! (Insert
>huge smileys so as to avoid the continuation of this discussion in the erudite
>columns of alt.flame.)
Ok! 8-)
Roger