ORIGIN of the Phrase, "Ad Hominin"?
Paul Bogrow
Rufus Jefferson Jones <ru...@da.crib.com> wrote:
>Does anyone in this newsgroup have any information they can share
>about the origin of the phrase AD HOMININ<SP?>
In the early 1950s, Jackie Gleason, a popular television performer of the
time, often used the catchphrase "Hominin hominin hominin" when his
character appeared flustered or in pain. Since TV was performed live in
those days, a sketch could often run short and the time had to be filled
out somehow. Gleason's writers would include the direction "Add
'hominin'" at certain crucial points in a sketch; if the program was
running short, the floor director would cue Gleason to go into his
stammering routine. It was quickly discovered that the comedic effect was
heightened if the slapstick pain element was further exaggerated--for
example, by his slipping on a banana peel or sitting on a sharp object;
hence the frequent stage direction, "Add 'hominin', a tack".
Gleason later died.
Rufus Jefferson Jones
Does anyone in this newsgroup have any information they can share
about the origin of the phrase AD HOMININ<SP?>
--------------------
I'm in da house yaw!
TsuiDB
"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?) and is used
as a standard rhetorical term for arguments which either attack a
person's character or appeal to emotion rather than logic. If your
query is directed to when it was first so used, I wouldn't be surprised
to find that it may have been around since antiquity, but someone else
will have to answer that part of the question.
SJM in HK
Paul Bogrow
"Ad" takes the accusative, which "hominem" is.
Robert M. Wilson
Latin rhetoric:
ad populum appeal to mass emotions
ad hominem personal prejudice
ad miseracordium pity
ad bacalum brute force
ad crumenam money
ad verecundian prestige
ad ignorantian ignorance
ad captandum vulgus the crowd
Compare these with the techniques used by advertisers and politicians
today.
An interesting exercise is to analyse the speeches of Brutus and Antony
in *Julius Caesar* with these in mind. Shakespeare may have been familiar
with them.
Chris Malcolm
>"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?) and is used
>as a standard rhetorical term for arguments which either attack a
>person's character or appeal to emotion rather than logic.
Arguments which attack the person rather than the issue, only; there are
other terms for other evasions and distractions.
Steve MacGregor
TsuiDB <s...@netvigator.com> wrote in article
<32328B...@netvigator.com>...
<<
"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?)
>>
More like "at the person" or "toward the person", and it is
accusative case. "To the person" would be "homini" (dative case).
--
-- __Q Stefano MAC:GREGOR Mi dankas al miaj bonsxancigaj
-- -`\<, (s-ro) \ma-GREG-ar\ steloj, ke mi ne estas
-- (*)/ (*) Fenikso, Arizono, Usono supersticxulo.
------------ <http://www.indirect.com/www/stevemac/ttt-hejm.htm> ---
Dale Lundquist
In article <50tliv$g...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Paul Bogrow
<eey...@eey.org> wrote:
> Rufus Jefferson Jones <ru...@da.crib.com> wrote:
> >Does anyone in this newsgroup have any information they can share
> >about the origin of the phrase AD HOMININ<SP?>
>
> In the early 1950s, Jackie Gleason, a popular television performer of the
> time, often used the catchphrase "Hominin hominin hominin" when his
> character appeared flustered or in pain. Since TV was performed live in
> those days, a sketch could often run short and the time had to be filled
> out somehow. Gleason's writers would include the direction "Add
> 'hominin'" at certain crucial points in a sketch; if the program was
> running short, the floor director would cue Gleason to go into his
> stammering routine. It was quickly discovered that the comedic effect was
> heightened if the slapstick pain element was further exaggerated--for
> example, by his slipping on a banana peel or sitting on a sharp object;
> hence the frequent stage direction, "Add 'hominin', a tack".
>
> Gleason later died.
Paul:
When I stop laughing, I may be able to semi-intelligently respond to
this query. . . . <lapse of a minute or more> I'm sorry, everytime I try
to get serious, I start to crack up again. I'll bet Jackie Gleason is
laughing too.
Dale Lundquist
> Rufus Jefferson Jones <ru...@da.crib.com> wrote:
> >Does anyone in this newsgroup have any information they can share
> >about the origin of the phrase AD HOMININ<SP?>
>
> In the early 1950s, Jackie Gleason, a popular television performer of the
> time, often used the catchphrase "Hominin hominin hominin" when his
> character appeared flustered or in pain. Since TV was performed live in
> those days, a sketch could often run short and the time had to be filled
> out somehow. Gleason's writers would include the direction "Add
> 'hominin'" at certain crucial points in a sketch; if the program was
> running short, the floor director would cue Gleason to go into his
> stammering routine. It was quickly discovered that the comedic effect was
> heightened if the slapstick pain element was further exaggerated--for
> example, by his slipping on a banana peel or sitting on a sharp object;
> hence the frequent stage direction, "Add 'hominin', a tack".
>
> Gleason later died.
OK, OK, I think I can do it now. The phrase Ad hominem is latin for
"against the man." It is often used in logic as a critique of an argument
that attacks a position because of its advocate(s) since the validity of a
given point is not dependent in any way upon the identity of the person(s)
advancing it. For example, if Hitler said 2 + 2=4, it would be true
regardless of the fact that he was a monster. An example I heard today was
a columnist's dismissal of the Trial Lawyers Association opposition to
legislation limiting certain lawsuits. Despite the obvious self-interest
of that group, its arguments do or do not have merit independent of that
self-interest.
Is that clear as mud?
Truly Donovan
Rufus Jefferson Jones wrote:
> person's personality and innerbeing. This being the case, How can you
> attack the "cause" but not also attack the person? And visa-versa?
>
> Limbaugh attacks the "issue/cause" not realizing that he is indeed
> attacking the person. It is impossible to attack one's issue without
> attacking one's person.
>
> EXAMPLE:
> Homosexuality is immoral..
>
> Is the same as saying , "People who are homosexual are immoral
> people."
>
> Agree?
No. I believe you've misunderstood how "ad hominem" is used. An ad hominem
argument (and note that it has to do with logical fallacies, not with
"causes") might go something like this:
"Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot and therefore you can't believe anything he
says."
Now, we all know that RL is indeed a big fat idiot, but that is not a logical
argument for not believing him. The logical argument for not believing him
is that he has demonstrated time and again a willingness to twist the truth
to suit his personal agenda.
Of course, the above was all intended as an example, and not an opinion with
respect to the actual Rush Limbaugh. . . .
Truly Donovan
Rufus Jefferson Jones
On 10 Sep 1996 18:44:47 GMT, c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) wrote:
>In article <32328B...@netvigator.com> TsuiDB <s...@netvigator.com> writes:
>
>>"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?) and is used
>>as a standard rhetorical term for arguments which either attack a
>>person's character or appeal to emotion rather than logic.
>
>Arguments which attack the person rather than the issue, only; there are
>other terms for other evasions and distractions.
If a person believes in a "cause" then that cause is part of the said
person's personality and innerbeing. This being the case, How can you
attack the "cause" but not also attack the person? And visa-versa?
Limbaugh attacks the "issue/cause" not realizing that he is indeed
attacking the person. It is impossible to attack one's issue without
attacking one's person.
EXAMPLE:
Homosexuality is immoral..
Is the same as saying , "People who are homosexual are immoral
people."
Agree?
--------------------
Rufus Jefferson Jones
On 10 Sep 1996 18:32:03 GMT, "Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@GoodNet.Com>
wrote:
>TsuiDB <s...@netvigator.com> wrote in article
><32328B...@netvigator.com>...
>
><<
>"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?)
>>>
>
> More like "at the person" or "toward the person", and it is
>accusative case. "To the person" would be "homini" (dative case).
>
>--
>-- __Q Stefano MAC:GREGOR Mi dankas al miaj bonsxancigaj
>-- -`\<, (s-ro) \ma-GREG-ar\ steloj, ke mi ne estas
>-- (*)/ (*) Fenikso, Arizono, Usono supersticxulo.
>------------ <http://www.indirect.com/www/stevemac/ttt-hejm.htm> ---
>
Does LIMBAUGH know this then?
Would someone agree with me that LIMBAUGH is using the word completely
out of context?
Herschel Browne
In article <514cuv$7...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk says...
>
>In article <32328B...@netvigator.com> TsuiDB <s...@netvigator.com>
writes:
>
>>"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?) and is used
>>as a standard rhetorical term for arguments which either attack a
>>person's character or appeal to emotion rather than logic.
>
>Arguments which attack the person rather than the issue, only; there are
>other terms for other evasions and distractions.
Well, actually, no; this is not correct. The classical meaning of
an *argumentum ad hominem* was an argument calculated to appeal to
the emotions, prejudices, or special interest of the hearer rather
than to reason. Somewhere along the line, whether through misapprehension
or simply a felt need for such a term, a second meaning was created:
an argument that seeks to prove a conclusion from the principles
or practices of an opponent, often by showing them to be contrary
to his or her argument. In the world of Usenet, of course, "ad
hominem" is merely the fancy word for "insult".
H.
Dale Lundquist
In article <514cuv$7...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:
> In article <32328B...@netvigator.com> TsuiDB <s...@netvigator.com> writes:
>
> >"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?) and is used
> >as a standard rhetorical term for arguments which either attack a
> >person's character or appeal to emotion rather than logic.
>
> Arguments which attack the person rather than the issue, only; there are
> other terms for other evasions and distractions.
You are correct. "Against the man" (as I defined it in my prior posting)
would be "ante hominem" I suppose. Perhaps I was thinking of that because
ad hominem arguments are usually negative. "To the man" arguments can be
postive too, though equally illogical.
Paul Bogrow
Dale Lundquist <dhl...@p3.net> wrote:
>"Against the man" (as I defined it in my prior posting)
>would be "ante hominem" I suppose.
"Ante" means "[temporally] before" and is therefore probably incorrect. I
believe that the idiom for "against" in the sense of invective included
the preposition "in", probably with the accusative; perhaps someone here
can confirm my memory of a venomous speech or speeches by Cicero entitled
"In [name of roastee]".
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <dhlund-1109...@dialin166.p3.net>,
Broadcast on alt.usage.english
"Ad hominem" arguments are sometimes perfectly appropriate and logical.
It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to point out that an
advocate of legalized gambling has a financial interest in a company
that makes gambling devices, if that is the case. If an argument has
appealed to authority, it is perfectly reasonable to examine the
credentials of the authority and the authority's veracity.
--
=Lars Eighner=4103 Ave D (512)459-6693==_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
= eig...@io.com =Austin TX 78751-4617_/ alt.books.lars-eighner _/
= http://www.io.com/~eighner/ _/ now at better ISPs everywhere _/
="Yes, Lizbeth is fine."==========_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Daan Sandee
In article <517ul0$s...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Paul Bogrow <eey...@eey.org> writes:
>Dale Lundquist <dhl...@p3.net> wrote:
>>"Against the man" (as I defined it in my prior posting)
>>would be "ante hominem" I suppose.
>
"ante" is "before" in time or place. Hannibal ante portas ! Cf. "a.m.".
Dale was presumably thinking of the prefix "anti-". Which is derived from
Greek.
>believe that the idiom for "against" in the sense of invective included
>the preposition "in", probably with the accusative; perhaps someone here
>can confirm my memory of a venomous speech or speeches by Cicero entitled
>"In [name of roastee]".
Correct. "In Catilinam" and "In Verrem".
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA san...@think.com
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
In article <xt3NyAwZ...@io.com>, eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner) writes:
> In our last episode <dhlund-1109...@dialin166.p3.net>,
> Broadcast on alt.usage.english
> The lovely and talented dhl...@p3.net (Dale Lundquist) wrote:
>
>>In article <514cuv$7...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Chris
>>Malcolm) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <32328B...@netvigator.com> TsuiDB <s...@netvigator.com> writes:
>>>
>>> >"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?) and is used
>>> >as a standard rhetorical term for arguments which either attack a
>>> >person's character or appeal to emotion rather than logic.
>>>
>>> Arguments which attack the person rather than the issue, only; there are
>>> other terms for other evasions and distractions.
>>
>>You are correct. "Against the man" (as I defined it in my prior posting)
>>would be "ante hominem" I suppose. Perhaps I was thinking of that because
>>ad hominem arguments are usually negative. "To the man" arguments can be
>>postive too, though equally illogical.
>
> "Ad hominem" arguments are sometimes perfectly appropriate and logical.
> It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to point out that an
> advocate of legalized gambling has a financial interest in a company
> that makes gambling devices, if that is the case. If an argument has
> appealed to authority, it is perfectly reasonable to examine the
> credentials of the authority and the authority's veracity.
But that is not a substitution; that is a real argument. Think of messenger
vs. message where the messenger is not the creator of the message.
--
Nyal Z. Williams
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
Dale Lundquist
> In our last episode <dhlund-1109...@dialin166.p3.net>,
> Broadcast on alt.usage.english
> The lovely and talented dhl...@p3.net (Dale Lundquist) wrote:
>
> >In article <514cuv$7...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Chris
> >Malcolm) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <32328B...@netvigator.com> TsuiDB <s...@netvigator.com>
writes:
> >>
> >> >"Ad hominem" is simply Latin for "to the man" (dative case?) and is used
> >> >as a standard rhetorical term for arguments which either attack a
> >> >person's character or appeal to emotion rather than logic.
> >>
> >> Arguments which attack the person rather than the issue, only; there are
> >> other terms for other evasions and distractions.
> >
> >You are correct. "Against the man" (as I defined it in my prior posting)
> >would be "ante hominem" I suppose. Perhaps I was thinking of that because
> >ad hominem arguments are usually negative. "To the man" arguments can be
> >postive too, though equally illogical.
>
> "Ad hominem" arguments are sometimes perfectly appropriate and logical.
> It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to point out that an
> advocate of legalized gambling has a financial interest in a company
> that makes gambling devices, if that is the case. If an argument has
> appealed to authority, it is perfectly reasonable to examine the
> credentials of the authority and the authority's veracity.
This is true in your example of what I would call an argument over
policy or values and whether not a thing "should" be. As a matter of pure
logic however, nothing about the person making an argument is relevant to
the validity of the argument itself. For instance, the fact that one is
very one is poor at math is not a valid argument against that person's
"argument" that 2 + 2 = 4.
Dene Bebbington
Paul Bogrow <eey...@eey.org> wrote:
>Rufus Jefferson Jones <ru...@da.crib.com> wrote:
>>Does anyone in this newsgroup have any information they can share
>>about the origin of the phrase AD HOMININ<SP?>
>
>In the early 1950s, Jackie Gleason, a popular television performer of the
>time, often used the catchphrase "Hominin hominin hominin" when his
>character appeared flustered or in pain. Since TV was performed live in
>those days, a sketch could often run short and the time had to be filled
>out somehow. Gleason's writers would include the direction "Add
>'hominin'" at certain crucial points in a sketch; if the program was
>running short, the floor director would cue Gleason to go into his
>stammering routine. It was quickly discovered that the comedic effect was
>heightened if the slapstick pain element was further exaggerated--for
>example, by his slipping on a banana peel or sitting on a sharp object;
>hence the frequent stage direction, "Add 'hominin', a tack".
>
Is this a joke?
The phrase "ad hominem" comes from the latin "argumentum ad hominem",
which according to my logic textbook translates to meaning argument
directed at the man. Thus the argumentum ad hominem is considered to be
a fallacy of relevance in that it is an attack on the propounder of the
argument rather than the argument itself.
This phrase is now often used in the vernacular to indicate an abusive
attack against the person and surely stems from the latin quoted above,
examples of ad hominem can usually be found on Usenet!! :-)
--
Dene Bebbington
"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Paul Bogrow
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul Bogrow <eey...@eey.org> wrote:
>>Rufus Jefferson Jones <ru...@da.crib.com> wrote:
>>>Does anyone in this newsgroup have any information they can share
>>>about the origin of the phrase AD HOMININ<SP?>
>>
>>In the early 1950s, Jackie Gleason
>Is this a joke?
It is now.
Colin Fine
In article <5102qq$o...@cliff.island.net>, "Robert M. Wilson"
<r...@mail.duncan.island.net> writes
>Many years ago I copied the following from I don’t remember where:
>
>Latin rhetoric:
>
>ad populum appeal to mass emotions
>
>ad hominem personal prejudice
>
>ad miseracordium pity
^am
>
>ad bacalum brute force
^u
>
>ad crumenam money
>
>ad verecundian prestige
^m
>
>ad ignorantian ignorance
^m
>
>ad captandum vulgus the crowd
All these except crumenam and captandum vulgus are listed in the article
on Logic in Britannica (XXIII, p.280)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696/0976 436109 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "We're all in a box and the instructions for getting out |
| are on the outside" -K.B.Brown |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------