refute

[micky]

Refute. I've probably complained about this before.

Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.

Some errors don't matter, but a listener who knows what the word means
might actually think the charges had been refuted, successfully
contradicted. Instead of the standard denial which can mean next to
nothing.



--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
>
> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.

The word it's confused with is "rebut."

[micky]

In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T.

Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>
>> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
>>
>> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
>> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
>> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.
>
>The word it's confused with is "rebut."

It may be confused with rebut, but using rebut would be little or no
better:

verb (used with object), re·but·ted, re·but·ting.
to refute by evidence or argument.
to oppose by contrary proof.
verb (used without object), re·but·ted, re·but·ting.
to provide some evidence or argument that refutes or opposes.

By the time I was aquainted with rebut, or at least in the last 10 year,
the second half of the second use seems to have been dominant. Just a
little evidence that does no more than oppose. Probably from debates
where the rebuttal almost always includes facts or arguments.


Refute is often used when no evidence, proof, or argument is included.

When it's not a refutation or rebuttal, it's only a denial

>> Some errors don't matter, but a listener who knows what the word means
>> might actually think the charges had been refuted, successfully
>> contradicted. Instead of the standard denial which can mean next to
>> nothing.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:38:27 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T.
> Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> >
> >> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
> >>
> >> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
> >> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
> >> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.
> >
> >The word it's confused with is "rebut."
> It may be confused with rebut, but using rebut would be little or no
> better:
>
> verb (used with object), re·but·ted, re·but·ting.
> to refute by evidence or argument.
> to oppose by contrary proof.
> verb (used without object), re·but·ted, re·but·ting.
> to provide some evidence or argument that refutes or opposes.

I don't know what dictionary _you_ use, but "rebut" does not mean
'refute', except as the presumably most recent sense reflecting the
confusion of the two similar words.

> By the time I was aquainted with rebut, or at least in the last 10 year,
> the second half of the second use seems to have been dominant. Just a
> little evidence that does no more than oppose. Probably from debates
> where the rebuttal almost always includes facts or arguments.
>
> Refute is often used when no evidence, proof, or argument is included.

No. That's "rebut." In a formal debate, the second side "rebuts" the first
side's argument. Refuting doesn't come into formal debating. (Where
topics may enter into the purely fantastic: "Resolved: Voldemort would
defeat Sauron in hand-to-hand encounter.")

> When it's not a refutation or rebuttal, it's only a denial

Exactly.

[Quinn C]

* micky:

> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T.
> Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>
>>> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
>>>
>>> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
>>> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
>>> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.
>>
>>The word it's confused with is "rebut."
>
> It may be confused with rebut, but using rebut would be little or no
> better:

I suggest "reject the charge". That only means deny.

--
CW: Historical misogyny
Jbzna vf n cnve bs binevrf jvgu n uhzna orvat nggnpurq, jurernf
zna vf n uhzna orvat sheavfurq jvgu n cnve bs grfgrf.
-- Rudolf Virchow

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:31:37 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * micky:
> > In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T.
> > Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

> >>> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
> >>> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
> >>> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
> >>> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.
> >>The word it's confused with is "rebut."
> > It may be confused with rebut, but using rebut would be little or no
> > better:
>
> I suggest "reject the charge". That only means deny.

That can be 'dismiss out of hand, without offering any reason'.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:31:57 -0400, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* micky:
>
>> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:30:43 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T.
>> Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
>>>>
>>>> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
>>>> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
>>>> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.
>>>
>>>The word it's confused with is "rebut."
>>
>> It may be confused with rebut, but using rebut would be little or no
>> better:
>
>I suggest "reject the charge". That only means deny.

Lawyers like to say that they will vigorously defend their client.

That, to me, suggests a lot of arm-waving and jumping up to object.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Sam Plusnet]

On 03-Aug-21 21:47, Tony Cooper wrote:

>
> Lawyers like to say that they will vigorously defend their client.
>
> That, to me, suggests a lot of arm-waving and jumping up to object.
>

To me, it suggests a much bigger hourly retainer.

--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:37:27 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

>On 03-Aug-21 21:47, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Lawyers like to say that they will vigorously defend their client.
>>
>> That, to me, suggests a lot of arm-waving and jumping up to object.
>>
>
>To me, it suggests a much bigger hourly retainer.

You do know that there's no such thing as an "hourly retainer"?

The "retainer" is the amount paid to an attorney in advance towards
the expected charges. It assures the attorney that he/she will
receive some compensation for the case even if the client stiffs the
attorney for the balance owed. It also serves to establish the
attorney/client status.

The "hourly" is the amount per hour the attorney is paid.

[Quinn C]

* Sam Plusnet:

> On 03-Aug-21 21:47, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Lawyers like to say that they will vigorously defend their client.
>>
>> That, to me, suggests a lot of arm-waving and jumping up to object.
>>
>
> To me, it suggests a much bigger hourly retainer.

Is there such a thing? I thought the retainer is a bulk amount of money
from which the hourly rate will be taken.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Peter Moylan]

On 04/08/21 03:17, micky wrote:

> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
>
> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.
>
> Some errors don't matter, but a listener who knows what the word
> means might actually think the charges had been refuted,
> successfully contradicted. Instead of the standard denial which can
> mean next to nothing.

That has been annoying me for a long time.

I suspect that the new meaning was introduced by politicians, who
frequently need to deny an allegation and like to make their denial
sound impressive. Journalists would have picked it up from there.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Rich Ulrich]

It bothers me, too.

I like the suggestion of Quinn C - "rejected" the charges.

"Refuted" implies that there was a very strong defense.
"Rebuted" implies that there was a likely defense, moderately
strong, but argument is yet possible.

I've seen those in cases where "rejection" is all that was offered.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Snidely]

Sam Plusnet suggested that ...

> On 03-Aug-21 21:47, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Lawyers like to say that they will vigorously defend their client.
>>
>> That, to me, suggests a lot of arm-waving and jumping up to object.
>>
>
> To me, it suggests a much bigger hourly retainer.

Tony's comments aside, everytime someone mentions the vigor at the
track, I have read a few articles to keep track of how it's calculated.
I suspect the term was a euphemism at some point, and is now a
technical term.

/dps "isn't that the story of 'penis' as well?"

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 04 Aug 2021 10:31:09 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Sam Plusnet suggested that ...
>> On 03-Aug-21 21:47, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lawyers like to say that they will vigorously defend their client.
>>>
>>> That, to me, suggests a lot of arm-waving and jumping up to object.
>>>
>>
>> To me, it suggests a much bigger hourly retainer.
>
>Tony's comments aside, everytime someone mentions the vigor at the
>track, I have read a few articles to keep track of how it's calculated.
> I suspect the term was a euphemism at some point, and is now a
>technical term.
>
>/dps "isn't that the story of 'penis' as well?"

I don't know why anyone would mention the "vigor" at the track.

I know the term "vigorish", meaning the amount deducted from gambling
winnings or an excessive interest rate on a loan. It's commonly
abbreviated as "the vig".

[Snidely]

Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :

See, I need to re-read the references /every damn time/.

-d

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

[micky]

In alt.usage.english, on Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:35:33 +1100, Peter Moylan

That all sounds likely.

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 4:50:40 PM UTC-7, micky wrote:
> In alt.usage.english, on Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:35:33 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 04/08/21 03:17, micky wrote:
> >
> >> Refute. I've probably complained about this before.
> >>
> >> Just now a reporter on a major computer network used refute when he
> >> should have said denied or maybe contradicted. Someone refuted
> >> charges, he said. I've heard others say this on tv.
> >>
> >> Some errors don't matter, but a listener who knows what the word
> >> means might actually think the charges had been refuted,
> >> successfully contradicted. Instead of the standard denial which can
> >> mean next to nothing.
> >
> >That has been annoying me for a long time.
> >
> >I suspect that the new meaning was introduced by politicians, who
> >frequently need to deny an allegation and like to make their denial
> >sound impressive. Journalists would have picked it up from there.
> That all sounds likely.

Not really. Most journalists know that the meaning of "refute" is slippery these days
and misunderstood by many people, and they avoid it except when the intended
meaning can be made crystal-clear.

bill