Comics I Don’t Understand

”Imply.”

Cidu Bill on Mar 20th 2010

Filed in Bill Bickel, Jan Eliot, Stone Soup, comic strips, comics, grammar, humor | 43 responses so far

43 Responses to “”Imply.””

pirk Mar 20th 2010 at 12:52 am 1

I didn’t know people really got that wrong. I thought it was an error made up by sitcom writers to be used to indicate characters’ intelligence level or anal retentiveness in a way that any regular Joe watching the show could understand.
Elyrest Mar 20th 2010 at 12:59 am 2

Wow, you have tomorrow’s comic up early. Yes, it should be imply and people seem to get this wrong constantly. What bothers me the most is when they say the words mean the same thing. Gakkkkkkkk!!!!
Cidu Bill Mar 20th 2010 at 01:00 am 3

Pirk, people definitely do use it wrong — and what’s worse, they generally think they’re sounding more intelligent by using a fancier synonym for “imply.”
John Small Berries Mar 20th 2010 at 01:31 am 4

I’m sure in due time, the dictionaries will lend legitimacy to the incorrect usage, much like some do now with “is comprised of”.
David N Mar 20th 2010 at 02:07 am 5

I know I didn’t infer her implication. But I don’t usually read this comic.
Tullia Mar 20th 2010 at 03:26 am 6

@John S. B.: There was a foofaraw over Webster’s Third, which was descriptivist and not prescriptivist. One of the entries that sent people shrilling off over the edge was indeed the infer/imply “equivalence” that the dictionary gave.

But while I’m shrilling loudest of all on the infer/imply thing, I am not a strict prescriptivist. For instance, regarding the uses of “comprise” — I have no problem with people saying “is/are comprised of,” and if the Merriam-Webster site is accurate, that usage has been around for over 200 years. But I see that usage as right not just because it’s been around for a while, but because it’s not confusing. I never have heard anyone say something like, “Books comprise a library,” just people using this sense of it in the predicative form, like so: “A library is comprised of books.” In my experience, when people say “X comprises Y,” they are using “comprise” in the “standard” way (e.g., “The true university comprises all the pursuits of all the humanities and technical subjects”). Maybe I missed people using the word in the “[smaller things] comprise [greater thing]” sense, but so far I’ve only seen “[greater thing] comprises [smaller things]” or “[greater thing] is comprised of [smaller things].”

My point is just that I don’t find that usage confusing or unclear. Collapsing “infer” and “imply” loses meaning and makes things less clear to me, so I hate that particular usage. Those words are far more useful as separate entities. The debate over “comprise” seems less pressing to me because it doesn’t impede communication: I don’t see that people are honestly going to get confused. The phrase “comprised of” is something we’re used to and it doesn’t have any real rough edges. (To me.)

I am inconsistent, though. There are many words, such as “ain’t,” that are very clear, have gained widespread use, and have been around for a long time indeed, that I won’t use except under rare and informal contexts and which I would never accept as proper English. But that’s because to me it belongs to informal speech, not formal or proper English, because it’s always used in an informal setting. “Ain’t” is a good word and all, it’s just not right to use in any even mildly formal forum. I don’t hate it or its kin, I just don’t use it much. I hate [infer+imply]/2, or whatever you’d call that monster that was the original subject of the post, and would like to stab it with a pencil.
chuckers Mar 20th 2010 at 04:57 am 7

No, this is just plain wrong.
Detcord Mar 20th 2010 at 08:01 am 8

When I lectured in Probability Theory and Statistics, to infer meant to logically deduce, based on the data given. It never meant “fact”, but rather varying degrees of likely, depending on the probabilities. To imply usually meant to indicate or suggest indirectly, though I note that some dictionaries are blurring the difference. I agree with Tullia (6) that the words should be kept separate and not conflated. The English Language has a vast range of nuanced meanings and it would be a shame to lose this potential for clarity by muddying the waters through merged definitions.
Andrew Mar 20th 2010 at 08:48 am 9

Maybe she’s saying that she infers she loves him from things that are apparent to both of them, so he should infer it too?
Charlene Mar 20th 2010 at 09:19 am 10

One of Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe novels has Wolfe furiously tearing a dictionary to shreds and burning it in the fireplace because the editors claimed “imply” and “infer” were synonyms.
Sili Mar 20th 2010 at 09:41 am 11

Pirk, people definitely do use it wrong — and what’s worse, they generally think they’re sounding more intelligent by using a fancier synonym for “imply.”

“4. To lead to (something) as a conclusion; to involve as a consequence; to imply. (Said of a fact or statement; sometimes, of the person who makes the statement.)

c1530 MORE Answ. Frith Wks. 840/2 The fyrste parte is not the proofe of the second, but rather contrary wyse, the seconde inferreth well ye fyrst.”

“He used Metcalf as an agent in all proceedings which did concern that foundation: which will infer him to be both a wise and an honest man. [Thomas Fuller, The Holy State and the Profane State, 1642]
However, as I have often heard Dr. Johnson observe as to the Universities, bad practice does not infer that the constitution is bad. [James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791]
Lucy … reseated herself with an alacrity and cheerfulness which seemed to infer that she could taste no greater delight. [Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility, 1811]
… to be a literary man infers a certain amount of — well, even formal education. [William Faulkner, 25 Feb. 1957, in Faulkner in the University, 1959]”
furrykef Mar 20th 2010 at 10:03 am 12

I’m with pirk: I’ve never seen “infer” actually used this way out in the wild. But it was one of Weird Al’s pet peeves — well, his character’s pet peeves — in the song “Close, But No Cigar”, in which he repeatedly dumps nearly perfect women over trivial matters such as that. (Ironically, in that very song, he mispronounced the word “habanero” as if it were “habañero”, which is one of my pet peeves. Just because it’s the name of a pepper doesn’t mean the ‘n’ takes a tilde.)

I’m sure in due time, the dictionaries will lend legitimacy to the incorrect usage, much like some do now with “is comprised of”.

Is an incorrect usage really incorrect when it has such “legitimacy”? Who died and made you King of the English Language?

Today’s bad English becomes tomorrow’s correct English — the same way that Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Italian are just really bad Latin (which of course is, in turn, a really bad corruption of some other language).

Though words like “irregardless” do clang on my ears, and this usage of “infer” would too if I actually encountered it. But if in a hundred years or two they become standard usage, well, then, they do. *shrug*

- Kef
mitch4 Mar 20th 2010 at 10:15 am 13

Tullia, did you ever bump into “The Five Clocks”? It’s an expanded reflection on the multiple dimensions of variation in our language practices. (In somewhat old-fashioned terminology by now of course.) Your comment #6 is working at the intersection of dialect and register.

One complication in the infer/imply business is that “imply” includes a couple related but distinguishable senses, depending on who/what the agent or pseudo-agent [expressed in the subject in either case] is supposed to be. The first involves the actual human or at least rational agent who draws a conclusion from the premises (or offers the premises only and expects the conclusion to be drawn). In the second, the facts or putative facts themselves are taken as offering a conclusion.

And correspondingly there are different ways of using “infer” for these distinguishable senses of “imply”, and for some speakers or some “authorities” they can differ in acceptability. (1a) Standard usage when a human is agent of “infer” seems to require drawing a conclusion from premises presented by another or by the situation on the ground. (1b) The opposite case of stating some premises and allowing or expecting the hearer to draw a certain conclusion is in traditional standard usage expressed by “imply”; but is for some also expressed by “infer” and this is the usage that many cast as unacceptable — and is the one this character [is this Jan’s sister? what’s her name again?] uses. (2) As Sili’s historical citations at #11 show, sometimes the facts themselves, which uncontroversially would be said to imply the conclusion, may be said to infer their conclusion. This is interesting, but my guess is this particular substitution is not particularly popular today and is not at the heart of the controversy.

———————-

For my personal reactions — “problem” (2) as in Sili’s citations doesn’t bother me, because I never ever see it or hear it — and would have struck me as just a weird mistake, not an embattled usage, had it not been for this education. On the main front, I just don’t care for the use of “infer” as given in this strip, and probably would call it a mistake. But I do like the odd interplay involved in “Just what are you inferring?!”, and wouldn’t call that a mistake.
mitch4 Mar 20th 2010 at 10:19 am 14

Tip: If you want to adhere to the traditional strictures on “comprise”, think of “embrace” as its synonym. Then you will get the direction of the inclusion relationship right.
Laura Mar 20th 2010 at 10:27 am 15

The version printed in the Boston Globe (on paper) says “imply”.
Prosfilaes Mar 20th 2010 at 12:32 pm 16

The people on the Language Log dug back to the dawn of time, and found that there are examples of imply and infer being used interchangeably since they entered the language 400 years ago.
Heather D Mar 20th 2010 at 12:56 pm 17

This is fascinating… the imply/infer thing bugged me too, but those historical usages are intriguing. Especially since one is from Samuel Johnson himself, the “inventor” of the dictionary. Well, an indirect paraphrase of him, anyway…

I wonder if perhaps the distinction between them is a more modern development, something prescriptively imposed… so it was taught in scientific circles… but the older usage never completely disappeared. I dunno. I certainly think there’s a usefulness to the distinction, though.

And I’d never heard of any controversy about “is comprised of”, and I consider myself a linguophile… I think I’ve seen the “traditional” use now and then, but “is comprised of” is exactly what I’m accustomed to hearing and using.
George P Mar 20th 2010 at 01:12 pm 18

But weren’t habañero peppers thought to be from Havaña?

I think they call this kind of mistake an “overcorrection”, or something like that, like “foyer” as “for-YAY”.

My personal one is the French word “forte”, meaning strength, being pronounced like the Italian word “forte”, meaning loud, instead of like the English word “fort”, meaning fortification comprising a sheet draped over back-to-back chairs. I know “forte” is a lost one, since I’ve never it pronounced correctly in the wild, but I’m not letting it go.
Heather D Mar 20th 2010 at 01:28 pm 19

“Forte” in french is an adjective meaning “strong”, not a noun meaning “strength”. And it’s the feminine form, with “fort” (the ‘t’ is silent) being the masculine.

The italian “forte”, pronounced for-tay, also means “strong”, not “loud”. In music, it is used as a dynamic direction generally casually called “loud”. But technically, it does mean “strong”, as in, “a strong sound”. Similarly, “piano” does not technically mean “quiet”, but “small”.

I can’t bring to mind any english situations where the french word “forte” would come up, and then be mispronounced as the italian equivalent.
furrykef Mar 20th 2010 at 02:08 pm 20

The italian “forte”, pronounced for-tay, also means “strong”, not “loud”.

I would say that it means “strong” and “loud”, rather than saying that it can mean “loud” but really means “strong”. For instance, www.dizionario-italiano.it gives definition 15 of “forte” as “a voce alta”, which unambiguously means “loud”.

Saying that “forte” doesn’t literally mean “loud” strikes me as akin to saying that a “high price” is technically not “high” because it isn’t a long distance away from the ground, which is silly.

(By the way, the original Latin word, “fortis”, also meant “brave”! Quite a range of meanings this word has had over the millennia…)

I can’t bring to mind any english situations where the french word “forte” would come up, and then be mispronounced as the italian equivalent.

Actually, it’s usually pronounced “for-TAY” in such situations, which isn’t French, Italian, or anything else. I would suspect that this pronunciation is so common, though, that many people wouldn’t actually understand it if you pronounced it “fort”.

- Kef
Heather D Mar 20th 2010 at 02:36 pm 21

“Saying that “forte” doesn’t literally mean “loud” strikes me as akin to saying that a “high price” is technically not “high” because it isn’t a long distance away from the ground, which is silly.”

Well it does mean “loud” now, it’s been an accepted and standard musical usage for about 400 years and that’s plenty of time for that usage to creep into common lingo (many terms that were originally from music are now more general… ‘gamut’, anyone?) I would point out though that it’s down there as ‘definition 15′, and that pretty much every other one from 1 to 14 has to do specifically with ’strength’. And I still would argue that for the ‘voce alta’ it still means a strong voice. A strong voice is a loud one. It’s splitting hairs, I know. But the assumption that many folks have is that the BASIC, foundational meaning of ‘forte’ is ‘loud’, having to do specifically with SOUND, when in fact it isn’t. The italian word for “loud” is “alta”.

Or in other words, when used in the context of sound, ’strong’ means ‘loud’. Like when used in the context of money, ‘high’ means ‘a greater number’ rather than ‘off the ground’. Context implies meaning. But that doesn’t change the fact that the basic definition of ‘high’ is ‘off the ground’, and other uses are derived from that original meaning, almost metaphorically.

“Actually, it’s usually pronounced “for-TAY” in such situations, which isn’t French, Italian, or anything else. I would suspect that this pronunciation is so common, though, that many people wouldn’t actually understand it if you pronounced it “fort”.”

So I take it you’re talking about something like, “talking about languages is my forte”, as in something you’re good at? I’m not sure what the language of derivation is for that usage… I’ve heard it as both “FORT-ay” and “for-TAY”, I confess I’d never thought about how that second version is incorrect in any language I know of!

A quick check of dictionary.com reveals this:
In the sense of a person’s strong point (He draws well, but sculpture is his forte), the older and historical pronunciation of forte is the one-syllable /fɔrt/ Show Spelled[fawrt] Show IPA or /foʊrt/[fohrt]. The word is derived from the French word fort “strong.” A two-syllable pronunciation /ˈfɔrteɪ/[fawr-tey] is increasingly heard, especially from younger educated speakers, perhaps owing to confusion with the musical term forte, pronounced in English as /ˈfɔrteɪ/[fawr-tey] and in Italian as /ˈfɔrtɛ/[fawr-te]. Both the one- and two-syllable pronunciations of forte are now considered standard.

Fascinating! I would never have known that “fort” was once the correct pronounciation for this usage, I’ve never heard it, and if someone did use it I would probably try to correct them on it! But for George P, it looks like it’s time to give up… the newer pronounciation is accepted as standard, like it or not.

Anyway, the “forTAY” pronounciation is definitely incorrect (at least for now…), and is probably being derived from other similar-sounding (and french-derived) words like ’sache’ (dance move) and ‘ballet’… so it’s actually a fascinating journey, from middle french, to modern english, bastardized by an italian pronounciation, then re-bastardized by a french pronounciation of grammatically-unrelated words…
Bullthistle Mar 20th 2010 at 02:43 pm 22

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?forte002=forte

Forte - 2 syllables
mitch4 Mar 20th 2010 at 03:01 pm 23

I’m with George P and the other one-syllablers on “forte” in the sense of ‘personal area of strength or talent’. But this is one of the few cases where I stick with something knowing not only that we’re in the minority view but in the tiny minority.

Another would be the vowel quality in the second part of “long-lived” and “short-lived”. I read it an speak it as a so-called “long” i, as in the word “life”.

@Prosfilaes , @Heather D, I think you’re giving way too much emphasis to part of the historical record. The citations in Sili’s excerpt were for a quite distinct sense of “infer” separate from the one in contention.
Morris Keesan Mar 20th 2010 at 03:05 pm 24

None of these (or “ironic”) bother me nearly as much as the word “literally”, used to mean “not literally”. Most recently spotted in a magazine ad claiming that some car model “literally gave birth to” something.
Detcord Mar 20th 2010 at 03:24 pm 25

A very interesting discussion. For those, like me, who are not that well versed on the written pronunciation codes, here is a link to a British site that gives a verbal result, including American, French and Italian pronunciations for Forte.

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=forte&submit=Submit
Heather D Mar 20th 2010 at 03:46 pm 26

“Another would be the vowel quality in the second part of “long-lived” and “short-lived”. I read it an speak it as a so-called “long” i, as in the word “life”.”

But can you think of any other instance where the word “lived” is pronounced with a long i? “Life” and “lives,” the nouns, have the long i, but all the verbal conjugations use a short i sound. “I live, you live, we lived”. If you’re thinking of “long-lived” as coming from the noun form, then it would be “long-lifed”.

“None of these (or “ironic”) bother me nearly as much as the word “literally”, used to mean “not literally”. Most recently spotted in a magazine ad claiming that some car model “literally gave birth to” something.”

I’m with you on that one, Morris! It’s used as hyperbole… which does have merit… but it’s over-used and thus the word is losing its ‘true’ meaning. I confess I’m guilty of doing that myself, even though it bothers me.
Mark in Boston Mar 20th 2010 at 04:00 pm 27

Why can’t teachers learn their students proper English?
Mark in Boston Mar 20th 2010 at 04:04 pm 28

Isn’t “imply” an adverb meaning “in the manner of an imp”?
mitch4 Mar 20th 2010 at 04:18 pm 29

Heather, you explain my point of view [not just mine, though] far better than I did, but then for some reason balk at taking the final step.

If you’re thinking of “long-lived” as coming from the noun form, then it would be “long-lifed”.

Yes, exactly. And then under pressure of English phonotactics the /f/ gets voiced and becomes /v/.

Please bear in mind I already acknowledged this was one of the choices I persist in using as I was taught, even though I realize this puts me in a small minority. As with 1-syllable “forte” for ‘area of strength or ability’.

However, that doesn’t mean that I’m making it up on my own — though few, there are authorities who use it that way. Nor is this pronunciation based on the reasoning we’ve just gone thru. That was all post-facto explanation, not justification. The justification is more simply “This was the traditional form”.
Richard Mar 20th 2010 at 05:36 pm 30

It’s an Arlo. He’s supposed to know she lovers him because she lets him IN to her FURry part.
mitch4 Mar 21st 2010 at 12:45 am 31

On short-lived:

In the “On the Media” broadcast of 20 March [which is dated 19 March on the podcast file I was just listening to], they rebroadcast a 2006 story by Mike Pesca. See http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/03/19/06 . Their transcript is not yet up, but here’s my q-and-d transcription of a statement he makes starting 3:58 into the story:

I predict that in twenty years whatever version there is of Wikipedia will refer to plagiarism as a short-lived concept in the history of communication.

Just saying: Only a few hours after discussing it, I easily run across somebody on air pronouncing it my way. [Umm, the fact that there is a posted listener comment entry also agreeing with this is not actually a case of independent confirmation.]
George P Mar 21st 2010 at 02:03 am 32

I’m with Mitch4 on “long-lived”, too. I don’t correct people who don’t agree; that’s pointless, and we are in the minority these days, but I am not going to change the way I say it to avoid conflict.

I only bring these things up with others when they incorrectly correct my correct usage (I did that because I wanted to). This usually happens with place names. I’ve traveled a good bit, and I make a point of learning how the locals pronounce things.

The most common place name this happens with is Newfoundland. If I mention “NEW-fund-LAND” there’s a good chance someone will tell me it’s pronounced “NEW-fund-lund”, I just say, “Oh, have you been there? I have.”
Heather D Mar 21st 2010 at 06:39 am 33

Oh and don’t forget those who say “noo-FOUND-lund”

Ugh…

(I haven’t been there, but I live “next door” and have known many, many, many people from there, including some relatives)

There are lots of local place names here in the Maritimes too, that are often mispronounced by non-residents. Even something as simple as Amherst (don’t pronounce the H)… but also places like Koujibouguac, Maugerville, Petitcodiac… 10 points to the first person who knows how to correctly pronounce all 3.
Kamino Neko Mar 21st 2010 at 07:33 am 34

Goddess, when I was in school, I was ANGRILY ‘corrected’ about the pronunciation of Newfoundland in high school.

I’m a Newfie. The person who corrected me wasn’t. Argh.
The Bad Seed Mar 21st 2010 at 07:59 am 35

I was taught that “imply” is to “infer” as “speak” is to “listen”, which makes the difference pretty clear and simple to me.
David N Mar 21st 2010 at 12:17 pm 36

Man, there better be CE points for reading this whole thread.

All I know is you can imply, and you can ply. But while you can infer, defer, confer, refer, and offer you can’t just fer.
Detcord Mar 21st 2010 at 02:55 pm 37

David N (36)

…but you can go fer it!
George P Mar 21st 2010 at 04:33 pm 38

The first place I remember hearing Newfoundland pronounced correctly was at a Nova Scotia visitor center, driving down from New Brunswick. It caught my attention.

Does this mean that all the CBC “tonight at 8:00, 8:30 in Newfoundland” is pronounced wrong, or did I just not notice?

I had intended to enter Newfoundland through Lewisporte, but when I was checking into my Labrador City hotel I was told the ferry from Happy Valley/Goose Bay was delayed because of ice. In late June. So I had to completely change my plans, driving back to Baie Comeau, having a flat tire, getting it fixed, and just making the ferry to Matane. Good times.

Understand Newfoundland!
David A. Rooney Mar 21st 2010 at 08:33 pm 39

David N. (36) - I’m with you. I’ve learned more about the english language on this site than in highschool!

And if you want inconsistancies, can anyone explain why the word that means “to spell it like it sounds” is spelled with a PH?

And how can a rough lumberjack have a mean cough while cutting through a tough bough?

Or an archer can shoot his bow and arrow at the ship’s bow?

And if one child has a pair of skirts for ballet class, do all the others have to have two tutus, too?
Heather D Mar 21st 2010 at 08:40 pm 40

Say this out loud:

An oyster met an oyster
And they were oysters two
Two oysters met two oysters
And they were oysters, too
Four oysters met a pint of milk
And they were oyster stew
mitch4 Mar 22nd 2010 at 09:00 am 41

Oddly enough, the Merriam-Webster “word of the day” mailing today gives their take on a word that came up in this discussion:

March 22

forte

\FORT\

noun

Meaning
: something in which one excels : one’s strong point

Example Sentence
The pitcher’s forte is definitely his 100-mph fastball, although his curveball is also strong.

Did you know?

“Forte” derives from the sport of fencing — when English speakers borrowed the word from French in the mid-17th century, it referred to the strongest part of a sword blade, between the middle and the hilt. It is therefore unsurprising that “forte” eventually developed an extended metaphorical sense for a person’s strong point. (Incidentally, “forte” has its counterpoint in the word “foible,” meaning both the weakest part of a sword blade and a person’s weak point.) There is some controversy over how to correctly pronounce “forte”; common choices in American English are “FOR-tay” and “for-TAY,” but many usage commentators recommend rhyming it with “fort.” None of these is technically true to the French, in which “forte” would sound more like “for.” You can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose. All, however, are standard.

*Indicates the sense illustrated in the example sentence.
Heather D Mar 22nd 2010 at 10:25 am 42

“None of these is technically true to the French, in which “forte” would sound more like “for.” ”

WHAT!??

Um, no.

“Fort” would be pronounced similar to ‘for’… well, more like ‘fahr’… but “forte” is similar to ‘fort’ — the ‘o’ sound is a little different. But the t is definitely pronounced!

I mean, I don’t know much about technical fencing terms, perhaps the original term for that part of the sword actually does sound like ‘for’ and it’s an odd archaic spelling, or something. But the rule in french, a final consonant is silent, but pronounced when followed by an e (such as in the feminine form).
mitch4 Mar 22nd 2010 at 06:25 pm 43

@Heather D — Yes, I also thought this was undercut by their description of the French pronunciation. Even more, why say it rhymes with “fort” when apparently what they’re describing is precisely the same as the word “fort”. Could have said it rhymes with “port”, hmm?

Despite these problems, I’m happy with their position — they acknowledge all three variants for American speech, and do in some degree privilege the one-syllable version.