Talk:List of English words with disputed usage

Words with Disputed (or Erroneous) Usage: Refute

I think it merits noting in the entry for REFUTE that the more precise word to use when meaning "to deny" (other than deny...) would be REPUDIATE.

'Rebut' is not, I think, a counter-refutation; I don't know where that comes from. I don't think there is any way of countering an authentic refutation. I understand 'rebut' as 'present an argument against', and 'refute' as 'prove to be wrong'. https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/rebut-refute/ So a refutation decisively wins an argument; a rebuttal is just another skirmish in the battle. I think 'repudiate' is somewhere between 'deny' and rebut' - I think I'd expect a repudiation to have some reason associated with it, while (whilst?) a denial might consist of nothing but the word 'no'. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Usage may vary; in debate-team circles and pro versus con writing (e.g. the quasi-famous League of Women Voters' San Francisco Voter Guide), the order is argument, refutation, rebuttal (then the other side's argument, and the first side's refutation, and the now-defending second side's rebuttal; or these can run back-and-forth, e.g. argument, counter-argument, refutation of first argument, refutation of second, rebuttal of first refutation, rebuttal of second). A rebuttal in this sense is an attempt at counter-refutation and defense of the original argument, just as the earlier refutation is an attempt and not always successful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark. However googling 'refute rebut' turns up a page-full of results that all support the idea that a rebuttal is an argument against, and a refutation is a proof that an argument is wrong. So at least there should be a citation to support the view that refutation is no different from rebuttal, just in a different order; and it should be mentioned that this makes sense only in the context of debating-society jargon. And there should be some mention of what appears to be the more common view. I plan to make that change once I can find a good RS for the majority view; blogs and web-only dictionaries don't inspire me with confidence. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@User:SMcCandlish I am unable to locate the LWV San Francisco Voters Guide. Can you provide a link? Alternatively (you mentioned it for the sake of an example) can you provide another source to support the interpretation that refutation doesn't imply proof? Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of RFC

Talk:Common_English_usage_misconceptions#RfC:_Hyphens.2FDashes_misconception

Please help improve this related article. Comments should be placed at that Talk page rather than here.

Manual of Style

This is irregular.

The Manual of Style links here, yet this article appear to be an ordinary article, not a "metaarticle" directed at Wiki editors.

Please clarify if the advice and recommendations given here apply to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Contested_vocabulary. CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Singular they

The entry for "they" is confusing, because there are at least three different ways of using "they" with a singular meaning.

1. One is where the subject is grammatically singular but the sentence is a generalisation that potentially applies to a wider range of people or things, for example "Anyone wishing to claim expenses must inform the office of their name and address and the amount spent". This has been usual for centuries (see Singular they), even if sometimes disputed on prescriptive grounds.
2. Another is where the subject is clearly singular logically as well as grammatically, but the identity of the person is not known, for example "Will the person who left their car across my driveway please remove it?" This is more definitely informal.
3. Far more recent is the use of "they" for a known person who identifies as non-binary or intersex. This is often insisted on by the people in question: the awkwardness is not so much in the word "they" itself as in the fact that it has to be followed through e.g. by using plural verbs.

I am not passing judgment on the correctness of any of these usages, but only arguing that they are separate questions that should not be confused. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that the question relates at least equally often to the use of "them" or "their". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Other possible scenarios I can see are when referring to:

• A contact, typically online, whom one knows only by a unisex name or nickname and isn't sure of the person's gender.
• Somebody who is going through a gender identity crisis or transition.
• Knowing the person's gender but deliberately concealing it for whatever reason.
• An animal of a species that cannot easily be sexed by human eyes (when one feels the traditional "it" isn't appropriate).

Among both your original list and these, people may accept or reject particular uses. Furthermore, another cause of awkwardness is when it isn't immediately clear in the context that it's talking about one person. — Smjg (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)