presumably vs assumably

I've seen 'assumably' used where my ear tells me 'presumably' is meant: In fact, this is the case every time I hear 'assumably'; It always sounds like an error.

Usage guides label it an error, although it is in the dictionary--including the OED--albeit labeled as very rare.

I would like to take a stab at why, to my ear, it sounds wrong.

First let's start with the distinction between the basic meanings of the verbs 'presume' and 'assume'.

'Presume' has the connotation of a conscious decision. When one presumes, he consciously takes something as true although he knows, strictly speaking, he has insufficient reason.

When one assumes on the other hand, one takes something as true without questioning it. Assumption is largely unconscious and unexamined.

For example: If I have a paper due on Friday, I would assume the professor would accept it Monday if I just blindly take it for given that he wouldn't refuse a paper one business day late, and didn't actually give it a second thought. If on the other hand, I think through the position I will be putting him in when I hand it in on Monday, and wager that he wouldn't be harsh enough--or perhaps wouldn't care enough--to reject it, I would be presuming.

This is why--it seems to me--a certain sort of impropriety is called 'presumption'; It is assumed that it was a conscious transgression--or at least--that it ought to have been a conscious transgression: It is so far out of normal conduct that no one of any breeding would do it without first thinking about it.

For another example, I and my brother are going from our home to a party, but since I have to run errands we are driving separately. While running errands I realize I have forgotten my coat. If I assume he has already left, I don't even seriously consider the possibility that he got held up and is still at the house. If I presume he has left, I think through his schedule and how likely it is that he has been held up long enough to still be at the house, and I conclude that it is unlikely enough not to merit trying to reach him.

If I say I assumed something, I didn't seriously consider the alternative. If I presume something I did consider the alternative, and decided it was too remote a possibility.

Important in this is that 'assume' includes in itself the notion of error: Insofar as one failed to even consider the alternative, and unthinkingly accepted something that was not in fact given.

(I should note that I am well aware that this distinction is not necessarily hard-and-fast, and that there are many cases in which the two will be used interchangeably. I'm mainly trying to get at the connotation that these words have to modern speakers.)

Now let's talk about the adjectives: 'assumable' and 'presumable'.

'Assumable' implies that something is able to be assumed: Which to me at least, sounds like one is able to fail to consider that there might be alternatives. This is true of anything that is not patently false: One can blindly accept without sufficient deliberation just about anything with some plausibility.

'Presumable' on the other hand has the connotation be being able to be taken for granted with reflection, consciously. This is only true of things that are actually probable.

Thus 'presumably' says something substantial: It says something is fairly likely--likely enough that a reasonable person could consciously decide to take it for granted. 'Assumable', on the other hand is nearly vacuous, and says little more than that something is not so obviously false that no one could mistakenly take it for granted without thinking about it.

Maybe I'm reading too much into things. I'd be curious to hear whether this is just me, or whether any of you have a similar impression.

When Words Collide

The donkey has long been an image of slowness and dim-wittedness. Thus Michelangelo puts donkey ears on his critic Cesena, in the Last Judgment.

Indeed 'asinus' (the adjective, whence E. 'asinine') in Latin, could be used to mean not only donkeylike, but also stupid.

Or Euclid's pons asinorum: "The bridge of the asses," the proposition at which one moved into non-trivial proofs, and thus where the dunces would start to struggle.

Thus the original English word 'ass' (and later the masculine 'jackass'), from the Latin 'asinus', just referred to the animal: When used as an insult it was literally calling a person a donkey, with the implication of stupidity and dullness.

Meanwhile we have the Germanic 'arse' meaning the buttocks. Sometime near the beginning of modern English, it seems the 'r' dropped out, and 'arse' became 'ass'.

Etymonline gives us the history:

first attested 1860 in nautical slang, in popular use from 1930; chiefly U.S.; from dial. variant pronunciation of arse (q.v.). The loss of -r- before -s- attested in several other words (e.g. burst/bust, curse/cuss, horse/hoss, barse/bass). Indirect evidence of the change from arse to ass can be traced to 1785 (in euphemistic avoidance of ass "donkey" by polite speakers) and perhaps to Shakespeare, if Nick Bottom transformed into a donkey in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (1594) is the word-play some think it is.

At this point confusion ensues. As noted, already in the 18th century polite company avoided 'ass' even when used with its older meaning.

In contemporary American usage, when one calls another an ass, it seems from my observation at least, that the intended significance is to identify the subject as a bottom. In fact, calling someone a donkey is sometimes used as a euphemistic play on words to call someone a butt, without the speaker realizing that he is in fact paraphrasing the original insult (so it is actually a very direct insult, according to the old use and neither a euphemism nor a play on words).

Thus the insult has remained largely unchanged, but its reference and signification has entirely changed. It's sort of like the invasion of the body snatcher. Only with words.

Inalienable v. Unalienable

So with all the tea partying that has been going on, I've heard the phrase 'unalienable rights' several times in the last few weeks. It has given me pause each time, because I always thought the word was 'inalienable; 'unalienable' sounds wrong to my ear.

Always eager to be a pedant I decided to find out what the story is. It didn't take much googling before I found out that, 1) the word that appears in the Declaration of Independence is, in fact, 'unalienable', 2) both words are perfectly synonymous, although 'inalienable' is preferred by contemporary stylists.

"Well, that was anticlimactic," I think to myself.

Then I stumble upon this blog post which starts off something like this:

[Blah blah blah]

You pronounce “unalienable” as “un-a-LEEN-able”…but the only pronunciation I’m aware of is “uhn-eyl-yuh-nuh-buh l” (www.dictionary.com), as in alien, alienate, etc., with the accent always on the “a”.
[blah blah blah]
Best regards,

Tom

Hi Tom,

[Blah blah blah]
While most of the world seems to pronounce “unalienable” as “un-A-lee-un-a-ble,” I intentionally pronounce the word “un-a-LEEN-a-ble”.

Why? Because the meanings of the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are vastly different and I wish to make absolutely clear whenever I use the latter instead of the former.

My pulse quickens: Could there be a more to the story? Some arcane distinction between the two? Perhaps they came from entirely different roots? Or maybe we have some subtle term of the lawyer's art? What fascinating oddity of the English language have I stumbled upon. I continue:

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is:

“Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable”.

Um, okay. Not seeing the difference.

But if we go back to Black’s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we’ll see that “inalienable” was defined as:

“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”

Black’s 2nd defines “unalienable” as:

“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

*Puzzled look* I read on,

At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous.

To self: Well, yes they do.

However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”.

Clear as mud. How could I have missed that?

“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”.
. . .
That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

Uhhh. Come again? The definitions you gave seem to me to say that same thing. The fact that they were written by hand, and thus are not verbatim copies of one another does not alter the substantial identity of the two definitions:

Both say that such a thing cannot be aliened/alienated (these are synonyms with respect to property). Both definitions clarify that this means such things cannot be sold or transfered.

To bolster the case our author turns to another legal dictionary.

if we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:

“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”

“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

Clearly, the words are not synonymous.

No that is not clear at all. Both definitions start by saying such things cannot be transfered. Both give the examples of public roads, and give as a further example basic human rights like liberty.

I conclude that while there may be some confusion between the two terms, “unalienable” offers great and absolute power while “inalienable” is far weaker, more conditional, and probably subject to at least some “alienation”.

I don't know how you can conclude that 'inalienable' means "subject to some alienation", when your favored definition of the term (from Black's 2nd ed.) starts, I quote, "not subject to alienation."

So why take a chance? Why not make it your business to ensure that every time you have a chance to use one word or the other you always choose to use “unalienable”? Why not use the exact word (“unalienable”) that was used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence?

Actually that would mean using 'inalienable': The drafts that have been identified as being in Jefferson's hand use 'inalienable'.

While the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” have significantly different meanings, their “sounds” are almost identical and only a highly-tuned “ear” will note the distinction in sound and then meaning between them.

Wrong, and . . . wrong.

The meanings are (so far as your evidence has shown) the same.

The sounds do not require a highly-tuned ear to distinguish. That's how I got here in the first place: I heard a difference, a difference that I was not listening for.

And why are "sounds" and "ear" in quotation marks? Am I missing some innuendo?

I believe our modern gov-co fears and detests “unalienable” but doesn’t much mind that we use the word “inalienable”. The first term is lethal to gov-co powers; the second is not particularly threatening.

Right, The government knows that the people really do understand very different things by 'inalienable' and 'unalienable', and the government is really afraid to use the one because everyone knows it is so much stronger.

NEWS FLASH: Even if they once were distinguished (they do not appear to have been), no one recognizes that distinction today. NO ONE THINKS 'INALIENABLE' MEANS SOMETIMES ABLE TO BE GOTTEN RID OF! There is no motive for a conspiracy to abolish the use of one when everyone thinks they are synonymous.

Oh wait, maybe there is evidence:

I visited the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC about five years ago. I was amazed to see that the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the “Declaration of Independence” attributed to Jefferson that referred to our “inalienable Rights”. But the text of the Declaration of Independence” expressly refers to our “unalienable Rights”. Thus, the “Declaration of Independence” is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone. I couldn’t be more surprised if the gov-co has misspelled Jefferson’s name.

I cannot believe that the designers and builders of the Jefferson Memorial misspelled “unalienable” or “accidentally” replaced “unalienable” with “inalienable”. This change was done intentionally and because the word “inalienable” is trivial while the word “unalienable” is powerful to a spiritual degree.

Again, there is no difference (so far as your tirade has shown) in the meaning of the words. The discrepancy between the words on the memorial and those on the official document may be due to the fact that Jefferson's drafts all used the word you allege is "trivial".

Therefore, I intentionally “mispronunciate” (as our former President Bush might say) the word “unalienable” to “jar” each listener’s “ear” and make absolutely clear that they’ve just heard the explosive “BOOM!” of a 50 caliber rifle every time I “pull the trigger” and not a mere bean blower’s “phfffft”.

When you invest words with made-up significance and then mispronounce them, you do not make your communication clearer. You do, however, manage to make yourself sound like a dumbass who doesn't know English.

If you will indulge me a pun:

When you speak an idiolect you sound like an idiot.

Flaunting Proper Usage

I open the Washington Times to page five and am greeted by a full-page ad boldly declaring in red capitals:

OBAMA FLAUNTS THE CONSTITUTION.

Flaunt, To show off, display ostentatiously, as in, "if you've got it, flaunt it."

Hmm, so is it his lack of taste that our authors are up in arms over?

Possibly, but I suspect they were actually looking for 'flout', To show contempt for, to disregard.

Although the Random House Webster's College Dictionary canonizes the error (as they do for any sufficiently common mistake), Dictionary.com gets it right. As does almost every contemporary usage guide I can find: Paul Brians's Common Errors in English Usage, The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing. Even About.com correctly explains the difference. I needn't multiply examples when Google will do it for me.

One thing that is interesting though is an observation made at Motivated Grammar. The author there notes, taking a cue from the OED (which dates this error to 1923), that this confusion appears to have arisen quite abruptly around 1920, which abrupt rise he demostrated with the aid of Google Books.

I had to try for myself.

The first occurrence of 'flaunt the law', index in Google Books, is from 1905, in the Pacific Medical Journal. This is as opposed to the 99 indexed occurrence of 'flout the law' that occurred up till that year. The first occurrence of 'flaunt convention' is from 1915, as opposed to 29 occurrences with 'flout'.

I decided to chart the occurrences of the two forms of these two phrases--'~ the law' and '~ convention'--in 5 year periods. Then I decided to compare the frequency of the two forms in each period and to look at the change over time.

A couple of things need to be noted. First, the sample-size is very small in the initial years (the total number of occurrences in 1905-10 was only 32, it only broke 500 in 1965-68, and 1000 in 2000-04), thus there is a tremendous level of noise in the early periods. Second, nothing was done to keep one book from being double-counted; what was counted was the number of books in which the phrases in question appeared, not the number of times the phrases themselves appeared; a book could theoretically be counted 4 times. Moreover different editions of the same book could be counted as different books, possibly in different periods. Finally, it is known that some books counted as instances of the erroneous usage, which books were in fact using it to point out that it was an error, e.g., the Dictionary of Disagreeable English, The Dimwit's Dictionary, and others. Thus it is quite likely that the ratio for recent decades is skewed high. Further, it should go without saying that the sample is of published books, and does not attempt to represent spoken usage.

The resulting charts however are fascinating, and do not show the expected roughly exponential increase one would tend to expect, in the adoption of a phrase. We see a sharp decline in the period of '45-50. Followed by a sharp increase rounding out at around 24% in the second half of the 70s. This is followed by a slight drop-off.

It would be interesting to try to account for the peaks and troughs. Did WWII result in a larger percent of publications in the 40s being authored by professors as opposed to novelist and journalists? Did some popular style-guide lambaste the error in the 70s? Who knows. I leave that to my readers, to whom I also leave the task of pointing out the deficiencies of my statistical analysis.

While there are many questions left, a couple things can be stated with some certainty: The use of 'flaunt' meaning 'flout' (in published writing) can be traced to the early 20th century. It has never been used by a majority (in writing). Finally, it is fairly obvious that it is an error insofar as it is clear that the substitution is based on similarity of sound leading to a confusion of meaning, and not on some natural extension of meaning. Neither can it be credibly interpreted as an intentional figure of speech.

Anyway, while I can't place too much fault on the poor, confused author for his inarticulate expression of outrage at the president, I can recommend that, in general, if one runs a full page ad in a national newspaper that he have someone with a decent sense of the language review the proof.