I meant I was implying I didn't understand.

Some grammatical clarifications, not that I'm implying that you're ignorantly misusing the Queen's English.

I.e. vs E.g.

• I.e. (Latin, id est = "that is") - The abbreviation is used to express the sentiment "in other words." Usage: We went to a movie (i.e., "Star Wars"). In other words, the movie seen was "Star Wars."
• E.g. (Latin exempli gratia = "for example") - The abbreviation is used to suggest applicable examples. Usage: Let's go to a movie (e.g., "Star Wars"). Here, "Star Wars" is one among many movies you might go see. So, the e.g., could have been "Star Wars," "Jaws," or "Rocky," etc.
  

Sympathize vs. Empathize

• Sympathize - the emotional affinity in which whatever affects one person affects another person
  
• Empathize - the ability to recognize and experientially feel the emotion of another, typically as a result of a prior similar experience (empathy typically encompasses sympathy)

Presume vs. Assume

• Presume - to believe something to be true without proof of non-contradictory evidence (e.g., The defendant is presumed innocent.)
• Assume - often used similarly, but assume means to suppose, postulate, or claim something is true without checking or confirming it

Farther vs. Further

• Farther - refers to physical distance
• Further - refers to an extension of time or degree (It's "furthermore," never "farthermore.")
  

Who? vs. Whom?

• Who - used when referring to the subject
• Whom - used when referring to the object (Use the he/him method to decide which pronoun is correct: He=Who & Him=Whom, for example, "Who kicked whom? He kicked him.") (see my previous post for more)
  

Implying vs. Inferring

• Imply - for the giver of information to suggest indirectly; to put the suggestion into the message
• Infer - for the receiver of information to make a guess or conclusion in light of certain evidence; to take the suggestion out of the message (A speaker can imply, but a listener can only infer.)

Alas vs. Alack

• Alas - used to express sorrow or grief
• Alack - more old school way to say "alas"

Regardless vs. Irregardless

• Regardless - without regard for or despite something
• Irregardless - commonly used the same way, though somewhat nonsensically, since the "ir" should be used for negation rendering the term a double negative meaning "not without regard for/to"
  

Are you trying to say, "capiche"? Well don't do it, 'cause it hurts my ears when you do it.

These aren't so much pet peeves as they are my contentions about how words ought to be pronounced.

1. AGAIN - It should rhyme with "pain," and "rain," like the kind in Spain that stays mainly in the plain. I can only assume we changed this to spite our friends in Canada and/or the UK.
   
2. KANSAS & ARKANSAS - It should either be "Can-Zes" & "Are-Can-Zes" OR "Ken-Saw" & "Are-Ken-Saw." The current inconsistency is unstable.

I don't know if usage has changed and what I'm proposing is how it used to be or if it's always been cagged, but regardless of what you've heard, I'm right on this.

• While on the subject of pronunciation, I find it odd that "Course" and "Horse" and "Hoarse" and "Force" all rhyme.

BONUS: Check out one publisher's Top 40 Pronunciation Pet Peeves.

Give me a word, any word, and I show you that the root of that word is Greek.

For my pastoral colleagues who have given up and/or rusted up where their Greek is concerned, I recommend Keep Your Greek: Strategies for Busy People, by Constantine R. Campbell.

Here's a snippet for the utilitarian:

"Sometimes students ask me whether or not it is good to talk about Greek in their sermons. I usually caution against talking about it unnecessarily, though I think it is fine to do so if your hearers will really benefit. So then the inevitable question is: If Greek doesn't make it into my sermon, then what's the point? To which I will answer: If you think that way, you've missed the point. The usefulness of Greek is not so that you can tell people about what the Greek says in your sermon. The usefulness of Greek is that it will give you understanding of the text, which will shape what you do say in the sermon. It's for your preparation, and it usually remains behind the scenes. Sure, sometimes it might need to come out from behind the curtains, but generally speaking it will do its work unseen by everyone but you. But to you, the Bible teacher, Greek will make a huge difference."

Preview Keep Your Greek here.

"To whom," brother! "To whom," brother! "To whom," brother!

One of the more confused issues of grammar is the "Who" vs. "Whom" usage. "Who" is nominative case, while "whom" is accusative case.

Rule: Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.

• he = who
• him = whom

Examples:
Who/Whom wrote the letter?
He wrote the letter. Therefore, who is correct.

For who/whom should I vote?
Should I vote for him? Therefore, whom is correct.

We all know who/whom pulled that prank.
This sentence contains two clauses: We all know and who/whom pulled that prank. We are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. He pulled that prank. Therefore, who is correct. (Are you starting to sound like a hooting owl yet?)

We want to know on who/whom the prank was pulled.
This sentence contains two clauses: We want to know and the prank was pulled on who/whom. Again, we are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. The prank was pulled on him. Therefore, whom is correct.

• Source: GrammarBook.com

Please, I'm begging you, have mercy; I've been wearing the same underwear since Tuesday.

Humans quite often misunderstand the concept of "Begging the Question."

People will be talking about a subject and someone will say, "That begs the question ..." and then offer up a related question.

For example: "Whenever a sequel comes out, it always begs the question, 'So is it as good as or better than the first one?'"

In other words, what they mean instead of "That begs the question ..." is "That raises a related question, which probably should be asked & answered."

"Begging the Question" is actually a reasoning fallacy and would be a criticism of what's just been stated. In such a scenario, begging question is really avoiding the/a question; it's NOT asking for the question. Confusing use of terminology, I know.

Begging the question presents a premise as though it's beyond question and uses it in making an argument. As part of the argument, a person uses as fact that which may be unproven or contested in order to prove a point or draw a conclusion.

For example, the guy who gets rejected when asking a girl out for a date is begging the question when he attributes her "No" response to her being stuck up or dumb or a female dog or whatever. Why? Because he's assuming he's a worthwhile individual in whom there is no flaw. So, it can't be something wrong with him. It must be a defect in her. The fact finder would challenge his questionable assumption, namely that he's not a loser.

Another example is all the environmentally friendly things we must do in order to have a planet left for our children and grandchildren. Yet, these assertions beg the question; what's disputed is the effect those things have on the environment. In other words, the question is avoided as to whether or not our fuel exhaust or factories actually affect climate change.

Want another example? Most of the impetus behind gun control laws beg the question. We need to ban all guns so there will be a safer America for our children. What's the question avoided? Do gun bans lead to reduced crime rates? Look at Chicago. Look at Washington, D.C. Look wherever you like. The reality is that studies will show law-abiding citizens bearing arms reduces violent crime rates. But the question is begged in order to get laws passed, etc. [cf. "Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws... It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem." -Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune]

In Christian theology, one indicator of begging the question is when a writer prefaces his premise with "Clearly," as in, "Clearly, X, so then Y." More often than not, X is not really all that clear. In fact, it's probably fiercely debated, else everyone would already be on board with Y.

"Clearly" tries to convince you that everyone already believes it, so you should too, which will enable us to move on to my conclusion.

An example, would be citing John 5:24 and 1 John 5:11-13, to show that a Christian cannot lose his or her salvation and then saying, "Clearly, a Christian cannot lose salvation, so Heb 6:4-6 & John 15:6-7 can't mean that."

Although I agree that a genuinely converted and justified person will not become unsaved, the reasoning is faulty. Someone might just as easily go to Heb 6:4-6 and John 15:6-7 for a bit and then say, "Clearly, a believer can lose his or her salvation, so John 5:24 & 1 John 5:11-13 can't be universally eliminating the possibility."

So, back to terminology ... if a statement raises the question in your mind, say, "That raises the question ..." or "That brings to mind the question ..."

Otherwise, you're actually criticizing the other person's statement, accusing him or her of a logical fallacy and playing dirty, if intentional.

N.B. Begging the question is related to circular reasoning or making a circular argument, but not quite the same. An example would be fossil dating. That fossil is 30 million years old. How do you know? Because we found it in the 30 million year old rock. How do you know that rock is 30 million years old? Because of the dates of the fossils we found there, etc. Another example of circular reasoning would be to say that the reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad. And the reason drugs are bad is because they are illegal.

You ... you complete me.

"We don't go to church; we are the church."

You've heard this before, as have I, many times. I understand the point being attempted, but I have seen such a sentiment espoused by those with a very low view of the church (i.e., the local church).

It's worth noting that the Greek word for "church" (ekklesia) means assembly.

Most know the New Testament was written in Greek, but many don't know that the "Old Testament" used in the days of Jesus was the Septuagint, or LXX, a Greek translation of the Hebrew.

In the Septuagint, which the New Testament quotes, every time you see "assembly" in English in the Old Testament the word was ekklesia in the Greek Septuagint.

Sure, the church is the ekklesia, the "called out ones," but they are called out to be called together. The church is community, not a bunch of individuals armed with their Bibles needing nothing or nobody else.

“If the church is central to God’s purpose as seen in both history and the gospel, it must surely also be central to our lives. How can we take lightly what God takes so seriously? How dare we push to the circumference what God has placed at the center?”
- John Stott

Sadly, I know far too many who consider themselves spiritually mature, yet they have little to no commitment to the gathering of God's people for worship, edification, and encouragement.

It's ironic because they not only are failing in a very fundamental aspect of what it means to be a Christian, but they are also short-circuiting their own spiritual growth by not churching, which would give them a place to serve, worship, learn, encourage, and be encouraged.

In short, they are not being the church and they are thwarting their own sanctification and, therefore, the glory God would get from them if their lives better reflected His character.

Hillary was wrong. It doesn't take a village. It takes a church.

Be the church, of course, but you can't be the church without being with the church.

As the French say, that certain "I don't know what."

I keep on noticing the prevalence of Schadenfreude among my children. Yeah, they were not familiar with the term either. It's a German word referring to taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune. They love to see each other get in trouble or have bad things happen to them, but that's a post on depravity we'll save for another day.

But, for your learning pleasure, I share some other neat terms from the Fatherland, terms that tend to express an idea better than English might.

• An sich - in itself
• Backpfeifengesicht - German compound word for a face that should be hit
• Besserwisser - "better knower," somebody who knows better or best and who does not hesitate to inform the others about it; akin to a "know-it-all"
• Dasein - existence or being there, an entity's potentiality¹
• Doppelgänger - "double goer" - a ghostly double, look-alike, or clone of a person
• Dummkopf - "dummy head"
• Fahrvergnügen - enjoyment derived from driving
• Freispiel - free play or free game
• Gemütlichkeit - connotes the notion of belonging, social acceptance, cheerfulness, the absence of anything hectic and the opportunity to spend quality time
• Gesundheit - health
  
• Heilsgeschichte - salvation history, God's positive saving actions throughout history
• Hinterland - remote area, back country
  
• Kaputt - out of order
• Kitsch - cheap, sentimental, gaudy items of popular culture, trinkets
  
• Schadenfreude - pleasure in someone else's misfortune
• Schweinehund - "pig dog," common term of insult
  
• Sitz im Leben - setting in life, context
• Spielzeug - play thing, toy
  
• Übermensch - overman or superman²
• Verboten - forbidden
  
• Verstehen - understanding
• Wanderlust - a strong need or desire to travel
  
• Weltanschauung - world view
• Wunderbar - wonderful
• Wunderkind - wonder kid, miracle child
• Zeitgeist - spirit of the time

See also nunchi, a Korean word for the innate ability to sense what would be the wrong thing to say in a situation (and presumably the ability to then not say it).

¹ - Dasein was famously examined by Martin Heidegger in Being and Time. It is derived from da-sein, which literally means "being-there/here," though Heidegger was not fond of this translation. Heidegger chose this term as a synonym for "human entity" in order to emphasize the critical importance "being" has for our understanding and interpretation of the world.

² - Übermensch was made famous as a concept by Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared the Übermensch as a goal for humanity, overcoming the herd, in his book Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Well, then I get all excited. I'm like Jojo the idiot circus boy with a pretty new pet.

I'm starting to get really whipped by exclamation point abuse. I share two recent instances.

1. My wife was perusing houses via the miracle of the Internet, not so much because we want to move, but it's sort of her hobby.

In one she sent me I found the following description noteworthy.

THIS HOME HAS ONE OF THE BEST YARDS IN [town]! SO MANY TREES! VIEW OF GOLF COURSE FROM JUST ABOUT EVERY WINDOW IN THE HOUSE! UPDATED POOL WITH A IRON FENCE! ABSOLUTELY BREATH TAKING! IT ALSO HAS AN AWESOME HOUSE ATTACHED TO IT TOO! AND THERE IS A THREE CAR GARAGE! KITCHEN HAS GRANITE COUNTERTOPS! NEW CARPET AND PAINT!

In case you're keeping score, that's eight (8) exclamation points in that terse bit of text. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's excessive and trying too hard.

2. Today I got a note from school about my kid's "Winter Party," which included a solicitation from the Room Mom for some cag for the party, including milks.

This caught my eye:

"The milk is to be purchased directly from the cafeteria by the parent who wants to donate it just before the party!!"

I thought to myself, "Self, I can understand bolding the text, but is it really an exclamation? If so, does it need two (2) exclamation points?"

Anyway, what's up with that? One should be enough and I've seen three exclamation points, but rarely do you see two.