Which begs the question ...
It was a sad day for a pedant. I passed up a golden opportunity to use the phrase 'begs the question' correctly. I think.
I know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean 'raises the question ...' As a rule, if 'begs the question' is followed by a sub clause and a question mark, it has been used wrongly.
Here's what happened. I was writing about Scotland, and I quoted Graham Brady, Tory MP for Altrincham and Sale, West. He asked the Prime Minister:
'Why should my constituents pay more tax so that the Prime Minister's constituents pay no prescription charges?'
I think that begs the question. It begs the question because in order to answer directly you would have to adopt a premise that itself is very much disputed - that Mr Brady's constituents pay tax so that Gordon Brown's get free meds. They don't. Or, at least, it is arguable that they don't. So for Mr Brady to ask why is a trick of rhetoric, not a serious inquiry. It can't be answered without adopting a false allegation.
I wanted to write in the Observer, 'that begs the question.' But I didn't. Partly because I wasn't 100 per cent sure I was right about the meaning, but mostly because I thought the majority of readers are so used to seeing a question mark at the end of sentences involving 'begs the question' that they'd just think I had made a weird mistake. My job is, after all, communicating ideas to people, not resurrecting literary devices on the brink of obsolescence.
But then I was tortured by guilt and regret. I could have helped save 'begs the question' from eternal misuse. And I didn't. So now I have put it on the blog. My little piece of grammatical atonement.
