> Perhaps, but deliberately using the expression incorrectly is even sillier.
It's not incorrect, and calling it that is exactly the misguided pedantry referred to in GP.
> I'm not opposed to linguistic innovation if it makes the language more elegant or more expressive
The intransitive sense of “begs the question” does exactly that, and I explained how it does that in GP. Also, its been in common use long enough that it is hardly "innovation”; the persistent pedantic struggle against it is a reactionary struggle for linguistic regression. Which might still make some sense, if the usage was one which created confusion or obscured meaning, but its not.
It's not incorrect, and calling it that is exactly the misguided pedantry referred to in GP.
> I'm not opposed to linguistic innovation if it makes the language more elegant or more expressive
The intransitive sense of “begs the question” does exactly that, and I explained how it does that in GP. Also, its been in common use long enough that it is hardly "innovation”; the persistent pedantic struggle against it is a reactionary struggle for linguistic regression. Which might still make some sense, if the usage was one which created confusion or obscured meaning, but its not.