Comments on: Repudiate, Refute, and Reject

By: Shannon

Shannon — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:35:15 +0000

Repudiate . . . disown something: to disapprove of something formally and strongly and renounce any connection with it. Words are powerful tools and can be used to empower the reader/hearer, depending on how it is wielded. When you are in the public eye, you must pick and choose your words wisely, or you will find that your opposers will pick you apart. One syllable or letter can change the whole course or direction of a thought or idea that changes the landscape of public opinion in a moment. Depending on your audience, and the sphere of influence one has, one word can shift the proverbial plates, that have been slowly eroding for years and cause a tsunami of paramount proportions to occur.

Now as a counter balance, one must take what is said into context with the whole of an expressed thought/idea being spoken. You must understand the character, motive and intention of what is trying to be conveyed, without immediately concluding a ‘conspiracy theory.’ There is a famous saying from Hamlet, ‘Me thinks thou dost protest too much!’ Which means, why must you protest, if what you believe is the truth? No need…

It is necessary to study history so we are not destined to repeat it. The ‘civil war mentality,’ must be a lesson learned, so as not to repeat the atrocities of brother fighting against brother and a nation is lost in its own freedom of speech and yet have nothing to say. So what’s in a word?

By: Nelida K.

Nelida K. — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:00:37 +0000

Maeve, I’m so glad you took this up, because the use of “repudiate” (I had not seen the previous “refudiate”) so grated on my idiomatic ears! I immediately thought to myself “of course, ‘reject’ is what she meant”. Politics apart – I am not a U.S. citizen and I don’t live in the States, so it doesn’t befit me to issue an opinion – you’ll find that politicians (as well as anchor persons, newscasters, talkshow hosts, journalists, reporters, etc.) are not linguists and they are inclined to make these mistakes. This happens also in my native tongue, Spanish. What makes these mistakes stand out in such a way, is that the infractors are public persons and shapers of public opinion, role models as it were, and they should be more careful and knowledgeable about their use of vocabulary.

The crux of the matter of this incidence, is that Mrs. Palin tried to correct a mistake with yet another mistake. I believe that she would do well to include a linguist in her staff.

By: deborah

deborah — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:02:31 +0000

The stir was not caused by a “mere word.” It was caused by the fact that the woman who wrote it (she must have got to the keyboard before her handlers could stop her) is ignorant and proud of it and wants to run this country because it is “God’s plan.” Think about that. The danger is not that this divine plan will ever be realized; the danger is that her followers are just as ignorant and uneducated and fearful as she is–all it takes is one: the death of Dr Tiller is the perfect example of what these people think is God’s plan. I have people in my own family who support and defend everything Sarah Palin says and does. It’s no laughing matter.

By: Cecily

Cecily — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:21:02 +0000

@Mary: F is nowhere near P on my keyboard.

Anyway, Palin made it worse by her subsequent actions: replacing it with a different error and then claiming it was a deliberate new coinage, akin to Shakespeare.

By: Mary Hodges

Mary Hodges — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:46:05 +0000

To me “refudiate” looks like a straight typo. Just shows you should spell check everything you write even if it’s only a tweet.