Pedants Corner

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

no story was really a story unless there was a whiff or more of sex, violence, drugs or celebrity scandal to it, preferably all four, and inferring scandal where none existed was perfectly all right as long as the public paid attention.

Now unless I'm mistaken, and there's a good chance I am, shouldn't it be 'implying' instead of 'inferring'?
As the speaker (or writer) implies, and the listener (or reader) infers?

I think the two got switched in another column as well (either that or all those rules I got taught at school that never seem to be true,ie. i before e except after c, have jumbled me brains again).

[NatGertler]

Steven's actually got a reasonable usage of "infer" here, if the reporters were extrapolating from facts before presentation. If the reporter just said "the bishop has a new Jaguar", with a raised eyebrow, then he'd be implyng scandal. But if he said "Something is not right here, the bishop has a Jaguar", then the reporter looked at what might be a perfectly innocent bit of Jaguar ownership and said "Something is wrong here, the bishop has a Jaguar", then he has inferred scandal, looking at the world through scandal-tinted glasses, probably by choice.

[mattx110]

Steven's actually got a reasonable usage of "infer" here, if the reporters were extrapolating from facts before presentation. If the reporter just said "the bishop has a new Jaguar", with a raised eyebrow, then he'd be inferring scandal. But if he said "Something is not right here, the bishop has a Jaguar", then the reporter looked at what might be a perfectly innocent bit of Jaguar ownership and said "Something is wrong here, the bishop has a Jaguar", then he has inferred scandal, looking at the world through scandal-tinted glasses, probably by choice.

the intention was to state that reporters used misdirection to create interest for a story. based on that "implying" would be the right word.

i don't think anyone has to hold this against him... maybe he'll just pay us off to hide the evidence

[bartl]

Steven's actually got a reasonable usage of "infer" here, if the reporters were extrapolating from facts before presentation. If the reporter just said "the bishop has a new Jaguar", with a raised eyebrow, then he'd be implying scandal.

As far as I recall, "infer" is assuming or deducing unstated facts, and "imply" is stating facts in such a way as to cause others to infer unstated facts. And it can be a completely valid deduction: If I saw "The sun is out", I am implying that it is daytime, and you can feel confident in inferring it.

[bartl]

the intention was to state that reporters used misdirection to create interest for a story. based on that "implying" would be the right word.

The reporters are definitely implying. If they believe the implications to be true, they are also inferring. Therefore, I am inferring that Grant's use of the term, "inferring" means that he is inferring that the reporters believe what they are implying to be true.

THAT was fun.

[NatGertler]

I think you mean "implying" there; if I'm correct, and you edit the original, I'll delete this paragraph so as to avoid confusion.

You're right, and it has been edited (not a "knowing the word" error; a "composing while tending to a sick 2 year old" error.)

One does not need to actually believe what one infers - there can be a willful inference, as long as it is reasoned from the information given and ads to that information. And one can turn around and state it baldfacedly, so that one is not implying one's inference.

(And in any case, to hint is actually a definition of "infer", although lower on the definition stack.)

[Inkthinker]

Proud member.

:D

[Paul McEnery]

Now unless I'm mistaken, and there's a good chance I am, shouldn't it be 'implying' instead of 'inferring'?
As the speaker (or writer) implies, and the listener (or reader) infers?

I think the two got switched in another column as well (either that or all those rules I got taught at school that never seem to be true,ie. i before e except after c, have jumbled me brains again).

Nope. Implying wouldn't even make sense here. The reporters are inferring as true something which is not implied by the facts.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Nope. Implying wouldn't even make sense here. The reporters are inferring as true something which is not implied by the facts.

But it's too us the readers that they are implying it - that's how I read it.

But let me get this right, they look at the facts and then infer there's a scandal, they write a report which implies one, and when we read it, we infer the scandal?
Am I even close?

[dancj]

It all depends.

If they write "Oooh - Brad Pitt's been spending a time with Julia Roberts on the 14th of February" then they're implying.

If they see that Brad Pitt spent time with Julia Roberts on the 14th of February and then write "Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts are romantically involved" then they're inferring, but not implying anything.

Dan

[Steelhead]

On a related topic, the adjective of "Chechnya" is "Chechen"--Chechen food, Chechen art, a Chechen, the Chechen language, much like:
Kazakhstan-->Kazakh
Slovakia-->Slovak

[Paul McEnery]

But it's too us the readers that they are implying it - that's how I read it.

But let me get this right, they look at the facts and then infer there's a scandal, they write a report which implies one, and when we read it, we infer the scandal?
Am I even close?

Nope.

They ain't implying nuttin. They're asserting it. Or possibly insinuating.