Bloggers Spat: "incipient" and "imminent"

Question

A couple of bloggers (I know they are more than just bloggers, but that't how I think of them) are in a spat about the usage of "incipient" and "imminent".
Steve Clemons
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
hosted a conference recently where Brent Scowcroft used "incipient" with regard to the civil war in Iraq. David Frum
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary011205.asp#050015 misquoted Scowcroft, replacing "incipient" with "imminent". Clemons pointed out the mistake, and wondered if it was intentional or accidental. Frum defended himself, saying that "imminent" indicates that the situation is not as dire as "incipient" implies, so the substitution was appropriate.
What think aue?
Huck'just visiting' Itume

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]A couple of bloggers (I know they are more than just bloggers, but that't how I think of them) are ... himself, saying that "imminent" indicates that the situation is not as dire as "incipient" implies, so the substitution was appropriate.[/nq]
The difference has nothing to do with how dire the situation is. "Incipient" means in an initial stage.
"Imminent" means about to happen.
Things are imminent before they are incipient.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]A couple of bloggers (I know they are more than just bloggers, but that't how I think of them) are ... "imminent" indicates that the situation is not as dire as "incipient" implies, so the substitution was appropriate. What think aue?[/nq]
"Incipient" means just beginning to happen. "Imminent" means about to happen or threatening to happen.
If a civil war is already in progress, it's not imminent.

If a civil war appears to be likely but has not yet started, it's not incipient.
If a civil war has developed to the point that battles between opposing forces are occurring, the civil war is neither incipient nor imminent: It's ongoing.
On reading that a high-ranking Shiite has recently been assassinated*, I conclude that civil war between Sunnis and Shiites is at least incipient and that full-fledged civil war is probably inevitable.
Saddam Hussein may rule again.
* Spelling mnemonic: "Assassinated" is not a half-assed word; in fact, it has two *****.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]On reading that a high-ranking Shiite has recently been assassinated*, I conclude that civil war between Sunnis and Shiites is at least incipient and that full-fledged civil war is probably inevitable. Saddam Hussein may rule again.[/nq]
That's just silly. Saddam ruled what he ruled of the country using only Sunni, about twenty something percent of the population, for his Republican Guards. In any future situation, the Sunni will be so outgunned, they won't have any power at all. If Saddam could control the country, more or less, with a minority, certainly the majority can control it with their majority. What you would probably end up with ultimately, worse case, is some sort of partition, which was de facto the case before the invasion.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]On reading that a high-ranking Shiite has recently been assassinated*, ... civil war is probably inevitable. Saddam Hussein may rule again.[/nq]
[nq:1]That's just silly.[/nq]
Maybe; maybe not. Silly or not, though, it probably doesn't matter much who is in power after the US leaves, the civil war happens, and the smoke clears. It's likely to be someone as bad as Saddam and maybe worse.
[nq:1]Saddam ruled what he ruled of the country using only Sunni, about twenty something percent of the population, for his Republican Guards. In any future situation, the Sunni will be so outgunned, they won't have any power at all.[/nq]
Weren't the Sunnis in the minority when Saddam came to power last time?
[nq:1]If Saddam could control the country, more or less, with a minority, certainly the majority can control it with their majority. What you would probably end up with ultimately, worse case, is some sort of partition, which was de facto the case before the invasion.[/nq]
You may be right about a de facto partition, but from what I've read I've gotten the impression that before the invasion Saddam was pretty much ruling the entire country with an iron and ****** hand. In what sense was there a partition of power?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]A couple of bloggers (I know they are more than just bloggers, but that't how I think of them) are ... "imminent" indicates that the situation is not as dire as "incipient" implies, so the substitution was appropriate. What think aue?[/nq]
Imminent sounds more dire to me than incipient, if it refers to something bad or undesired.
It suggests that it is about to happen and is inevitable. Incipient suggests a situation that could, but might not, develop into something else.

It might help if you clarified just what regard it has to the civil war in Iraq. Is what is imminent or incipient peace, a ceasefire, an escalation, or what? That would determine howe "dire" it is.

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Imminent sounds more dire to me than incipient, if it refers to something bad or undesired. It suggests that it is about to happen and is inevitable. Incipient suggests a situation that could, but might not, develop into something else.[/nq]
** BZZT **
Next contestant, please.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]A couple of bloggers (I know they are more than ... "incipient" implies, so the substitution was appropriate. What think aue?[/nq]
[nq:1]"Incipient" means just beginning to happen. "Imminent" means about to happen or threatening to happen. If a civil war is ... Saddam Hussein may rule again. * Spelling mnemonic: "Assassinated" is not a half-assed word; in fact, it has two *****.[/nq]
I don't like that one. A teacher of mine used to tell us that a person who's been "assassinated" is not someone who's eaten two donkeys. Much easier to remember.

Usenet · Answer

>
LOOL...that was mean!

Bloggers Spat: "incipient" and "imminent"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions