Repudiate vs. refute

Question

I saw a letter to the editor tonight in which someone used the word repudiate when he probably meant refute.
We could try to tell him he meant refute, but I suspect he thinks refute means what repudiate actually does. So it's going to be a difficult conversation.
A while back I started a thread about misuse of refute, to mean claim is untrue even when providing no evidence that it is**. This seems to be the other half. I wonder how often both misunderstandings can be found in the same person.
**Repudiate can mean that. In the case tonight he said repudiate when I am pretty sure he did have evidence.
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage

If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Town NW of Pittsburgh Pa. 0 to 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 22 years

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I saw a letter to the editor tonight in which someone used the word repudiate when he probably meant refute. ... to 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 22 years[/nq]
Might one refute and then confute? For instance, say one provides (presents ; ) ) evidence to refute some claim, but that evidence is merely adequate. Later in the argument that same individual presents overwhelming, undeniable evidence. Has he then refuted and confuted?
Scout

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I saw a letter to the editor tonight in which someone used the word repudiate when he probably meant refute.[/nq]
And wouldn't it have been nice if you had quoted, or at least paraphrased, the pertinent passage so we could see it for ourselves?
[nq:1]We could try to tell him he meant refute, but I suspect he thinks refute means what repudiate actually does. So it's going to be a difficult conversation.[/nq]
I assume the writer's identity is also lost in the mists.
[nq:1]A while back I started a thread about misuse of refute, to mean claim is untrue even when providing no evidence that it is**.[/nq]
It's hardly new business. People have been pointing this out on AUE for many years now.
[nq:1]This seems to be the other half.[/nq]
Ah, if only we could have seen it!
[nq:1]I wonder how often both misunderstandings can be found in the same person.[/nq]
If I understand you aright, I can't say I've ever noticed the use of "repudiate" to mean "refute." I have a hard time figuring out exactly what it was you saw.
[nq:1]**Repudiate can mean that. In the case tonight he said repudiate when I am pretty sure he did have evidence.[/nq]
"Repudiate" to me carries a sense of disowning, as if the speaker is somehow responsible for what is being repudiated. If I could have seen the offending usage, perhaps I could have detected some disowning in the process. Or not.
Is it too late for you to give us some idea of what you saw?

Bob Lieblich
Enquiring mind and all that

Usenet · Answer

Sometimes AEU makes me feel insecure as a native speaker, which is nonsensical, as I am on average more literate than many Americans but this is one of those times when I have to agree with Bob, and agreeing with Bob sets my teeth on edge. This is also one of those times when I have to suggest that meirman read a general fair use clause as it pertains to copyright law. Quoting for the purposes of critique is fine within certain parameters.

refute:
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refutetestimony. 2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: re·pu·di·at·ed, re·pu·di·at·ing, re·pu·di·ates

1. To reject the validity or authority of: "Chaucer . . . not only came todoubt the worth of his extraordinary body of work, but repudiated it" (Joyce Carol Oates). 2. To reject emphatically as unfounded, untrue, or unjust: repudiated the accusation. 3. To refuse to recognize or pay: repudiate a debt. 4a. To disown (a child, for example). b. To refuse to have any dealings with.
Hence there is some slight overlap in meaning, but repudiate carries the stronger connotation of casting off, or overthrowing. It would seem that we would need the context.
Joanne

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Sometimes AEU makes me feel insecure as a native speaker, which is nonsensical, as I am on average more literate ... fair use clause as it pertains to copyright law. Quoting for the purposes of critique is fine within certain parameters.[/nq]
The problem that came about in the critique involved is that you set the parameters differently than the poster set them. The poster had no way of knowing in advance that your parameters were set the way they were.
If you post a reference url to your writing, you should either make clear what type of critique is acceptable to you or be prepared to accept whatever is offered.
When you post a url link to your work, you are - in the legal sense - creating an "attractive nuisance" and should bear the responsibility of creating the hazard.

Tony Cooper
Orlando FL

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Sometimes AEU makes me feel insecure as a native speaker, ... Quoting for the purposes of critique is fine withincertain parameters.[/nq]
[nq:1]When you post a url link to your work, you are - in the legal sense - creating an "attractive nuisance" and should bear the responsibility of creating the hazard. Tony Cooper Orlando FL[/nq]
I said as much in more informal terms the other evening. Suffice to say it will not happen again unless there is a telling need for me to cite my work in AEU.
However, my indignation against Gary is due to the fact that he made an actual revision to my work, however slight that revision. It was the one response I did not expect, and it is the one thing which isn't done, even in public domains. There is a line, however fine, between critique, and misappropriation. If one calls up Gary's post, he acknowledges making such an appropriation by writing
"I hope Joanne doesn't mind."
Joanne minded, and had he posted his suggestion in a better way, Joanne would have minded less. These are just posts, but as a general rule we do not rewrite even these (meaning that I do not consider my posts to be copyright protected, since I see them as a kind of electronic speech; I know Bob disagrees with me and can cite case law, but for all practical purposes, writers know the difference) for each other. It would get very confusing if we did. Correct each other, yes, not rewrite.
Joanne

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I saw a letter to the editor tonight in which someone used the word repudiate when he probably meant refute.[/nq]
[nq:1]And wouldn't it have been nice if you had quoted, or at least paraphrased, the pertinent passage so we could see it for ourselves?[/nq]
I recommend that myself often, and also I often have a clipping but I don't post about it until I actually bring it into the room with the computer so I can read it and quote it exactly. But there were extentuating circumstances this time.
Joanne, it wasn't an issue of fair use. I appreciate your defnitions and your comparison of them.
You will all have to take my word for it, pretty much, but if no one else ever sees it again, whether I saw it or just think that I saw it, this one occurrence won't mean much.
[nq:2]We could try to tell him he meant refute, but ... actually does. So it's going to be a difficult conversation.[/nq]
[nq:1]I assume the writer's identity is also lost in the mists.[/nq]
No one any of you had heard of. Many letters to the editor are like that.
[nq:2]A while back I started a thread about misuse of refute, to mean claim is untrue even when providing no evidence that it is**.[/nq]
[nq:1]It's hardly new business. People have been pointing this out on AUE for many years now.[/nq]
Well I don't read AUE and good for you, you didn't try to trivialize my posting the last time, afaicr. Too bad you couldn't hold out.
[nq:2]This seems to be the other half.[/nq]
[nq:1]Ah, if only we could have seen it![/nq]
Ah.

Yes, exactly, and merely doing that would have meant nothing, coming from his pov. He must have meant refute with evidence.
[nq:1]seen the offending usage, perhaps I could have detected some disowning in the process. Or not. Is it too late for you to give us some idea of what you saw?[/nq]
Yes.
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage

If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Town NW of Pittsburgh Pa. 0 to 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 22 years

Repudiate vs. refute

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions