What Does “to bring to bear” Mean?

This is a guest post by Julie Link. If you want to write for Daily Writing Tips check the guidelines here. 
 
The Indianapolis Star recently reported that Bristol Palin “is bringing her experience as a teen mom to bear on the small screen” (February 24, page A11, no author cited). The phrase caused me to wince, so I did a quick search on the usage of  “bring to bear.”
 
The first definitions I collected confirmed my intuition that the phrase was misused. ThesaurusReference.com defines the term as “have to do with” and lists as synonyms, among other terms, “apply,” “draw a parallel to,” and “relate to.” AudioEnglish.net is more specific, offering the definition “bring into operation or effect.”
 
I was puzzled. What does Ms. Palin’s motherhood have to do with the small screen? How does it bring into operation the TV show she will participate in? Surely the power of her mother’s notoriety does not extend that far!
 
Further clicking on the web uncovered this definition from TheFreeDictionary.com: “to put to good use.” Ah—exoneration of the writer! If sharing Bristol’s life as a teen mom can encourage other teens to think carefully before putting themselves at risk of an unplanned pregnancy, perhaps she is indeed bringing her experience to bear. Hats off to her!
 
But the phrase still displeased my ear. The problem is the ambiguous word “on.” The first definition of “bring to bear” includes “on” as a tacit piece of the verb and is, therefore, a transitive verb requiring a direct object: “The president of the board brought the dismal sales figures to bear on the new budget.” The sales figures were related to the new budget; they played a role in bringing the new budget into operation.
 
The second definition, “to put to good use,” is intransitive: “All the skater’s skills were brought to bear in her attempt to win the gold medal.” So the question is, in the Star report, is the word “on” part of the verb “bring to bear” with “the small screen” as the direct object or is it a preposition having at its object “the small screen”?
 
With a heart of goodwill, I will assume the writer used the phrase in the intransitive sense and will join him in hoping that Ms. Palin’s experience will be put to good use. I maintain, however, that all writing should be precise and unambiguous and I bring to bear William Safire’s exhortation that writing should always please the ear.
 
Julie Link is an experienced editor and avid lexiphile who loves reading and writing about language and grammar.

I Pity the Full!

Something strange has happened to the useful expression “foolproof.” Many writers are writing “full proof” to mean “safe against misinterpretation, misuse, or failure”:

How to make a contract full-proof

CREATING A FULL PROOF MARKETING CAMPAIGN

Reduce Stretch Marks From Pregnancy – Try These Full-proof Remedies

Steps to a Full Proof Insect Free House

10 Full Proof Methods On How To Make Easy Income Online!

The expression foolproof originated in 1902 as an Americanism meaning “safe against the incompetence of a fool.” It combines the words fool and proof.

fool: a person lacking in judgment or prudence; a person who acts stupidly or recklessly

proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Foolproof follows the pattern of such words as fireproof and waterproof and means that something has been tested and proved to withstand certain damaging agents.

The growing use of the expression “full proof” in the sense of “foolproof” may stem from a reluctance to cause offense to the fool demographic.

Yet the definition in Merriam-Webster Unabridged skillfully manages to definefoolproof without the slightest mention of the wisdom-challenged portion of the population:
  
foolproof
1 : so simple, plain, or strong as not to be liable to be misunderstood, damaged, or misused 
2 : guaranteed to operate without breakdown or failure under any conditions

There probably are contexts in which the expression “full proof” can be justified. For example, one might demand “full proof” of identity. Although it seems to me that “proof” would suffice.

The expression “to make full proof” occurs in the King James translation of the Bible:


But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. 2 Timothy 4:5

The expression and discussions of its meaning are to be found on many evangelical sites:

What constitutes “full proof” in Paul’s advice to Timothy?

I think “make full proof of” means to fulfill the ministry that God gives you to do.

If you just can’t bear to use an expression that you fear may suggest you’re calling someone a fool, here are a few words you could substitute in certain contexts:

infallible
dependable
reliable
trustworthy
certain
sure
guaranteed

“Have” vs “Having” in Certain Expressions

Paul Russell poses an interesting question about the use of have and having. He points out the common ESL error of saying “I am having a headache” and asks:

Why can I say “I’m having my lunch” but not “I’m having a headache”? Some explanations I’ve read indicate it’s all to do with possession.  But every time I think I have it figured, I have to wonder why I must say “I have a cold” when I can’t say “I have a heart attack.” I’m sure you’ll be having a good explanation for me:-)

Here’s the usual rule given to ESL students concerning the use of “have” to show possession or to describe medical conditions:

Have should always be in the simple present tense for the meaning “to own,” or to describe medical problems. For example: They have a new car. I have a bad cold. It is incorrect to say “I am having a cold” or “I am having a new car.”

“I’m having a heart attack” does seem to contradict this rule.

I think that the difference between “I have a headache” and “I’m having a heart attack” may have more to do with duration than with either a medical condition or possession.

One can “have a heart condition,” but a heart attack is a singular event, usually over in a few seconds or minutes. One may say “I hope I won’t have a heart attack,” but in the event that one has one–and is capable of telling someone–”am having” is the only possibility.

A headache is generally of longer duration than a heart attack. It may last an hour, several hours, or days. The same applies to a cold. Both are events of indeterminate duration. You have them for a while.

If you’re seated at a table having your lunch, you’re engaged in an activity with a predictable end. You’ll stop “having lunch” when you’ve finished eating.

That’s my theory, anyway.

“Quit” as Predicate Adjective

Does anyone else cringe at the use of quit in the commercial that says:

44% of … users were quit during weeks 9 to 12 of treatment.

The context screams for quit as a verb, not as a predicate adjective:

44% of users … had quit after nine weeks.

The OED’s entry for quit “in predicative sense” offers these illustrations:

When the book was restored the borrower [was] declared quit. (1866)

This charter confers the right of having one man quit from tallage in every royal borough. 1928

Ralph is not quit of his wartime melancholy. (1945)

He is tired of Sophina. He wishes to be quit of her, but she cannot afford to leave him. (1997)

The example from 1866 sounds a bit like legal jargon. The one from 1928 uses “from” where we might say “of.” Those from 1945 and 1997, which include the particle “of,” sound perfectly idiomatic.

When starting to write this post, I’d expected to argue that nobody uses quitwith a being verb without the “of,” but I’ve found many examples of the infinitive phrase to be quit, mostly in informal writing in comments and forums, and mostly in connection with beating the cigarette habit:

I am grateful to be quit. It is 5 months and 3 weeks.

But one thing I have not lost sight of:  How truly truly grateful I am to be desperate to be quit.

Smoking was a [habit] that had to be quit.

David Gelkin has it right – the idea quitting is always bad – is an idea that ought to be quit.

But after hearing Ms. Rice’s description of Christianity, I’m thinking it deserves to be quit.

Idiom is tricky. The statements with “to be quit” don’t offend my ear the way that drug commercial does.

Types of Ignorance

As a teacher, I am always pained when I hear “ignorant” used as an insult.

ignorance: n. lack of knowledge

Everyone is born ignorant into the world. The word ignoranceis from Latin ignorantia. The prefix in- means “not”; Old Latingnarus means “aware, acquainted with.” Mere ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Ignorant is not a synonym for “stupid.”

Catholic theology recognizes three categories of ignorance:

invincible ignorance: lack of knowledge that a person has no way to obtain

vincible ignorance: lack of knowledge that a rational person is capable of acquiring by making an effort

nescience: lack of knowledge that doesn’t matter in the circumstances (from Latin ne-, “not” plus scire, “to know.”

In Catholic theology, invincible ignorance, “whether of the law or the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin.”

In the secular realm, however, all ignorance is seen as “vincible.”

For logicians, the term “invincible ignorance” means “the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one’s position in the face of contradictory facts.” If the facts are presented, there’s no excuse to refuse to acknowledge them.

The law likewise does not allow for a category of information unavailable to the lawbreaker that would forgive the breach of the law: ignorantia juris non excusat, “ignorance of the law does not excuse.”

Here’s a lengthier definition of the secular take on invincible ignorance from Wikipedia:

invincible ignorance: a deductive Fallacy of Circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It’s not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.

Fitness expert Greg Glassman has this recommendation for dealing with invincible ignorance:

some simply cannot be swayed toward your way of thinking, so don’t try. …you’re probably best to walk away from a pointless debate.