« AP Stylebook is asking for it | Main | Bind and loose »

So you think you can refute, do you?

We turn attention today to a word subjected to frequent careless misuse, refute. While it is repeatedly used in the loose sense of “to challenge” or “to take exception to,” its traditional, formal sense has been “to disprove conclusively.”

To be used in this sense, refute would mean that not only the challenger but also the person challenged would agree on the point. People being what they are, that would mean that refute in the strict sense would almost never be seen.*

The word that most people are reaching for when they pluck up refute is rebut: I challenge, I disagree.

A vivid illustration of the distinction between refute and rebut has come up this week since Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, left a message to Anita Hill inviting her to announce publicly that she is a liar.

Nineteen years ago, in Senate confirmation hearings, Ms. Hill accused Mr. Justice Thomas of improper behavior, which he denied. He rebutted the accusations vigorously, comparing the confirmation hearings to a lynching.**

But he did not refute them. The testimony before the Judiciary Committee was not conclusive for either side, and people’s beliefs about which party was untruthful dovetail neatly with their political beliefs. So today there are many people who believe that Ms. Hill was speaking out of animus (the scorned-woman hypothesis) or acting as the tool of liberal groups bent on derailing the nomination. There are many people who believe that Mr. Justice Thomas perjured himself to gain a seat on the court.

And so it stands. Anita Hill’s testimony will be mentioned in articles on the day that Mr. Justice Thomas retires from the court, and will be mentioned again, more discreetly, in his obituary. This appears to be what is eating at Mrs. Thomas, explaining why, two decades later, it would be urgent for her to approach the one person who can move the needle from rebut to refute.

Certainty, in our sublunary world, is elusive, no matter how much people attempt to establish it by sheer volume of expression.


*Some writers, in apparent solidarity with Sarah Palin, have used the portmanteau word refudiate, refute plus repudiate, in serious published work. You Don’t Say refrains from commenting on the legitimacy of this usage because all the returns are not in.

**It appeared at the time, and some may think so still, that United States senators are less troubled by the accusation of misogyny than of racism.


Posted by John McIntyre at 1:20 PM | | Comments (9)


Only God refutes. Or reveals.

I don't think "refudiate" can be considered legitimate until those who use it acknowledge its made-up portmanteau-ness. If you can't spare a moment to wink in its direction, it's just plain wrong.

There's a stark difference between knowledgeably making stuff up and accidentally making stuff up. You need to show you understand the rules before you can start breaking them, right?

As I keep reporting, the OED shows refute 'rebut' from as long ago as 1895, and it is simply too late to change it now.

1895 Manitoba Morning Free Press13 Jan. 11/5 Members wish to refute the assertions..that Hayes council ‘is on its last legs’. Never in the history of the council was it in better shape.

Clearly this is no refutation in the older sense, but a mere rebuttal.

Well put, Mr. McIntyre.

Well put, Mr. McIntyre.

The issue with "refudiate" is not whether it was created intentionally or accidentally, but that it is meaningless. As Mr. McIntyre points out, "refute" has a particular and unique meaning, not related to "repudiate," which was obviously the word Ms. Palin intended to use.

I suppose we could make a case for "rebutiate," but I'm not feelin' it.

Oh, and we could also have a disquisition on "olive branch" in honor of Ms. Thomas. I have yet to see a definition that would include her phone call to Anita Hill.

Yes, refute means “to disprove conclusively.” Nevertheless, your conclusion of: "To be used in this sense, refute would mean that not only the challenger but also the person challenged would agree on the point," does not necessarily follow.

There are many examples, but I'll offer just one: DNA tests clearly exonerating wrongly convicted persons, yet police departments and prosecutors saying, without evidence, that they "still believe he's guilty."

And let's not forget Dick Cheney.

Then again, perhaps it's a matter of faith. I confess that I am unable to accept that the Manitoba Morning Free Press is incapable of error.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About John McIntyre
John McIntyre, mild-mannered editor for a great metropolitan newspaper, has fussed over writers’ work, to sporadic expressions of gratitude, for thirty years. He is The Sun’s night content production manager and former head of its copy desk. He also teaches editing at Loyola University Maryland. A former president of the American Copy Editors Society, a native of Kentucky, a graduate of Michigan State and Syracuse, and a moderate prescriptivist, he writes about language, journalism, and arbitrarily chosen topics. If you are inspired by a spirit of contradiction, comment on the posts or write to him at
Baltimore Sun Facebook page

Most Recent Comments
Sign up for FREE local news alerts
Get free Sun alerts sent to your mobile phone.*
Get free Baltimore Sun mobile alerts
Sign up for local news text alerts

Returning user? Update preferences.
Sign up for more Sun text alerts
*Standard message and data rates apply. Click here for Frequently Asked Questions.
Stay connected