Discussion:
Does "responsibility" mean "the ability to respond"?
(too old to reply)
can_dori
2007-05-01 05:20:54 UTC
Permalink
For years I've heard the word 'responsibility' equated with 'response-
ability', i.e. the ability to respond. This definition is given
frequently in what some call 'new age' groups. I've never been
comfortable with this definition, but I don't know how to find out if
it has any validity or not. I'm sure someone here can set me straight.

Thank you in advance for any information you can give me.


P.S. Yes, I know I don't know how to use quotes correctly, as well as
commas and many other things. I figure if I can get my point across,
I'm doing well <g>

Dori
Will
2007-05-01 08:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by can_dori
For years I've heard the word 'responsibility' equated with 'response-
ability', i.e. the ability to respond. This definition is given
frequently in what some call 'new age' groups. I've never been
comfortable with this definition, but I don't know how to find out if
it has any validity or not. I'm sure someone here can set me straight.
Thank you in advance for any information you can give me.
I feel your pain, Dori. No definition of 'responsibility' that I can
find equates to 'response-ability'. The closest I can think of is
'responsiveness', which would be close enough for me.

Will.
Robert Lieblich
2007-05-01 11:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will
Post by can_dori
For years I've heard the word 'responsibility' equated with 'response-
ability', i.e. the ability to respond. This definition is given
frequently in what some call 'new age' groups. I've never been
comfortable with this definition, but I don't know how to find out if
it has any validity or not. I'm sure someone here can set me straight.
Thank you in advance for any information you can give me.
I feel your pain, Dori. No definition of 'responsibility' that I can
find equates to 'response-ability'. The closest I can think of is
'responsiveness', which would be close enough for me.
True, but you can't stop in-groups from developing their own jargon,
and sometimes the jargon leaks into general usage. A recent example
is "actionable" with the meaning "capable of being acted upon."
"Actionable intelligence" is intelligence that enables a government to
take action of some sort. It's spreading rapidly from the spook
community into general usage.

Will this happen with "responsibility"? I sure hope not. But I'm not
In Charge Here.
--
Bob Lieblich
Whose teeth still grit when he hears the new use of "actionable"
Dominic Bojarski
2007-05-01 12:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by can_dori
For years I've heard the word 'responsibility' equated with 'response-
ability', i.e. the ability to respond. This definition is given
frequently in what some call 'new age' groups. I've never been
comfortable with this definition, but I don't know how to find out if
it has any validity or not. I'm sure someone here can set me straight.
Thank you in advance for any information you can give me.
P.S. Yes, I know I don't know how to use quotes correctly, as well as
commas and many other things. I figure if I can get my point across,
I'm doing well <g>
Dori
Not quite.

The Latin word from which "responsible" comes from was borrowed into
English at least three different times in the history of the language.
Between each of the borrowings, the meaning of the Latin word evolved,
so the meaning of the English words derived from it are not exactly
the same.

The Latin word "spondeo" originally meant to make a public declaration
of a religious nature, to pray in a formalized way in a public
ceremony. It is from this use that the words "respond" and "response"
come from. They were originally used in reference to antiphonal
prayer. The chief priest said the first part of the formula, and the
other priests or the public answered with the second part of the
formula. The English word "answer" originally meant "to swear back",
where "swear" meant something like "spondeo" in this sense.
"Correspond" also comes from this meaning.

Later, "spondeo" came to mean to make a particular type of public
religious statement, namely an oath or vow. It is from this sense that
the words "responsible" and "sponsor" came from, meaning "able to
swear that you give someone money to pay back a loan or support
themselves if they cant do so themselves" or "able to swear that you
will perform an act that someone else has promised to do if they are
unable to do so". The English word "answerable" is the Anglo-Saxon
equivalent.

The word "despondent" also comes from this meaning. "Despondeo"
originally meant to swear that you will NOT do something, especially
in the sense that you will deny yourself pleasures as part of a
religious vow, for example, fasting or abstinence. "Despondent"
therefore means "acting like someone who has denied himself
pleasure."

Even later, "spondeo" became even more specific and came to mean "to
public swear that you will marry someone". "Sponsus/sponsa" first
meant "fiance/fiancee", and, later still, "husband/wife". This is
where the English word "spouse" came from, and ultimately "espouse" as
well.

Because "respond" and "responsible" came onto the English language at
different stages in the evolution of the Latin word, it would be
misleading to say that "responsible" means "able to respond".

Dominic Bojarski
Dominic Bojarski
2007-05-01 12:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic Bojarski
The Latin word from which "responsible" comes from was borrowed into
English at least three different times in the history of the language.
Just to clarify a point, all of these words were borrowed from Latin
to English through French.

Dominic Bojarski
Lars
2007-05-01 21:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dominic Bojarski
The Latin word from which "responsible" comes from was borrowed into
English at least three different times in the history of the language.
What a masterpiece of a reply!
Post by Dominic Bojarski
The English word "answer" originally meant "to swear back",
where "swear" meant something like "spondeo" in this sense.
I wonder if such knowledge about the roots of everyday words is common
among native English speakers?


Lars
Stockholm
j***@phred.org
2007-05-02 01:33:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@fake.com
says...
Post by Lars
I wonder if such knowledge about the roots of everyday words is common
among native English speakers?
Vanishingly rare, I fear.
--
***@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>
Don Phillipson
2007-05-01 12:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by can_dori
For years I've heard the word 'responsibility' equated with 'response-
ability', i.e. the ability to respond. This definition is given
frequently in what some call 'new age' groups. I've never been
comfortable with this definition, but I don't know how to find out if
it has any validity or not. I'm sure someone here can set me straight.
1. You seem to be seeking some higher authority
that sets the standards for "validity." There is no
such authority. The way linguistics proceeds
nowadays, meanings are indicated by actual
usage. No one governs whether actual meanings
are uniform or not.

2. The folk etymology you describe in this case
has been fashionable in New Age groups for 30+
years. A similar instance is History = His Story
viz. a narrative intended to discriminate against
all the women of the past. This "meaning" is
obviously a bit silly -- but you will still find some
people employ it.

3. Your particular case can be approached from
another direction. We know plenty of scientists
work daily with the concept "ability to respond"
(cf. nerve physiology, signal feedback etc.) We can
survey these consistent users and see what
word they use for this purpose.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
can_dori
2007-05-01 20:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Thank you Will, Bob, Dominic, and Don.

Will: Thank you for hearing my pain! When I speak of my discomfort to
people in these groups, all I get is a blank stare. Your post got my
day started with a good belly laugh <s>. And yes, 'responsiveness'
makes more sense.

Bob:
"True, but you can't stop in-groups from developing their own jargon,
and sometimes the jargon leaks into general usage."

I agree. However, my problem was that I doubted the claim that
'responsibility' meant 'ability to respond', that is, that the
definition and etymology linked the two.

My teeth grind when I hear "impacted" used as a verb.

Dominic: Thank you so much for your history of the word
'responsible'. I was fascinated to learn about the ties between
respond and sponsor and spouse. I think "answerable" is the sense of
"responsible" I was looking for.

Don:
"1. You seem to be seeking some higher authority that sets the
standards for "validity."

Not exactly. I'm well aware that English has evolved by whim and
chance. However, the history of many words is somewhat clear (see
Dominic's post). So it is misleading, or at least sloppy, to say that
responsibility "means" 'the ability to respond' when it means, in
effect, 'I am the one who has sworn an oath to see that this thing is
done'. Responsive is closer to 'the ability to respond'.

If the group wants to say "We are going to define 'responsibility'
as .....", then they're being honest. Of course, the definitions of
words will change as they change (as will spelling); we have no
control over that, but right now, this respond thing is still, in my
opinion, a linguistic trick used in a particular sub-culture.

"2. The folk etymology you describe in this case has been fashionable
in New Age groups for 30+ years. A similar instance is History = His
Story viz. a narrative intended to discriminate against all the women
of the past. This "meaning" is obviously a bit silly -- but you will
still find some people employ it."

Exactly. It's 'folk etymology' and it's used to makes a point. But
when it's portrayed as real etymology it's misleading.

"3. Your particular case can be approached from another direction.
We know plenty of scientists work daily with the concept "ability to
respond" (cf. nerve physiology, signal feedback etc.) We can survey
these consistent users and see what word they use for this purpose."

That's an interesting idea. I could write to one of the groups here in
google. I'll do that - I hope you don't mind my using your #3 as part
of my question.

Dori
j***@gmail.com
2007-05-01 20:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by can_dori
For years I've heard the word 'responsibility' equated with 'response-
ability', i.e. the ability to respond. This definition is given
frequently in what some call 'new age' groups. I've never been
comfortable with this definition, but I don't know how to find out if
it has any validity or not. I'm sure someone here can set me straight.
They are giving the word another meaning in order to adapt it to the
agenda of their esoteric discourse.
Loading...