Refudiate (pronounced ri-fyoo-dee-yet)
To reject as untrue or refuse to acknowledge (non-standard).
Late 1800s: The construct was ref(ute) + (rep)udiate. Refudiate (the third-person singular simple present is refudiates, the present participle refudiating & the simple past and past participle is refudiated) is a verb (used with object). It is regarded by most as a non-standard form. Refute was from the Latin refūtō (refute, repudiate), the construct being re- + futo (to beat). In its original Roman form it meant either (1) to prove something to be false or incorrect or (2) to claim that something is false or incorrect. However, in English, many authorities assert that only the first meaning applies and that something can be thought refuted only if whatever matter is being discussed is absolutely proved false; it is not enough merely to assert a refutation, a successful refutation is the quality of the assertion. Refute is often confused with rebut; a rebuttal, in formal debate terms, is a counter-refutation, and it also has a specific legal sense, though like refutation, the word has taken on the informal and disputed meaning of denial. Politicians and others are much given to saying they refute things by which they really mean “deny” but the practice seems here to stay. Repudiate was from the Latin repudiātus, from repudiō (I cast off, reject), from repudium (divorce). It means either (1) to reject the truth or validity of; to deny or (2), to refuse to have anything to do with; to disown. It also has a (now less common) technical meaning in the jargon of commerce “to refuse to pay or honor (a debt)”.
The re- prefix was from the Middle
English re-, from the circa 1200 Old
French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European
wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn). It
displaced the native English ed-
& eft-. A hyphen is not normally included in words
formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make
the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins
with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins
with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with
begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word
in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above. As late as the early twentieth century, the
dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now
rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt
deliberately to affect the archaic. Re-
may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular
constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be”
and the modal verbs (can, should etc).
Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive
Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and
while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or
"backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and
the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.
There is in English a school of thought which
acknowledges refudiate as a genuine word, the argument being that many words
have been created thus and an infrequency of use does not mean a word is not a correct
construction, just that it may be considered rare, obsolete or extinct. Refudiate of course is no pure-bred
descendent from the classical languages of antiquity but apparently an inadvertently
created blend of refute and repudiate, probably of nineteenth century origin. Had it been a deliberate coinage to fill some
gap in the lexicon, the guardians of English may have been more welcoming but
in merging two words which both have disputed meanings, refudiate added nothing
but another layer of potential misunderstanding.
Refudiate is often associated with Sarah Palin (b 1964; governor of Alaska 2006-2009 & 2008 Republican US vice presidential
nominee) and she was apparently the most recent to use the word but her lapsus
linguae (slips of the tongue) were actually quite rare and one suspects criticism
of her was excessive given it was after a word with a history stretching back
over a century and it’s been done before.
Warren Harding (1865-1921; US President 1921-1923), during the 1920
presidential campaign, used “normalcy” instead of “normality”. The section of the speech with the offending
word was almost aggressively alliterative…
“America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not
nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but
adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate;
not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but
sustainment in triumphant nationality.”
… so in saying "normalcy" he may have misspoken
or perhaps Harding liked the word; questioned afterwards he said he found it in
a dictionary which probably was true although whether his discovery came before
or after the speech wasn't explored.
Although Harding’s choice was much-derided at the time, normalcy had
certainly existed since at least 1857, originally as a technical term from
geometry meaning the "mathematical condition of being at right angles,
state or fact of being normal in geometry" but subsequently it had
appeared in print as a synonym of normality on several occasions. Still, it was hardly in general use though
Harding gave it a boost and it’s not since gone extinct, now with little
complaint except from the most linguistically fastidious. The prospects for refudiate don’t seem as
hopeful but who knows? It may catch on
in the Republican Party as a statement of anti-elitist inverted linguistic
snobbery.
Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.
Politicians often mangle the language and George W Bush
(b 1946; US president 2001-2009) was so prolific he attracted those who created
lists of “bushisms” although the actual coining of words was rare. He started as he probably didn’t intend to go
on, on election night 2000 inventing “misunderestimated” but it seems “ridiculoustic”
and “misunfortunistically” were apocryphal.
Most of the Bushisms were either malapropisms or just tangled syntax but
one must be sympathetic. Unlike those
who sit at keyboards, able to correct every mistake and polish every sentence,
those who speak to live audience, do so sometimes without notes so errors are inevitable.
George W Bush certainly seems to have made more mistakes with the
English language than most (including a great many non-native speakers) but
extemporaneous speech is a harder art than the most accomplished can make it
appear.
Even when done correctly, the myth of mistake can
arise. Ich bin ein Berliner (I am a Berliner) was a speech delivered in West
Berlin on 26 June 1963 by John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963),
one of the most famous of the high Cold War.
The words spoken by Kennedy were:
“Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was 'Civis Romanus sum' (I am a Roman citizen). Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest
boast is 'Ich bin ein Berliner'."
Years
later, because of some dialogue in Len Deighton's (b 1929) 1983 spy novel Berlin Game, the myth began that Kennedy’s
words were understood by his audience as “I am a jam-filled donut”, based on the
fact that in Germany, a “Berliner” is a jam (jelly) filled donut. However, it wasn’t then a use of the word at
all common in Berlin; to Berliners, the sweet treat is a Pfannkucken. The story however
caught on and went viral in a pre-internet sort of way, the imprimatur of
authenticity granted by sources as authoritative as Newsweek, the New York Times
and Alastair Cooke’s (1908-2004) (Letter from America
(1946-2004).
