X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Mind your language

Mind your language

Mr Peter Andrews writes to tell me that he was told by a lawyer with whom he used to be a school that a moot point is not one that is debatable, but one that has already been decided.

14 August 2010

12:00 AM

14 August 2010

12:00 AM

Mr Peter Andrews writes to tell me that he was told by a lawyer with whom he used to be a school that a moot point is not one that is debatable, but one that has already been decided. This is not news that has reached the Oxford English Dictionary, which happens to have revised its entry on moot only a few weeks ago.

Originally, a moot point was one proposed for discussion at a moot. A moot, in the legal sense, was either ‘a discussion of a hypothetical case by law students for practice’ or ‘a hypothetical doubtful case that may be used for discussion’. The dictionary then gets into a chatty mood and notes that moots were ‘revived in the Inns of Court in the 19th century, but fell into disuse (last retained at Gray’s Inn according to the New English Dictionary [i.e., the Oxford English Dictionary] 1908). Reintroduced subsequently into universities where law is studied and into the Inns of Court.’

[Alt-Text]


That is pretty plain. It seems to me that a moot, mentioned in the early 16th century, was a legal version of the disputatio, the medieval university exercise in which students had to take part in order to attain their degrees. A variation of this was the quodlibet, where a master would discuss questions on any subject, posed by any member of the audience. Again the OED gets chatty, telling us that ‘these exercises originated at the faculty of theology in Paris in the 1230s, and similar exercises continued into the 18th century at the University of Oxford’. The dictionary points out perfectly correctly that a sense of quodlibet meaning a ‘quibble’ arose ‘from the abstruse nature of the topics which might be discussed in quodlibets as well as from a general disparagement of scholastic learning’. Just the same thing happened to moot, at least in America, where the normal sense of the word is now: ‘having no practical significance or relevance’. Indeed in 1973 an American judge said: ‘Motion for an order dismissing this indictment for lack of prosecution is dismissed as moot.’

Thus moot has developed in a parallel sense to academic and, more recently theological.

Moot is also one of those fossilised metaphors sufficiently dead to allow confusion with a near homophone. So you hear people talking of a mute point, just they speak of honing in, instead of homing in, and of someone doing things off his own back, instead of off his own bat. Those are not, we must hope, mistakes that a lawyer would ever make.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close