All I am saying is that, in English, to avoid confusing people about your meaning, you're much better off saying "sincere belief".
> My phrasing matches standard English usage.
So does saying "literally" when you mean figuratively -- all the dictionaries now list this perversion, but it's still inadvisable and still sows confusion among educated readers.
It's one thing to argue that a usage is accepted by lexicographers, but quite another to try to engage in effective communications.
> So does saying "literally" when you mean figuratively -- all the dictionaries now list this perversion, but it's still inadvisable and still sows confusion among educated readers.
No, that's not advisable. Just like I'm using "genuine" correctly (it has meant "authentic" at least as far back as the 17th century), "literally" can also be correctly used to mean "figuratively." Simply put: you are not the authoritative body of the English language.
> I'm using "genuine" correctly (it has meant "authentic" at least as far back as the 17th century) ...
Yes, you did use it correctly, but in a context that leads the reader to wonder whether you're referring to the belief itself, or to its holder's sincerity in holding it.
> Simply put: you are not the authoritative body of the English language.
Point to any of my words that give you that idea. Can't do that? My point is not correct usage, it is effective communication. With respect to that, there are no authorities except the outcome.
> but in a context that leads the reader to wonder whether you're referring to the belief itself, or to its holder's sincerity in holding it.
That's been my point this entire time. You appear to be the only reader who was confused, and it seems to be due to some rather bizarre ideas you have about the English language. I am confident that my original comment would serve as effective communication to the overwhelming majority of native English speakers. The intended audience of my comment did not include advocates of prescriptive linguistics, which is fine, because vanishingly few of those exist, and the ones who do spend most of their time attempting to argue that everyone else doesn't know how to effectively communicate.
>> but in a context that leads the reader to wonder whether you're referring to the belief itself, or to its holder's sincerity in holding it.
> That's been my point this entire time.
Yes, I know, and rather than take the advice of someone with six decades of English writing experience, you chose to defend a questionable word choice as thought it was self-evident.
> You appear to be the only reader who was confused ...
How very scientific. Has it occurred to you that I am also the only reader? In any case, this is easily resolved by polling common usage:
And looking more carefully, one finds that many of the "genuine belief" citations are meant to refer to a belief in something thought to be true. Example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtBCrMLBCPw, in which this remark appears in the comments: "How could a belief that contradicts available information be a genuine belief?"
> and the ones who do spend most of their time attempting to argue that everyone else doesn't know how to effectively communicate.
To the degree that I do this at all, I reserve my efforts for examples in which ... wait for it ... someone clearly doesn't know how to effectively communicate.
I should add that I suffered through the video you mentioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtBCrMLBCPw) long enough to establish that the word usage in the video's description matches my usage. She is arguing that people who believe in Hell (in the context of Christianity) do not truly/sincerely/actually/genuinely believe. Her argument is that belief based on fear rather than on evidence and sensory experience is not true/sincere/actual/genuine belief. She references fideism and belief for the sake of belief:
> Yes, I know, and rather than take the advice of someone with six decades of English writing experience, you chose to defend a questionable word choice as thought it was self-evident.
I don't care how much writing experience you have or claim to have. You're wrong in this case. All the evidence is against you, and frankly I'm confused why you persist in your argument.
Your use of Google results of as suppose evidence is extremely damning to your own position and to your grasp of the English language. So my usage is 66% as common as yours? That's pretty good evidence that both are very common and well-accepted. You're also implying that only the most common way to phrase an idea should be used, which is ludicrous, especially coming from someone who claims to have writing experience. "Cat" has 447 million results, while "feline" has a mere 11.2 million, so according to your logic, "feline" is a misuse of the English language.
> And looking more carefully, one finds that many of the "genuine belief" citations are meant to refer to a belief in something thought to be true.
In something thought to be true? That's what the word "believe" means. Have you been reading my comments closely? My entire point is that a "genuine belief" is a belief which is sincerely held by someone, regardless of whether the thing believed is itself real. The Google results for "genuine belief" support my usage. I checked literally every result in the first two pages, and every single one supports my usage. A few examples:
"Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief, people would give their lives in support of that belief." http://www.mydd.com/users/gary-boatwright/posts/the-man-the-...
"The well known case of British Homes Stores v Burchell (EAT 1980 ICR 303) provides that where an employer dismisses on suspicion of misconduct they must establish (i) that they held a genuine belief the employee was guilty of the alleged misconduct, (ii) that the genuine belief is based on reasonable grounds, and (iii) the grounds for holding that belief were established after an investigation that was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal does not necessarily have to agree with the employer’s view or consider whether their conclusion was objectively correct or justified." http://www.allanmcdougall.co.uk/employment_law/unfair_dismis...
