'Refudiate': A breach of Manner?

Grice thought that that Abbott was right in translating Kant's Modalitaet as "Manner". The conversational category of "Manner", Grice has it -- he called it, previously, the category of "Mode", relates to the FORM rather than the content.

It may be argued, and HAS been argued, online, that 'refudiate', quite lexeme, sounds too much like 'repudiate' (indeed, 80% of the world's population who have expressed their thoughts on this think that Palin, by uttering 'refudiate' MEANT 'repudiate' -- but there is a philosophical problem with such a naive view of malaprops -- vide Davidson's Gricean defense of the malaprop in "A nice derangement of epitaphs", in Grandy/Warner, PGRICE) --. It's more of a Palindrome.

----

But to focus on the Manner can only demerit the Quantity and Quality of Palin's suggestion. It's the concept we are after (and some failing to find). The concept of 'refudiate'. Never mind the _form_.

Those who applaud the neologism point to the current gap in the English language to express what 'refudiate' now declares: a strong form of refutation backed by a volition to oppose (repudiation). Add 'refuse' for good measure.

J still thinks Palin may be trying to 'accomodate NY muslims', which may be true. I don't know if she has expanded her views on this.

Many are rather focusing on whether she'll repeat the 'gaffe'. Jesse S, the editor of the OED, said that a proposed entry to the OED needs more than 'a few usages', even if by high-profiled 'utterers'. Or stuff.