Misplaced Pages

Talk:Eggcorn

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adrian J. Hunter (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 10 June 2010 (→Proposal to radically reduce the number of examples: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:27, 10 June 2010 by Adrian J. Hunter (talk | contribs) (→Proposal to radically reduce the number of examples: done)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep/speedy keep.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Debate / defend / reject / submit examples here

This topic is particularly necessary to clarify the relatively new topic of eggcorns.

  • nothing wets your appetite instead of whets your appetite (in an advertising campaign by A&W many years back)

(Submitted by Williampfeifer on 11 November 2008 22:04. Please submit here, and provide explicit citations before adding to the Wiki page.) Cnilep (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a deliberate, humorous substitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.53.167 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 January 2010

(Submitted by anonymous user at IP 24.59.3.83 on 21 February 2009.) Cnilep (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Did 24.59.3.83 give any documentation of this one? I think it’s a beautiful example as long as it’s standard for somebody who does not have “tooth and nail” also standard. This includes a stipulation that it not be a purposefully invented pun. (If it was purposely invented, but now is standard for someone else who wasn’t involved in the invention, it’s a kind of doubtful case, seems to me.)--Lavintzin (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The submitter offered no sourcing or analysis, which is why I moved it here. A discussion has begun at The Eggcorn Forum. Cnilep (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • hone in instead of home in

This one is on the page, and has been for quite some time. I note, however, that the sources cited for it are somewhat equivocal. The Eggcorn Database notes that while The Columbia Guide to Standard English calls hone in an error, American Heritage lists it as standard. Similarly, the Language Log posts suggest that the two phrases were first used in print at around the same time, with home in probably a few years earlier. It is perhaps a problematic example for this page. Cnilep (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Asat (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Anal nitrite appears to be a classical malapropism rather than an eggcorn. Eggcorns make plausible sense in the same context as the original phrase - they are usually more sensible than the original, in the mind of the eggcorn-user. For anal nitrite to be an eggcorn, users would have to believe that it has something to do with anus. For amyl nitrate to be an eggcorn, users would have to believe that the compound contains a nitrate ion, and have some idea of what that means. Cnilep (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and "another thing coming" instead of "another think coming". Sad, because it means the speaker completely missed the joke set up by "If you think...."

Asat (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a long-ish discussion of another think/thing coming in /Archive 1, under "Of thinks and things". Cnilep (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Added by User:InFairness on 8 April 2009 with the edit summary "added". Cnilep (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, a non-eggcornical malapropism. As the article states, in an eggcorn
The new phrase introduces a meaning that is different from the original, but plausible in the same context ("old-timers' disease" for "Alzheimer's disease"). This is as opposed to a malapropism, where the substitution creates a nonsensical phrase.
“The horns of an enema” is nonsensical, and all the funnier for that, but all the less eggcornish.
--Lavintzin (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "new killer weapons" instead of "nuclear weapons"

b0Rn2bL8 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a pun (intentionally re-worked as a joke) rather than an eggcorn. Do you have a source that analyzes it as an eggcorn? Cnilep (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Added by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris on 21 May 2009 with the comment, "a personal fave". No sources or other discussion included. Cnilep (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's on the "official" list. To me it brings a particularly humorous mental image (e.g., someone pouring a pitcher of liquid over documents). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a direct link to the relevant Eggcorn Database page. This might be used as a third-party source, if there is consensus to return the example to the page. Cnilep (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • statue of limitations instead of Statute of limitations. From Seinfeld....""I don't think it's an actual *statue*""

Added by IP user 68.230.145.114 on 7 June 2009 with no other comment. Cnilep (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • mating name instead of '']''<ref>{{cite news|last=Saner|first=Emine|title=Tiny eggcorns, mighty gaffes|pages=2|publisher=The Guardian|date=2006-10-05|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1887732,00.html|accessdate= 2009-06-15}}</ref>

Added by IP user at 66.30.12.221 on 17 June 2009. It is properly sourced, but I'm moving it pending vetting for the sake of consistency. Also, the formatting was slightly off. I've used 'nowiki' tags to make the formatting visible. Cnilep (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To be explicit, what makes the formatting "slightly off" is the attempt to link to a non-existent Misplaced Pages page (a "red link"). The links after examples are generally to the standard word or expression at Wiktionary; use the format ]. Note that, unlike Misplaced Pages, Wiktionary links are fully case sensitive, including the initial letter. Please double check to make sure you're not creating a red link. Cnilep (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • spitting image instead of "spirit and image."

Added by IP user 75.34.177.186 on 18 July 2009 with no further comment. Cnilep (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the original form "spit and image"? See http://en.wiktionary.org/spitting_image 62.189.218.38 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • free reign instead of "free rein"

I'm surprised this one isn't listed yet, as it's very, very common. Here's one source. Any objections to adding it? Tonyle (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the source quoted does not call free reign and eggcorn; it calls the expression "an example of the triumph of folk etymology". The Eggcorn Database actually does include rein >> reign, which it calls "nearly mainstream".
My objection to including the example is simply an instantiation of my general reluctance to add more examples. The suggestion that "this one isn't listed yet" seems to assume that it is the intent of this page to accumulate eggcorns. On the contrary I see the intent of this page to offer information about eggcorns; to that end, the list of examples should be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
You may be interested in The Eggcorn Forum, a web forum associated with The Eggcorn Database whose intent is to accumulate eggcorns (though, of course, they already have free reign). Cnilep (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the near-universal "I could care less" in place of "I couldn't care less"? This one drives me nuts because it's a step beyond nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.53.167 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 January 2010

The "could care less" version is in some sense illogical, but it is not clearly an eggcorn. It may be related to over-negation (e.g. "still unpacked" to mean "not yet unpacked"; "don't fail to miss" to mean "don't miss" or "don't fail to see"), but this seems like a syntactic rather than a lexical/semantic change. In any case, all additions need reliable secondary sources, and I know of none for could (not) care less. Cnilep (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that this has been discussed (several times) at the Eggcorn Forum, but is not included in the Eggcorn Database. There appears to be no consensus that this is an eggcorn. Cnilep (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This was removed from the page in the past. See /Archive 1#Butt-naked for discussion. Cnilep (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Added by User:Cefka on 1 March; no edit summary. Cnilep (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "make end's meat" instead of "make ends meet?" I always thought it meant that you only had enough money to buy the crappy end part of a piece of meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.194.110 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What Eggcorns are not

The page currently paraphrases a Mark Liberman blog post from 2003 (without fully explicit footnoting, by the way) in which he reasoned that an eggcorn is not folk etymology, not malapropism, etc. Soon after that piece was posted, however, other linguists were suggesting that the various phenomena actually overlap, and within a few months Liberman himself was using eggcorn to describe novel usages that are either (relatively) widespread or homophonous. I therefore submit that the third paragraph and accompanying bullet points should be removed from the main page. Objections? Cnilep (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I have made the change. Cnilep (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why blogs are invalid refs for wikipedia: blogs are unfinished blurbs. - Altenmann >t 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree that blogs are problematic as references; certainly they are insufficient as reliable sources to establish notability or support factual assertions. With this in mind, I have removed a 2004 blog entry from the "Further reading" section. On the other hand, I left the 2003 Language Log posting where the word egg corn was first used in this sense. It is not a reliable source, but as a primary source, it is of historical interest. This is also supported by mainstream media pieces, which are generally considered acceptable as reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Completely agreed: 2003 is a valid reference to a primary source, admissible in encyclopedic context, to show history, even if the guy gave a totally wrong definition, but not as a source of wisdom. - Altenmann >t 18:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mixture of Mondegreen and Malapropism?

Could it not be argued (as suggested above) that the Eggcorn is actually a mixture of Mondegreen and Malapropism (assuming you allow those constructions to make sense). Basically, an eggcorn is a misheard word/phrase reported by the hearer in some fashion (i.e a mondegreen) and then used mistakenly by the hearer and others in utterances of their own as a substitute for the intended similar-sounding word/phrase (i.e. a malapropism). If so, it aught to be explained in the article. Also, I'm not convinced by the statement "his is as opposed to a malapropism, where the substitution creates a nonsensical phrase.", as some malapropisms make perfect sense, just not the sense intended. (E.g. G.W.Bush's "And there is distrust in Washington ...I'll work hard to try to elevate it" or Shakespeare's "two notorious benefactors" in Measure for Measure.) Jubilee♫clipman 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful eggcorns

People have been saying tow the line instead of toe the line for decades, so this is really a folk etymology rather than a true eggcorn. Same with splashy instead of plashy: I'd never even heard of the word plashy before I read this article! Also, thefreedictionary.com (quoting Webester's 1913 edition) actually lists splashy as a synonym for plashy as do a great many others. Other dictionaries list splashing as a synonym. Finally, "plashy was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary". Many dictionaries that do list plashy seem to use Milton, Wordsworth and Keats for their examples or use old editions of classic dictionaries suggesting that the word is near-archaic. Suggest removing these examples. Jubilee♫clipman 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that plashy is uncommon and therefore not the best example. (By the way, see discussion at /Archive 1#Plash?.) I would have no objection to removing the example if there is consensus to do so. I would define "consensus" in this case as "no contrary position expressed within, say, the next few weeks". (I'll leave tow/toe the line for future discussion.) Cnilep (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible example

I'm not sure if this is an example of eggcorn or malapropism or something in between, but some enterprising wikipedia editor might find the following specimen interesting:

What types of sexuals are there? ? - Yahoo! Answers
Nov 23, 2008 ... i know of: Homosexual and. Bisexual but im pretty sure theres more. ... Uhhh: * Asexuality - Individuals who do not experience sexual attraction ...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081123161741AAc6yBe --71.111.194.50 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha Yahoo Answers is great. I don't see any connection to eggcorns though, and even if there was one, WP:OR would apply. Adrian J. Hunter 11:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess maybe it's just a neologism, maybe that's the word I was looking for: "What types of sexuals are there? ?" Gotta love Yahoo Answers. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Danish wikipedia

The da interwiki link (da:Skrællemænd) is dead... --71.111.194.50 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've removed it. Feel free to be bold and fix such problems yourself. (It's the ] at the bottom of the page). Adrian J. Hunter 11:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples inconsistent with definition

The article says:

"The new phrase introduces a meaning that is different from the original, but plausible in the same context ... This is as opposed to a malapropism, where the substitution creates a nonsensical phrase."

However, some of the examples given do not have a plausible meaning when used in the context of the original, and are, in fact, nonsensical in that context. For example: "just desserts", "once and a while", "wanton to do". 86.150.101.30 (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

One of the things that makes eggcorns tricky to analyze is the fact that they are idiosyncratic substitutions. That means that by definition they are understood differently by different English speakers. Fortunately, the sources analyzing these examples as eggcorns are all freely available. If you are so inclined, you can compare your intuitions and existing knowledge with the analyses of the linguists, lexicographers, and writers who analyzed these eggcorns. Finally, remember that the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Although you or I or some other Misplaced Pages editor might quibble with some particular analysis, our decisions on which examples to include should be effected more by our ability to refer to published references than by our personal knowledge. Cnilep (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Though "the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth", that doesn't mean it's desirable to have articles that appear to contradict themselves -- unless, of course, the contradiction is explicitly attributed to a real-world confusion or contradiction. Looking at the various examples, it seems to me that an "eggcorn" is actually just any mistake in English that the listener/reader finds amusing or quaint, and that in practice there is no real distinction between an "eggcorn" and a humorous malapropism, contrary to what the article claims. 86.134.72.109 (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Something is completely wrong, and should be changed.

In this article, either the DEFINITION or the EXAMPLES must, very simply, be changed. Currently, the article is trash.

The definition tells us that the new phrase is ... "but plausible in the same context". A superb example is then given, old-timer's disease for Alzheimer's disease.

HOWEVER: almost all the other examples, are rubbish. "baited breath" is, simply, stupid. It means nothing, is totally non-plausible, and is no more interesting than any "misheard lyric." It is completely stupid, meaningless, and pointless. It merely happens that "baited" sounds like "bated" to someone who doesn't know the word. You might as well shove any "misheard lyric" word in there ... rated breath, baking breath, belated breath ... whatever.

So, in short, someone's going to have to change the definition, or, remove the examples that are - in terms of the definition given - completely, totally, utterly incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.33.9 (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the plausible meaning is not always obvious. I can't access the New Scientist article that's cited for the bated breath example, but I'd imagine the analogy is that someone has "baited" their breath (ie their spoken words) in the way that someone puts bait on a fishing line, then waits to see what will happen. User:Cnilep has been very diligent in making sure every example is cited to a reliable source, so someone outside of Misplaced Pages has called each of the given examples an eggcorn. Your comment does raise an issue though – perhaps it would be better to have fewer examples, but to select those that have the most obvious plausible meanings (eg preying mantis). Alternatively, the article could explicitly state that an eggcorn's plausible meaning is not always obvious. Adrian J. Hunter 14:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Errr... Just noticed your comment is very similar to the one above. You might want to read Cnilep's response to that, which was similar to what I just wrote. Adrian J. Hunter 14:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to radically reduce the number of examples

The purpose of the list of examples in this encyclopedia article is to help readers understand the topic. The two threads above, plus other comments on this talk page and its archives, suggest it's having the opposite effect. So something needs to change. I propose reducing the list right down to a very small number of examples, each one having a "plausibility in the same context" that will be readily apparent to as many readers as possible.

Here's a possible list:

References
  1. Eggcorn Forum / Alzheimer's Disease not Old Timers Disease
  2. The Eggcorn Database » prey
  3. Saner, Emine (2006-10-05). "Tiny eggcorns, mighty gaffes". The Guardian. p. 2. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
  4. The Eggcorn Database » intensive purposes
  5. Peters, Mark (Mar/April 2006). "Word Watch: The Eggcorn -- Lend Me Your Ear". Psychology Today. 39 (2): p.18. Retrieved 2006-07-13. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

That list is limited to well-cited examples that I hope will make sense to most readers – I realise not everyone will "get" every example, but if a reader understands the majority I think we're doing well. The list also includes both precise homophones and terms that sound only similar, and it excludes any example that has been disputed on this talk page. Note that WP:OR prevents us from making up our own examples, but it does not forbid us exercising editorial discretion in selecting which examples to present; I suggest we best serve our readers by selecting only the clearest examples we possibly can.

Thoughts? Adrian J. Hunter 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have always supported making the list of examples short and illustrative. I support the idea of reducing the list in this way. The only question I have is whether "intensive purposes" is easily understood in terms of plausibility. That said, I do not object to its use as an example. Cnilep (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hard to disagree with wanting to keep only the clearest possible examples. For teaching purposes all examples should be unambiguously clear and striking. I, for one, would not miss any of the other items currently on the list in the article. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It's been nearly a week without opposition so I've made the change. I ditched intensive purposes as on reflection I agree it's a mediocre example. I also added a See also link to this page at The Eggcorn Database so readers who want more examples can readily find them. Adrian J. Hunter 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)