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 98.177.248.112 (talk) at 08:04, 17 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:04, 17 June 2012 by 98.177.248.112 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconLinguistics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
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.

  • 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)
  • Ex-patriot, where expatriate is meant. This is a classic eggcorn: its meaning is different from the original, but is plausible in the same context, with the apparent implication that someone is no longer patriotic for their country of origin if they've expatriated themselves. Examples of use in the press can be found at , and and I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere in print many times. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent example. The links you gave don't explicitly call it an eggcorn, but this page at the eggcorn database does. (This apparently does, too, but it's not freely available.) Maybe replace the Alzheimers example in the examples list, as that's already in the lead? Adrian J. Hunter 10:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and have made the change. Please adjust as necessary. Cnilep (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Added by User:AdamFunk on 13 October 2010 with edit summary "m (alphabetized examples)". Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"For all intensive purposes" was removed from this page in the past. There is some discussion in Talk:Eggcorn/Archive 1. Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How about "wheelbarrel" for "wheelbarrow?" The Misplaced Pages site for wheelbarrow states that it's an eggcorn. --Sculptorjones (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, this is a classic example of why Google result counts are a meaningless metric. The search site:answers.yahoo.com "bare with me" claims "About 51,600 results", but if you go through them, Google actually only finds 582. There was general agreement in the discussion below to try to use examples where the logic behind the error is as obvious as possible, and going by this discussion at the eggcorn database, it seems this one's not immediately clear to most people. Adrian J. Hunter 01:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"For all intensive purposes" instead of "For all intents and purposes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.203.50 (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • baron of bad news instead of bearer of bad news
  • play it by year instead of play it by ear
Both added by IP 24.246.52.139 on 14 June 2011 without edit summary. Cnilep (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • rot iron, or even more confusingly, rod iron, instead of wrought iron<ref>"Clearing the confusion over wrought iron," Reprinted from Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metal Fabricator, November/December 1993, p. 38. http://www.artmetal.com/project/NOMMA/WROUGHT.HTM</ref>
Added by User:Cynthisa on 31 December 2011 with the edit summary "Rot/wrought iron". Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a nice example, as wright/wrought is pretty rare in contemporary English, and such specialized or archaic words are ripe for eggcorning. In agreement SherpaSam's comment, below, I don't think we need to comment on "more confusing" or less confusing examples, though. I'm also not convinced that it's necessarily a better example than "praying mantis", which Cynthisa removed. The two are probably equally good. Cnilep (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • chester drawers instead of chest of drawers <ref>{{cite web |url=http://chattanooga.craigslist.org/fuo/2834567396.html }}</ref>
Added by IP user 184.174.140.46 11 February 2012 with no edit summary. Cnilep (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • duck tape instead of duct tape, and could of instead of could have. I think these are both more classic and widespread than some of the examples currently listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.71.159 (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2012
Added by User:Coin945 on 24 March 2012 with no edit summary. Cnilep (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2012 (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. "The Texas School Book Suppository". Retrieved 2010-12-22.
  2. Eggcorn Forum / Alzheimer's Disease not Old Timers Disease
  3. The Eggcorn Database » prey
  4. Saner, Emine (2006-10-05). "Tiny eggcorns, mighty gaffes". The Guardian. p. 2. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
  5. The Eggcorn Database » intensive purposes
  6. 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)

Relationship with malapropism

User:83d40m added the following discussion of the relationship between eggcorns and malapropism on 20 February.

The difference between malapropism and eggcorn may be vague, however, as reaching for a replacement of an unknown word with a substitute may change the meaning of an often quoted phrase forever, as in, "one fell swoop" to "one fowl swoop", which becomes nonsensical.

The user also slightly modified the definition of the term in the lead section. I have undone the edit, since it cited no source and the altered definition may diverge from the currently cited source (though I haven't gone back to re-check that source).

The change may not seem outlandish, but I'd prefer to see a third-party source, especially if edits assert facts different from what the currently cited sources assert. Cnilep (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation vs spelling

Some of the examples mentioned above involve alterations in spelling, not pronunciation, e.g. bated breath for baited breath, which both sound the same. Another would be tow the line instead of the correct toe the line. I thought it worth mentioning, even though this distinction perhaps isn't relevant, as regardless of whether the error is in spelling or pronunciation, in all cases the speaker/writer has misunderstood the meaning of the word/phrase (not merely made a spelling error). Ben Finn (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the name eggcorn is the same as well. Some people pronounce eggcorn and acorn identically, which is how the term came up. --Kjoonlee 09:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There are even cases, known to eggcorn hunters as stealth eggcorns, where neither the spelling nor the pronunciation varies, but different words are nonetheless involved. For example the noun bum steer, "bad advice", (apparently) originally alluded to the verb steer, "to guide the course of a vessel", but some people (myself included) mistakenly understood it to relate to the noun steer, "a castrated male cow".
The definition of eggcorn, both on this page and in most sources I'm aware of, refers to substitution of one word for another, regardless of whether that difference is marked by spelling, pronunciation, or neither. Cnilep (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment

So now we are making up terms for linguistic foolishness and posting them on Misplaced Pages? And this is what, based mostly on some dude's random blog? Blog! I wish I could cite my blog discussions for a Misplaced Pages article on the word for large arms(called 'Larms', which, of course, stands for large arms). Whatever. Well, they should at least pick a better term. Eggcorn? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.70.34 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified in the article that the person who coined the term was a professor of linguistics and not a random blogger. The term "eggcorn" has been discussed in reliable sources independent of Pullum's blog, as this article cites. This article is not currently under review for deletion; that discussion ended in 2006. Adrian J. Hunter 01:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd / Incorrect / Irrelevant wording in Example

The Wrought Iron example says "rot iron, or even more confusingly, rod iron, instead of wrought iron" I don't disagree with the terms Rod iron and Rot iron but, as Wrought Iron is commonly found in long thin forms, there is nothing particularly confusing about Rod Iron Rot Iron, on the other hand is confusing, as wrought iron is particularly known for it's resistance to rust (aka Rot). SherpaSam (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The example was apparently added without being discussed first. That's perfectly in keeping with Misplaced Pages's BE BOLD policy, but contrary to a consensus among several editors (including me) to limit new or changed examples on this page. I've restored "praying mantis" and moved rot/rod iron to the upper section of this talk page. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Categories: