Talk:Eggcorn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Subordinate set?

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't eggcorns just a specific type of malapropism? I don't see which of the three criteria in the "malapropism" entry they actually violate. --CB

I would agree - many of the examples (e.g., intensive purposes) are wide spread, and seem to contradict an eggcorn's proposed differential diagnosis. If we accept eggcorn as a subset of malapropism, then providing any true eggcorn example would - again, by definition - would require some sort of back story to explain its origin.

An example:

My friend would, in a profoundly irritating way which was only noticeable once pointed out by a neutral third party due to the similar manner in which 'mart' and 'mark' were being pronounced, call Walmart, 'Wall mark' - it's a nonsensical, clearly incorrect, phonically identical error, quite limited to one person, but still yet would be considered a malapropism.

This article seems a train wreck, which is a touch comical considering the linguistics source, and possibly contributes to this eggcorn confusion - more work needs to be done by a knowledgeable party to address the malapropism-eggcorn relationship (if eggcorn itself even merits such consideration, given its very limited circle of adoption), but as a minimum the clearly incorrect examples should be removed.

Merge

From the article, "It is not a malapropism; Egg corn and acorn are homonyms at least in some pronunciations." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the merge suggestion seems to be sorely misinformed and is not justified by any comments here. I'd suggest removing it sooner rather than later because it's a terrible idea. Nohat 17:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was a mistake, sorry, but I added it because both Eggcorn and Malapropism contain the exact same example ("for all intensive purposes"), which suggested to me that one is a subset of the other. –Tifego^(t) _{18:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

doggie-dog

It's a doggie-dog world? - The expression refers to a requirement for a self-centred nature in life, in order to survive. Hence one dog "eating" another. The expresson could be interchanged with "kill or be killed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.201.144.71 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 31 August 2006

sounds like the eggcorn variant of your example would be "killer bee killed". Rihk 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so? Are you suggesting a change to the article? —Tamfang 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

— I suggest a small edit on "smashed potatoes" v "mashed potatoes": http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-smashed-potatoes.htm

Smashed potatoes have the skins on, mashed potatoes don't, but I'm wondering if it would make that any less of an eggcorn. I've never really come across anyone that didn't know or at least note the difference.

        I removed the smashed vs mashed potatoes entry, it could potentially be re-added with clarification that they are additionally different things, but I think for the case of an example it's better to simply omit it.

Agreed, especially as (unless preceded by a word ending in -s) they are not homophones. Branfish 07:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

girl cheese?

Does any adult seriously think it's "girl cheese sandwiches"? What's interesting about eggcorns is that competent speakers of the languages make them. Jerry Kindall 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jerry -- it's very difficult to see how "girl cheese sandwich" could be an eggcorn. And "visa versa" just seems like a phonetic spelling rather than an eggcorn. --estmere 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

coiner of the term

Mark Liberman was the first to attempt to define the concept of the eggcorn, but the name itself was later suggested by Geoff Pullum, another Language Log linguist. Speaking of Language Log, the article currently calls the site "a blog for linguists," but that actually seems a bit imprecise; it's a collective linguistics blog that seems to have laymen as its chief target audience. --estmere 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unkempt

Could Unkept/unkempt be considered?

Contradiction with Mondegreen

It seems as though these two articles contradict because this one claims that they do not overlap. It sounds to me like they describe identical phenomena and only this article passingly restricts mondegreen to being in a song or poem. The other article has numerous examples that this article would restrict as an eggcorn. Either the two should be merged or it should be solidified as to the difference between them. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The two pages should not be merged; they refer to different phenomena. A mondegreen is extremely context-bound, and generally refers only to the use of a given word or phrase in a SPECIFIC song, poem, prayer, etc. By contrast, a word or phrase that's likely to be an eggcorn can be an eggcorn in any context. Only a very few of the examples in the Mondegreen article are potentially eggcornish -- eg, "sixty-five roses", and "cafe ole". None of the examples in the Eggcorn article are mondegreens. -- estmere 03:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that distinction that this article is attempting to make, but the Mondegreen article does not restrict it that way. In addition, it seems to contradict the links at the bottom of the page that mark eggcorns as occurring exclusively in written discourse. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It appeared to me that Estmere was not referring to the differences in discourse (written, spoken, song etc.). Estmere explained that mondegreens were context bound and eggcorns were not. There is no overlap between mondegreens and eggcorns, but that is not why. The explanation is below in my reply to Estmere. I do believe that what may be confusing you is the bad definition on mondegreen on the eggcorn page. The eggcorn article says that an eggcorn is not a mondegreen, because eggcorns are errors of misinterpretation of common speach and not "a phrase found in a song, poem or similar." While this is true, it doesn't really explain the difference or fully cover or explain mondegreens and a better line could be written. If you go to the mondegreen article however and read the actual explanation of what a mondegreen is, you'll see that they firmly exclude one another. Or you can just scroll down this page and view my other reply. TStein 11:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"sixty-five roses" and "cafe ole" are not eggcornish at all. "Characteristic of the eggcorn is that the new phrase makes sense on some level." Cafe ole does not make sense for cafe au lait except in that they sound similar. The meaning is completely different--unless you often confuse milk and tequila. Look at the very first example in the eggcorn article: "old-timer's disease" for "Alzheimer's disease". A mondegreen is the mishearing of a word or phrase such as it acquires a new meaning. Whereas an eggcorn makes sense on some level. Both articles properly exclude the other, as they should. There is no contradiction or overlap in definition, and both definitions seem to be perfectly clear to me. TStein 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The notion that eggcorns "make sense" while mondegreens do not is sort of thrown out the window with the titling example. "Eggcorn" for "acorn" doesn't "make sense" any more than "excuse me now while I kiss this guy" (which, by the way, is more concrete and sensical than "...kiss the sky"). Naturally, my assertions of what does and do not make sense are subjective, but that makes dubious any professional attempt to do so as well. In addition, this assertion is completely unmentioned (and therefore unverified) in all of the links at the bottom. As it stands, the mondegreen article's definition of mondegreens also includes those of eggcorns. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(The next 5 paragraphs are all by me -- Estmere.) Okay, this is getting awfully complex awfully fast. Let me say at the outset that though TStein and I seem to disagree on details, I suspect we're wholly in agreement on the most important point here: eggcorns and mondegreens are two very different things, and merging these pages would be a terrible idea.

I'm well aware of the idea that eggcorns should make sense on some level, but I purposely avoided that point in my original post because it's really hard to say that mondegreens never make sense. (And as I foresaw, Aeusoes1 immediately pounced on that in his response to TStein.) For instance, "There's a bathroom on the right" makes perfect sense by itself -- it's just terribly out of place in the song "Bad Moon on the Rise", where the real lyric is "There's a bad moon on the rise". But outside of that song, it's really unlikely that anyone would ever mistakenly substitute the former phrase for the latter; it's just not going to happen -- that mondegreen is intimately bound up with that song. The eggcorn "deformation of character," by contrast, isn't context-bound -- it can occur anywhere that a person might wish to write "defamation of character".

"Mondegreen" is often used to mean "a misheard lyric", and you can find mondegreen sites where the two phrases seem almost to be used as synonyms. But people also do occasionally use "mondegreen" in a more general sense, one that would seem to include the eggcorn phenomenon -- and the definition of "mondegreen" in the Mondegreen article reflects that broad range of usage. That's because "eggcorn" is a very new term, and until recently people didn't have a word more specific than "mondegreen" with which to address the eggcorn phenomenon. And the advent of "eggcorn" obviously isn't going to change overnight the way in which people use "mondegreen". And I don't think it's reasonable to tell the Mondegreen article people that they can't define their word in the broad, inclusive sense. Nevertheless, most of the examples in the Mondegreen article fit with the "misheard lyric/poem/prayer" model, but a few do seem pretty eggcornish.

The eggcorns article makes it very clear that it's paraphrasing linguist Mark Liberman at the point at which mondegreens are mentioned. Because he's a linguist, ML is using a very strict and limited sense of the word "mondegreen." He's ignoring the broader applications of "mondegreen" because he's trying to define something very precisely; and he is indeed using ONE OF THE SENSES of the word "mondegreen" correctly. Changing the article at that point would misrepresent Liberman's words. Would it be sufficient to insert a footnote there that would explain that not everyone might agree with Liberman's narrow definition of "mondegreen"?

"Eggcornish" is a term regularly employed by people on the discussion forum of the Eggcorns Database to mean "like an eggcorn, but probably not one" -- in the same way that "whitish" means "almost white, but not quite". "Sixty-five roses" and "cafe ole" are both indeed eggcornish, and both have been submitted to (and apparently rejected from) the Eggcorns Database. I carefully did not call them eggcorns; my point was that both are closer to a typical eggcorn than they are to a misheard song lyric -- "cafe ole" might occur anywhere someone meant to say "cafe au lait." --estmere 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you've just admitted that this article is a pure neologism. In a google scholar search as well as a search of JSTOR, I've found nothing regarding eggcorns. Even if it weren't a neologism, arguing that the mondegreen article can contradict eggcorn because people aren't caught up to speed isn't going to fly. The issue should at least be addressed (which it is not). But that is moot. I'm nominating this page for deletion. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a lengthy reply to you there with my arguement against deletion as well as a list of a few articles about eggcorns. You should have tried lexis-nexis. But, for people following the discussion here--this is a quickbreak down of eggcorn, malapropism, and mondegreen and why an eggcorn is neither a malapropism or a mondegreen.

Malaproposims have three defining features.

1. The new word must mean something different from the original word or phrase.

2. "The word used sounds similar to the word that was apparently meant or intended."

3. "The word used has a recognized meaning in the speaker's or writer's language."

"A mondegreen...is the mishearing...of a phrase in such a way that it acquires a new meaning.

Now, like malapropisms and mondegreens, eggcorns involve the substituion of a similar sounding word or phrase. That is where the similarity ends.

Examples

• Someone mentioned "there's a bathroom on the right" making sense. And it does. But it doesn't make sense for "there's a bad moon on the rise". The substitution is purely a mishearing. It is a mishearing and it "there's a bathroom on the right" is definitely a new meaning, so it is a mondegreen.
• Now, someone might say "cafe ole" when they mean "cafe au lait". But, again, the meaning of the two similar sounding phrases is completely different. This would be a malapropism except that it is a phrase and not a word. Malapropisms and mondegreens are incredibly similar--they are much closer in definition than eggcorn is to either of them.
• "old-timer's disease" for "Alzheimer's disease" is not a mondegreen. No new meaning has been acquired. It obviously isn't a malapropism--it's a phrase not a word, but even still, malapropisms also required a different meaning.
• "egg corn" fails being a malapropism on multiple grounds. It might pass on the word v. phrase thing, but it does not "[have] a recognized meaning in the speaker's or writer's language." And, it isn't a mondegreen. This is a written example--there is no mishearing and no difference in meaning.

This isn't neologism--there is no previous definition that covers these sorts of blunders. Eggcorn is not a subset of a malapropism or mondegreen--it is simply similar. Put an external link at the bottom to both and leave it at that. Well, the article needs some editing too, but I'll work on that when I'm more awake.

TStein 11:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious

Something I hear a lot is 'Blatantly obvious' instead of 'Patently obvious'. Is this an eggcorn? Chris 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so - it's just to different ways of saying "very obvious" (I'd actually argue the same over Butt-naked/Buck naked that's listed on the page).

An eggcorn is, from what I understand, essentially an attempt to make sense of an unfamiliar, often archaic phrase which you have only heard spoken. That's why you get things like "Beckon Call" instead of "Beck and Call" - the word "beck" doesn't appear anywhere else, so the hearer doesn't recognise it unless they already knows the phrase. Brickie 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That puts the finger right on it. To me, an eggcorn is a clear signal that a person isn't well-read. Perhaps that would be a better way to approach defining the term. What makes eggcorns a relatively new phenomenon is how not-well-read it is now possible for a person to be while still being considered educated. More people have college degrees than ever before, yet even university graduates often admit to reading only one book a year -- or, frighteningly, none! Linguists are quite generous, I think, in not declaring some of these eggcorns signs of outright illiteracy (if not in one's language than certainly in one's culture), but descriptivists are non-judgmental to a fault. Jerry Kindall 10:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, blatant doesn't just mean "clear". From wordnet, it means "without attempt at concealment". It normally has a strong negative connotation of deserving concealment (as in "blatant disregard for...", "a blatant lie", ...). The word "patent" is now so strongly associated with intellectual property that most people don't know its meaning as "open". Even if American's don't confuse the two (because them pronounce patent funny :) people in Australia would certainly mis-hear "patently obvious". It is an eggcorn exactly because "blatent" has a similar meaning to "patent", so it "makes sense at a basic level" (unlike a mondegreen). LachlanA 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sparrowgrass

I think the item "Sparrowgrass for asparagus" should probably be removed from the list of eggcorns. "Sparrowgrass" (or "sparrow-grass") is really old folk etymology. As late as the 18th century, according to the OED, it was the word actually used in common speech, and saying "asparagus" was considered pedantic. See OED entry for "asparagus" (etymology). REMcDowell 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Split examples into Common / uncommon / media?

There are a lot of examples on this page, some of which I've often heard and some of which I can't imagine. Could they be grouped into three (common, uncommon and prominant examples in TV shows etc)? "Common" could be defined has having more than (say) 100 distinct examples in Google (not including people discussing whether or not it is an eggcorn). The "media" category would list "moo point" (Friends), "morphodite" (To Kill a Mockingbird), "Sperm of Satan" (Have I got news for you). LachlanA 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lachlan, Those media examples are all malapropisms, and don't really belong here anyway. One-time humorous usages should not be the substance of this article. Maybe a better article would have the best examples in a list near the top, then a more extensive table of examples would appear further down, in which other qualifications can be addressed in succeeding columns.

A table format would make clearer the right/wrong distinction and create the ability to sort, rate, and classify entries. Column headings might include:

• Incorrect Usage
• Proper Usage
• Can also be classified as_ (mondegreen, malaprop, folk etym., hypercorrection)
• Rating (good example, proven example, questionable, etc.)
• Comments (possible source, usage notes)
• Link to entry in Eggcorn Database website

from Justin 5-12-07

Examples cleanup

Good, instructive examples have become diluted by poor examples. I've removed any that I can see better fit the definition of malapropism or mondegreen, and some others that are unreferenced, unlikely and/or disputed on this talk page. Here are the examples I've removed:

• a nominal egg instead of an arm and a leg
• a heap o' tape instead of adhesive tape
• by enlarge instead of by and large
• goat head instead of go ahead
• good riddens to bad rubbish instead of good riddance to bad rubbish [riddens not a word]
• heart wrenching instead of heart rending [the former makes perfect sense even if one had never heard "heart rending", plus "heart wrenching" is actually more common, going by google]
• ivy tower instead of ivory tower [straight mis-hearing, doesn't especially make sense as far as I can tell]

This is probably confusing academia as ivory towers, and ivy halls (as in ivy league). --Jaded-view (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• lambash or lamblast instead of lambaste [former not a word, latter an alternative spelling (I think)]
• low and behold instead of lo and behold
• next store instead of next door
• nude erection instead of new direction
• of instead of have, as in "I should of done it." [grammatical error]
• old timers instead of Alzheimer's [already given in lead]
• prasina aloga (Greek: green horses) instead of prassein aloga (making horses)
• minus whale instead of might as well
• miss demeanor or missed demeanor instead of misdemeanor
• non de plume instead of nom de plume
• pacific instead of specific
• passed instead of past as in these passed few weeks
• pier-to-pier network instead of peer-to-peer network
• shoe-fly instead of shoo fly
• shoe in instead of shoo-in
• sparrowgrass for asparagus [disputed above... might as well stick to uncontroversial examples]
• spinal moaning Jesus for spinal meningitis
• take it for granite instead of take it for granted
• tenderhooks instead of tenterhooks
• voracious instead of veracious [completely different meaning]
• wheel barrel instead of wheelbarrow
• without further adieu instead of without further ado

I've also removed "(though this one may be common enough to qualify as a mondegreen)" from two examples, since the distinction between eggcorn and mondegreen does not seem to depend on frequency of use. –Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the reasoning by which you removed such misspellings such as "low and behold", "non de plume", and "passed few weeks," citing them as 'not instructive'? I think the whole point of the eggcorn concept is to educate English speakers about the idioms they may be hearing incorrectly. "Lo and behold," containing an archaic word, is an excellent candidate under the initial definition. Its inclusion fulfils the purpose of documenting and creating awareness for the true spelling and sense of the original idiom. This documentation may be one of the only ways to preserve language. The WWW is frantically eroding proper usage; we must use the same tool to preserve it.

I agree that the examples list was becoming bloated and less effective. Under that premise, I am also removing some less effective examples:

• "brought instead of bought" because this is a grammatical error, perhaps a hypercorrection?
• "brace a leg" because i've never been able to find an instance of this, and it makes no sense
• "lacks a daisy" because it is a poor example and too much of a stretch
• "morphodite for hermaphrodite" because it is a malapropism and a reference from one play
• "parting shot instead of Parthian shot" because it is a folk etymology, 'parting shot' being an accepted modern term
• "sperm of Satan" because it is a malapropism used for humor in one TV script
• "the smorning instead of this morning" because even though it is properly sourced, the source itself claims that it was a dreamy childhood misconception and thus not an effective example of an eggcorn.
• "undertoad instead of undertow" because it is a malapropism used intentionally for humor in one movie

from Justin 5-12-07

Lists of examples can very quickly become tedious as contributors rush to add their own favorite occurrences. Often, this does little to educate Wikipedia users. May I therefore suggest that the list of Examples be kept short - maybe no more than a dozen - and that would-be contributors visit the Eggcorn Forum (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/index.php) instead of adding examples here?Cnilep (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that my example from American Psycho not be deleted, as it is a popular culture reference and is not found on the link provided.Manderson¹⁹⁸ 20:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not found in the link provided, as it is not an Eggcorn. It is a single instance mis-hearing / pun. An Eggcorn would be if he actually believed the common phrase of "mergers and aquisitions" was really "murders and whatever" - but even then, if it was an eggcorn, the meaning should not change, which it clearly does here.Yobmod (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, you're right. I mislooked the fact that the meanings were not closely related, though the phrase is deeply inbedded in the symbolism of the book/film and not just a pun. Do you think it would be better classified as malapropism?*M ♦ ANDERSON ♦ 198 14:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved my example to malapropism*M ♦ ANDERSON ♦ 198 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed a long-ish parenthetical that defined the phrase just deserts. The same information is available at the wiktionary page to which the term is linked. Also, no other words or phrases are defined within the list of examples. Cnilep (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Homophones

Does an Eggcorn have to be a homophone for the proper expression? Because many of the examples given (including the very first one - "amiss" for "remiss") are not. Branfish 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

not precisely homophonous. from the first line of the article: "word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect."

So in which dialect is "wanton to do" homophonic with "wont to do" ? An illiterate might not have ever encountered wanton in its correct sense, but how would they pronounce it to sound like wont? It just doesn't seem homophonic at all.

If a strict definition is the only thing keeping this term distinct from mondegreen etc, shouldn't it be applied a bit more strictly?Yobmod (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yobmod seems to have seized upon the word dialect in the quoted fragment; I suspect the person who made the unsigned comment intended the focus to be on similar, as evidenced by her/his "not precisely homophonous." By the way, my understanding of the literature accords with this interpretation: the eggcorn need not be precisely homophonous with the acorn, merely similar enough for confusion to be plausible. Cnilep (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but i've still never heard wanton pronounced similarly to want - they have different numbers of sylables! But guess it is vague enough :-/.

Also the cite doesn't confirm this example, the author there suggests it may be an eggcorn for wont or wantin or found wanting or a slip of the tongue or a more formal variant. And is rarely used. All in all, not the best example - might be better to remove it?Yobmod (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Of thinks and things

I added the use of "have another thing coming" in place of "have another think coming". Someone corrected it to the reverse, with the eggcorn being "have another think coming" and the real phrase being "have another thing coming". Later it was removed altogether by vandal 203.2.218.145. So which is the real phrase and which is the eggcorn? Wiwaxia 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you were right - I've never heard the expression "have another thing coming", whereas I've heard the phrase "have another think coming" many times. Branfish 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The original phrase is "have another thing coming"; there was some ad campaign, IIRC, which took that phrase and played on it with "have another think coming". Bubbha 09:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Bubbha, but if you think thing is the original, you have another think coming. I realise we can't go by personal experience, but i completely agree with Wiwaxia & Branfish; the one makes sense, and is correct, the other...not. So, is there any evidence, other than "some ad campaign" the other way? Cheers, Lindsay 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edited to remove line which could be taken as rude; unintended; sorry. Cheers, Lindsay 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, i've heard it as "thing" my whole life. I rmvd it anyway, as the source looked to be a primary one. It couldn't have been called an eggcorn therein, as it was published before the definition was coined.Yobmod (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The last place you('d) look

Would 'the last place you look' be an example of an eggcorn? It's illogical since of course you'd stop looking after you find it, but the original phrase is the last place YOU'D look, in other words the last place you'd consider looking.

69.235.27.218 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC) True, this example is erroneous usage of an accepted phrase -- similar to what the eggcorn concept is trying to highlight -- but it doesn't fit well as an example of an eggcorn. It's more of a simple error, revealing the speaker as not very well-read. I believe this article and the concept of "eggcorn" are attempting to right certain grammatical wrongs, especially in the WWW era of rapidly eroding grammar and incorrect usage of older idioms. This page focuses on a very specific type of mishearing of language, with the most glaring examples being the most effective.

As for "(it's always in) the last place you'd look," the integrity of this phrase is not really necessary. Actually, a speaker may intentionally mean to use the form "It's always in the last place you look," introducing a sense of irony, sarcasm, and humor to the resolution of an otherwise stressful situation (i.e. losing one's keys). And, as you stated above, a speaker who uses "last place you'd look" very well could be using the phrase to simply observe how lost items seem to turn up in unlikely locations -- the last place you'd consider looking -- but when using this phrase in any form, the speaker runs the risk of invoking the ironic notion in his listeners anyway: ('No duh! It's the last place you look cause then you stop looking! Genius! Thanks for nothin!'), and so the speaker should at least be aware of the ironic connotation so as to not appear like he didn't think through his comment. I would say that the usage you termed the 'original phrase' seems slightly more eggcorn-ish, only because it puts the speaker in the position of ridicule due to the irony inherent in the insinuation.

Resemble

Is "I resemble that remark" instead of "I resent that remark" an eggcorn? --87.112.3.249 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's a deliberate change of the word, not a homohonous mistake.QuizzicalBee 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While it was almost certainly deliberate when used in the media, I have heard it being used unironically by people who have clearly heard it used on TV and not got the joke, and so assumed that that was the actual phrase. Mind you, I suppose that is a different origin to the origin of Eggcorns, which I suppose should really be mistakes in the person's own mind. Branfish 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Way too many examples

This page has far too many example where a much smaller number could do the same job. D4g0thur 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I still would like to see a small list of the best four or five examples at the top, then an extensive table of examples lower on the page. Thisis0 22:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like having all of these examples here. I find it to be very useful and I can't see any negatives to it.QuizzicalBee 04:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages long lists of examples like this as they really add no value to the article. Such a list of examples is prone to be filled with list cruft and the exact same message can be given with much less examples. D4g0thur 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I checked out the list cruft article, and it says it's an opinion, not policy. Even so, this list doesn't apply to the criticism leveled in that article, because "eggcorn" is worthy of having its own article, and therefore does not meet the criteria of an unnecessary list:

"In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The Oz Books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out. On the other hand, topics such as List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on those topics."

QuizzicalBee 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My argument is not that the article on eggcorn should not exist or that it should not have a list of examples. However, this list of examples need only be long enough to demonstrate what an eggcorn is, which can be done with far less examples than are currently here. Further, you may notice that I said the list was "prone to be filled with list cruft" rather than state that the list itself was such. In short, although the list is important to the article, it should be trimmed to a significantly smaller size. D4g0thur 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see that a longer list is so much of a problem that it should be removed. The list as-is is quite informative. Several weeks ago, someone went through it and removed anything that didn't meet the criteria of being an eggcorn. While a shorter list will continue to fulfill the function of demonstrating what an eggcorn is, a longer list will fulfill the function of being a useful compilation of eggcorns for the curious to peruse. If the sole purpose of the list was to provide a few illustrative examples, then a longer list would be redundant. As that is not the sole function of the list, a more exhaustive list is appropriate and useful. QuizzicalBee 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The function of an encyclopaedia is not to provide encyclopaedic information on a subject not an exhaustive list of examples; remember Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. D4g0thur 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an indiscriminate collection. It is quite discriminate.QuizzicalBee 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; although it is not a completely indiscriminate list, it is far from discriminate enough for an encyclopaedia article. I suggest we take this to the community for consensus - would you be opposed to a request for comments? D4g0thur 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, go right ahead. QuizzicalBee 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll go for a third opinion first. D4g0thur 05:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Editors have expressed concerns that this article has too many examples and that it should be reduced to a small list of verifiable examples. However, other editors feel that all the examples are necessary to understanding of the topic. D4g0thur 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete those items with no attribution. If the attributed list has 15 or more entries (right now I count 7), consider keeping a short list for the article, with a link to a standalone attributed list. I've left the notice at WP:RF3O so perhaps you'll receive some other responses. (I've removed the WP:RF3O as per instructions.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As per the above Third Opinion, I have gone through and removed all entries with no attribution (but kept three which had either Wiktionary entries or other Wikipedia articles as back up). Please feel free to re-add any entries which you can find a reliable source on. D4g0thur 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

-- No, no no. Removing those entries with no attribution in this case left only poor examples (many of which are NOT eggcorns) and had been formerly deleted. Just because you can cite an instance from ANYWHERE else on the web does not mean it belongs here. Many great examples were lost, and poor, unillustrative, and incorrect examples remain. I consider the truncation of this list unadultarated graffiti. The criteria used was flawed, and it seems as if its perpetrator has not been following this topic or the concept of eggcorns at all, and has made a poor judgement based on flawed criteria. The list needs to be restored, and yes, pruned and monitored to only include the best examples (even if they are many.) Thisis0 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire for more examples (or more illustrative examples) and have no objection to their addition; however, lists of examples are extremely prone to collecting listcruft and, therefore, inclusion must be limited to examples which can be sourced. This is in compliance with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research and notability. See also WP:Listcruft, WP:NOT#INFO and WP:OLIST. Needless to say, any examples you wish to add which you can provide a reference for are more than welcome. Also, citations can't be from just anywhere; they must be from reliable sources. See WP:VERIFY for more information on what is and isn't a reliable source. D4g0thur 11:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

-- If the list is to be reconstructed under the new attribution premise for each entry, can we please remove those entries which do not qualify as eggcorns? I was the contributor who had begun to add those links to Wiktionary, which I felt strengthened the entry. I was planning to continue to add those links when the list was massacred. I plan to reinstate those entries that are appropriate, enlightening to the language user, and verifiable. I also plan to remove (and explain the reason for the removal of) any entries which are not eggcorns yet happen to be sourced. Thisis0 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead; improvements are always appreciated. D4g0thur 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

--I just realized if we cite all of the examples, the references section will be equally as long. Oy! Many of the best examples can be cited on the same reference page. (In fact a couple in the current small list of examples use the same web citation repetitively) Is there some way more than one example can point to the same reference without creating another numbered entry for it? And should we use embedded citations that look like this: [1] ? Thisis0 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are many examples from one place then we can avoid having so many references simply by referencing all of the examples found on that site to the site's main page. This can be done by placing <ref name="SOMENAME">[http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ The Eggcorn Database] - a large eggcorn database</ref> after the first example using the reference and placing <ref name="SOMENAME"/> on all subsequent examples citing that source. Here's an example I just threw together in case I haven't explained clearly enough. D4g0thur 09:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Butt-naked

This is a folk etymology, not an eggcorn, and I have therefore removed it. 96.231.74.150 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The assumption made by 96.231.74.150 is that folk etymologies and eggcorns are disjoint categories, that if something is in one category it cannot be in the other. This assumption is quite unnecessary. Probably a good many folk etymologies arose precisely as eggcorns. Any eggcorn that gets accepted by a reasonably large proportion of speakers will be classifiable as a folk etymology. If a lot of people thought "acorn" was really "eggcorn", wouldn't you call that a folk etymology?

Generally you don't expect a folk etymology to change the way something is pronounced. In this case the final /k/ of the first word is changed to a final /t/ (not a very big change, acoustically, in the context). There is a clear change of imagery, from something unclear (what does “buck” mean in the standard phrase?) to something that makes quite good, but non-standard, sense (reference to the buttocks of the naked person.) Yet the phrase as a whole continues to make completely reasonable and interchangeable sense: absolutely, completely, “stark” naked (with even the same semi-jocular, folksy tone). These are all hallmarks of eggcorns: there is a(n optional) slight change in pronunciation, signalling a clear change of imagery (a reanalysis), which is standard for some people, adding up to practically identical meaning of the now reanalyzed word or phrase with the original standard meaning.

So I would say it’s a perfectly good eggcorn. But at least for now I'll wait for someone else to agree enough to put it back in the article, rather than doing it myself.

(All this assumes that butt naked did in fact arise historically after buck naked was widely established. If it can be shown that the historical precedence was the other way around, or if neither clearly precedes the other, one could argue against this. Perhaps what 96.231.74.150 meant was something like “alternate independent construction with similar meaning”? If so, “folk etymology” is a bad name for it.)

--Lavintzin (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From Mark Liberman at Language Log:

So which [of butt-naked or buck naked] is "right" and which is "wrong"? That question can be interpreted to mean "which is the standard expression?" In this case, there's no clear answer. The question can also be interpreted to mean "which is the original expression?" There's no clear answer to that one either... The question can alternatively be interpreted to mean "which expression will make people think I've made a mistake, or will offend them for some other reason?" The answer to that one is "both, depending on the audience and the context".

Liberman notes that his sources (American Heritage Dictionary, Common Errors in English Usage, and "The Maven's Word of the Day") disagree. Therefore, I think Lavintzin is right to hold off on deciding either way. Cnilep (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nature of references

At least two of the references used to justify examples appear inappropriate to me. Two of three references on the example once and a while are problematic since they do not analyze or discuss the usage in question. First, the column The Most Thematically Appropriate Trailer Ever [2] uses the phrase, but does not analyze it (see Use–mention distinction). Second, the blog entry Eggcorn News Flashes [3] makes no mention or use of the phrase (though it does allude to three other eggcorns). Perhaps the editor was thinking of one of the references that blog entry points to? In any case, since there is already a reference to a source that analyzes the eggcorn (The Eggcorn Database), both of these erroneous references should be removed. Cnilep (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Examples of use do not add anything as references. The sources should be to articles that discuss the term or at a minimum identify it as an Eggcorn. While identifying one ourselves from a primary source is simple, without any discussion, it adds nothing to the article (plus there is a fact that many people don't seem to find it at all simple to understand the definition!)Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Plash?

1. splashy instead of plashy[13]

How do you know if this is an egg-corn, both words [4] splash[y] and plash[y]have the same verb and noun meanings. Unless you're using Plash to mean a puddle or a laid hedge; the hedge version appears to be the only one where a recognisable eggcorn could exist. Just curious, seems a bad example. 78.144.39.56 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC) pbhj

Pbhj has a point, sort of. The cited article from The Guardian discusses the adjective plashy, and more specifically the phrase plashy fens "wetlands characterized by puddles" (or, as Mr Saner of The Guardian puts it, "'plashy' means 'marshlike'"). If one assumed, as Pbhj apparently did, that the eggcorn label is generalizable to uses of splash as well as splashy, one would be misled. Perhaps a bit more context is in order? To wit:

• splashy fens instead of plashy fens

Or is a case of caveat legit : let the would-be reader read carefully? (with apologies in case my Latin is incorrect) On the third hand, I am on record as generally favoring fewer examples. Cnilep (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrasted with Malapropisms

The following (in italics) was added, and is intended as a clarification: "The new phrase makes sense on some level ("old-timers' disease" for "Alzheimer's disease") as opposed to a malapropism, where the substitution creates a nonsensical phrase. Malapropisms generally derive their comic effect from the fault of the user, whilst Eggcorns can be used to a more innovative end." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyjim (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the 'sense on some level' claim was essentially vacuous, and I generally like this addition. I note, though, that you say "Eggcorns, when intentional, can be used to a more innovative end." I don't think eggcorns are generally - if ever - intentional. And while they are innovations, in the sense of relatively new non-standard usages, this description seems to imply an (intentional) inventiveness that I think is unnecessary and controversial. Cnilep (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think Eggcorn canbe intentional - that would be a pun, no?Yobmod (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You missed the grandaddy of 'em all.

It seems that very few realize that "chomping at the bit" should be "champing at the bit". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.1.20 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The word chomp is a variant spelling and pronunciation of champ, not a word with different, plausibly relevant meaning. Such variants are not eggcorns. By the way, this seems once again to illustrate the need to make more precise the current vague definition in the introduction. Cnilep (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

...and so, I have made a change to the introduction. Please feel free to comment, or to correct the new version.Cnilep (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5