(to) shed insight on/into something
Tacia
Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
make sense?
(Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
Is "shed insight (on something)" an eggcorn of "shed light (on
something)"?
Best Wishes,
Tacia
John Lawler
I don't know whether it's an eggcorn or not; that's up to Chris
Waigl. But it's clear there's some kind of confusion involved.
I'd call it a blend, but there a lots of different kinds of blends.
Since "shed s.t." means to deprive of s.t., however it is done,
and since "insight" is not something one would want to lose,
"shed insight", with any accompanying phrase, cannot be a
desirable outcome, so, no it doesn't make sense.
-John Lawler ** http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler
"Overrated, anyway, those complete sentences."
-- Chris F. Waigl
Skitt
> Tacia wrote:
>> Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>> make sense?
>> (Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
>>
>> Is "shed insight (on something)" an eggcorn of "shed light (on
>> something)"?
>
> Waigl. But it's clear there's some kind of confusion involved.
> I'd call it a blend, but there a lots of different kinds of blends.
>
> Since "shed s.t." means to deprive of s.t., however it is done,
> and since "insight" is not something one would want to lose,
> "shed insight", with any accompanying phrase, cannot be a
> desirable outcome, so, no it doesn't make sense.
Well, there is that song about shedding grace on thee, you know.
--
Skitt (AmE)
You never know, you know.
James Hogg
That one goes under OED definition 9 c:
"To give forth, diffuse (fragrance, sound, heat, etc.); to pour out,
impart (influence, blessings, qualities, etc.)."
No mention of "insight", though.
--
James
Mike Lyle
> On Jan 4, 10:56 am, Tacia <outofdej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ladies and Gentlemen:
>>
>> Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>> make sense?
>> (Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
>>
>> Is "shed insight (on something)" an eggcorn of "shed light (on
>> something)"?
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Tacia
>
> I don't know whether it's an eggcorn or not; that's up to Chris
> Waigl. But it's clear there's some kind of confusion involved.
> I'd call it a blend, but there a lots of different kinds of blends.
>
> Since "shed s.t." means to deprive of s.t., however it is done,
> and since "insight" is not something one would want to lose,
> "shed insight", with any accompanying phrase, cannot be a
> desirable outcome, so, no it doesn't make sense.
>
--
Mike.
Skitt
"Imparting insight" *seems* to fit like a glove, innit? Not that I would
ever write anything like that which was asked about.
--
Skitt (AmE)
James Hogg
Yes, I like "impart", but maybe not in this context: "impart insight
into something" would be ambiguous. Can you "spread" or "convey" insight?
--
James
R H Draney
>
>John Lawler wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 10:56 am, Tacia <outofdej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>>> make sense?
>>> (Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
>>>
>>> Is "shed insight (on something)" an eggcorn of "shed light (on
>>> something)"?
>>
>> and since "insight" is not something one would want to lose,
>> "shed insight", with any accompanying phrase, cannot be a
>> desirable outcome, so, no it doesn't make sense.
>>
>I may be able to shed some light here.
Then you'd be Mike "No Sheds" Lyle....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Joe Fineman
> Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into
> something]" make sense?
I would make it "shed light on" or (if the insight is the writer's)
"gain insight into" or (if the insight is the readers') "provide
insight into".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Influence belongs to those who ask the questions, not to :||
||: those who provide the answers. :||
Steve Hayes
>Ladies and Gentlemen:
>
>Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>make sense?
No.
>(Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
Nonsense proliferates.
>Is "shed insight (on something)" an eggcorn of "shed light (on
>something)"?
Probably.
When I edited academic texts, I frequently came across things like "The
objective of this unit/module/chapter/lesson is to give you insight into..."
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Robert Bannister
> On Jan 4, 10:56 am, Tacia <outofdej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ladies and Gentlemen:
>>
>> Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>> make sense?
>> (Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
>>
>> Is "shed insight (on something)" an eggcorn of "shed light (on
>> something)"?
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Tacia
>
> I don't know whether it's an eggcorn or not; that's up to Chris
> Waigl. But it's clear there's some kind of confusion involved.
> I'd call it a blend, but there a lots of different kinds of blends.
>
> Since "shed s.t." means to deprive of s.t., however it is done,
> and since "insight" is not something one would want to lose,
On the other hand, "shed light on" is an accepted idiom. Maybe it's the
rhyme "light/sight" that makes "shed insight" sound okay at first.
> "shed insight", with any accompanying phrase, cannot be a
> desirable outcome, so, no it doesn't make sense.
>
> -John Lawler ** http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler
> "Overrated, anyway, those complete sentences."
> -- Chris F. Waigl
--
Rob Bannister
Jeffrey Turner
And that's the shed of the light brigade.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Chuck Riggs
Perhaps I can, too. "Shed light" is everyday English and "shed
insight", which makes no sense whatsoever, is wrong, wrong, wrongity
wrong.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:56:19 -0800 (PST), Tacia <outof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ladies and Gentlemen:
>>
>>Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>>make sense?
>
>No.
>
>>(Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
>
>Nonsense proliferates.
Yes, but perhaps at a slightly slower rate than good sense.
the Omrud
Good man.
At the moment, the snow is falling so thickly that I cannot see my shed.
However, tomorrow we may have a shed in sight.
--
David
Steve Hayes
wrote:
And then there's that troll who sets follow ups to some such group as
rec.uk.sheds
Steve Hayes
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:37:01 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:56:19 -0800 (PST), Tacia <outof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ladies and Gentlemen:
>>>
>>>Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>>>make sense?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>>(Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
>>
>>Nonsense proliferates.
>
>Yes, but perhaps at a slightly slower rate than good sense.
One can but hope, but with the law of entropy I suspect it might be the other
way round.
Chuck Riggs
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
You obviously have shed-insight.
Chuck Riggs
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:39:37 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:37:01 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:56:19 -0800 (PST), Tacia <outof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ladies and Gentlemen:
>>>>
>>>>Does "shed insight on [something]" or "shed insight [into something]"
>>>>make sense?
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>>(Google shows large numbers of hits for either phrase.)
>>>
>>>Nonsense proliferates.
>>
>>Yes, but perhaps at a slightly slower rate than good sense.
>
>One can but hope, but with the law of entropy I suspect it might be the other
>way round.
But if the proliferation of both good and bad sense is slowing down,
the amounts we have today may be critical.
John Varela
wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
> > "Imparting insight" *seems* to fit like a glove, innit? Not that I
> > would ever write anything like that which was asked about.
>
> Yes, I like "impart", but maybe not in this context: "impart insight
> into something" would be ambiguous. Can you "spread" or "convey" insight?
You can share an insight, so there must be a way to convey it.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
R H Draney
>
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:51:03 GMT, the Omrud
><usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 05/01/2010 14:36, Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:52:46 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
>>> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I may be able to shed some light here.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I can, too. "Shed light" is everyday English and "shed
>>> insight", which makes no sense whatsoever, is wrong, wrong, wrongity
>>> wrong.
>>
>>Good man.
>>
>>At the moment, the snow is falling so thickly that I cannot see my shed.
>> However, tomorrow we may have a shed in sight.
>
>You obviously have shed-insight.
But does a cow have shed-insight?...if you answer yes, you lose your own
shed-insight....r