The Eggcornin' Bob Dylan
Ross Howard
-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
I did come across this, though.
I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
Never stepped foot in there again.
"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
"that").
--
Ross Howard
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
I'm sorry to hear that Bob uses personal "that"; I guess no-one's
perfect.
--
Charles Riggs
Nate Branscom
Okay, I'm going to feel stupid after I read the response to this post,
but I have to ask. If "Stepped foot in" is the eggcorn, then what
should it actually be? I'm pretty sure that's how I've always
heard/read it (though I do live in Redneck Country). I have restricted
internet access here at work, so I can't check the database myself.
-- Nate
Harvey Van Sickle
> I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's
> autobiography, and -- apart from some annoyingly lax
> copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>
> I did come across this, though.
>
> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the
> afternoons. Never stepped foot in there again.
>
> "Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and,
> yes, there it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
"Never stepped foot in there again" sounds entirely idiomatic to me
-- regional, but I can't see which word has replaced a correct one.
So which word is the eggcorned one? (I couldn't find it in the
Eggcorn Database under "stepped", "foot", or "stepped foot in".)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
mUs1Ka
> On 04 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>
>> I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's
>> autobiography, and -- apart from some annoyingly lax
>> copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>
>> I did come across this, though.
>>
>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the
>> afternoons. Never stepped foot in there again.
>>
>> "Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and,
>> yes, there it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>
> "Never stepped foot in there again" sounds entirely idiomatic to me
> -- regional, but I can't see which word has replaced a correct one.
>
> So which word is the eggcorned one? (I couldn't find it in the
> Eggcorn Database under "stepped", "foot", or "stepped foot in".)
I would say thet the idiomatic phrase would be, "Never set foot in there
again".
--
Ray.
UK.
Jim Lawton
>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
>-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>
>I did come across this, though.
>
> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
> Never stepped foot in there again.
>
>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
>it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
Zimmer? Zimmerman? - I think we should be told.
>
>Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
>"that").
--
Jim
the polymoth
Nate Branscom
Hmm, that does ring a bell, though I can't remember which of the two
I've used. It may, very well, be both.
Google hits for "Never set foot"-----------48,300,000
Google hits for "Never stepped foot"----6,840,000
Well, I just don't know anymore!
-- Nate
Ross Howard
wrought:
Yes, and Google agrees (with a general Google ratio of about 15:1).
You can certainly see where this classic eggcorn came from. I say
classic, because it pleasingly manages to make a bit more sense than
the original version that it mangles -- we do indeed step into places
with our feet, whereas we seldom if ever "set" them anywhere. But an
eggcorn it is; "step" isn't transitively in this way anywhere else, is
it?
Oh, and Harvey, here's the relevant entry in the Database:
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/index.php?s=step+foot&submit=Search
(Scroll down; it's the second entry on that page.)
--
Ross Howard
Chris Waigl
> On 04 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>
>> I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's
>> autobiography, and -- apart from some annoyingly lax
>> copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>
>> I did come across this, though.
>>
>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the
>> afternoons. Never stepped foot in there again.
>>
>> "Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and,
>> yes, there it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>
> "Never stepped foot in there again" sounds entirely idiomatic to me
> -- regional, but I can't see which word has replaced a correct one.
>
> So which word is the eggcorned one? (I couldn't find it in the
> Eggcorn Database under "stepped", "foot", or "stepped foot in".)
<http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/101/step-foot/>
It just happens that none of Ben's examples are in the past tense.
I've also read a discussion on a LiveJournal (I have to find it again)
where two people, one Scottish one from Arizona (I think) claimed that
"step foot" for "set foot" was entirely informal idiomatic for them.
Could we have chapter and verse (page number, edition, year) for the Dylan
Chronicles? I'd like to add the cite to the database.
Chris Waigl
--
blog: http://serendipity.lascribe.net/
eggcorns: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/
Ross Howard
wrought:
>
>Ross Howard wrote:
>> I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
>> -- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>
>> I did come across this, though.
>>
>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
>> Never stepped foot in there again.
>>
>> "Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
>> it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>>
>> Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
>> "that").
>Okay, I'm going to feel stupid after I read the response to this post,
>but I have to ask. If "Stepped foot in" is the eggcorn, then what
>should it actually be? I'm pretty sure that's how I've always
>heard/read it (though I do live in Redneck Country). I have restricted
>internet access here at work, so I can't check the database myself.
It's usually "set foot in" somewhere (almost always used with "never"
or "the first time").
--
Ross Howard
Ross Howard
wrought:
Sure thing:
Bob Dylan: *Chronicles (Volume One*), Simon & Shuster
(paperback edition), 2004, chapter 1, p. 18.
And the whole first chapter -- including "stepped foot" -- is online
here:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4080202
--
Ross Howard
Ross Howard
wrought:
> Bob Dylan: *Chronicles (Volume One*), Simon & Shuster
> (paperback edition), 2004, chapter 1, p. 18.
Oops. Typo correction and further tweak, just in case the US paperback
is paged differently:
Bob Dylan: *Chronicles (Volume One*), Pocket Books (Simon &
Schuster UK), 2004, chapter 1, p. 18.
--
Ross Howard
Ross Howard
wrought:
>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0100, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
>>-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>
>>I did come across this, though.
>>
>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
>> Never stepped foot in there again.
>>
>>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
>>it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>>
>>Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
>>"that").
>
>Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
>it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
Not directly, no, but this appeared in an exchange between TC and one
"Holly" in soc.culture.irish and he didn't Oy! it (not that he does
much Oy!ing even here):
It brings a tear to me eye. I don't believe I can ever step
foot in Ireland again.
TC, do you know where Holly is from?
--
Ross Howard
Chris Waigl
> Oops. Typo correction and further tweak, just in case the US paperback
> is paged differently:
>
> Bob Dylan: *Chronicles (Volume One*), Pocket Books (Simon &
> Schuster UK), 2004, chapter 1, p. 18.
Many thanks. Posted with attribution for the cite. Hope Ben doesn't mind
that I edited his entry.
Ben Zimmer
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:55:20 +0100, Ross Howard wrote:
>
>>Oops. Typo correction and further tweak, just in case the US paperback
>>is paged differently:
>>
>> Bob Dylan: *Chronicles (Volume One*), Pocket Books (Simon &
>> Schuster UK), 2004, chapter 1, p. 18.
>
> Many thanks. Posted with attribution for the cite. Hope Ben doesn't mind
> that I edited his entry.
Not at all. I'm pleased to see another Dylan eggcorn in the database, to
accompany the one that appears in "Ballad in Plain D":
"The constant scrapegoat, she was easily undone
By the jealousy of others around her."
Ben Zimmer
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0100, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
>>-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>
>>I did come across this, though.
>>
>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
>> Never stepped foot in there again.
>>
>>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
>>it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>
>
> Zimmer? Zimmerman? - I think we should be told.
Don't ask me nothin' about nothin', I just might tell you the truth.
Ross Howard
<bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrought:
I once found myself sitting next to Bob Dylan while waiting for a
tandoori takeaway in Tufnell Park.
The experience understandably changed my life. Dipping a naan in my
raita would never quite be the same again.
--
Ross Howard
John Dean
Can it be an eggcorn if it has a respectable if Leftpondian pedigree? As
from OED:
"1864 R. B. Kimball Was he Successful? ii. i. 182 When Hiram stepped
foot in the metropolis. 1880 S. G. W. Benjamin Troy i. iv. 26 (Funk)
Calchas announced that the first man who stepped foot on the enemy's
soil was doomed at once to die."
It was certainly used transitively in yore:
"1540 Palsgr. Acolastus v. v. Aaivb, Steppe not one foote forth of this
place. a1547 Surrey Compl. Abs. Lover 2 in Tottel's Misc. (Arb.) 19
Good Ladies,+Step in your foote, come take a place, and moorne with me a
while. 1705 H. Blackwell Engl. Fencing-Master 51 Engage him in Carte,
disingage in Tierce, stepping your Right-Foot a-cross at the same Time.
"
--
John "The ants are my friends" Dean
Oxford
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:07:27 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
>wrought:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0100, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
>>>-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>>
>>>I did come across this, though.
>>>
>>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
>>> Never stepped foot in there again.
>>>
>>>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
>>>it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>>>
>>>Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
>>>"that").
>>
>>Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
>>it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
>
>Not directly, no, but this appeared in an exchange between TC and one
>"Holly" in soc.culture.irish and he didn't Oy! it (not that he does
>much Oy!ing even here):
>
> It brings a tear to me eye. I don't believe I can ever step
> foot in Ireland again.
That use of it is somewhat dodgy and, perhaps as you say, TCE, but
saying something such as "I will never step foot in that pub again" is
unremarkable: it is not substandard English.
--
Charles Riggs
Ross Howard
wrought:
>>>Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
>>>it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
>>
>>Not directly, no, but this appeared in an exchange between TC and one
>>"Holly" in soc.culture.irish and he didn't Oy! it (not that he does
>>much Oy!ing even here):
>>
>> It brings a tear to me eye. I don't believe I can ever step
>> foot in Ireland again.
>
>That use of it is somewhat dodgy and, perhaps as you say, TCE, but
>saying something such as "I will never step foot in that pub again" is
>unremarkable: it is not substandard English.
Hmm. Interesting, since Harvey said much the same thing. Do we have a
word for an eggcorn -- which this obviously is -- that has become so
entrenched regionally that it should be considered a regional variant
or dialect rather than a solecism? (Yes, I'm thinking of things like
"another thing coming" and "fine toothcomb", but lets not go there
again, please.)
And if "step foot in" is regional, what's the region? All North
America, or just the Midwest (Dylan was raised in Minnesota) and
Harvey's original area north of the border?
--
Ross Howard
Ben Zimmer
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:19:15 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
> wrought:
>
>>>>Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
>>>>it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
>>>
>>>Not directly, no, but this appeared in an exchange between TC and one
>>>"Holly" in soc.culture.irish and he didn't Oy! it (not that he does
>>>much Oy!ing even here):
>>>
>>> It brings a tear to me eye. I don't believe I can ever step
>>> foot in Ireland again.
>>
>>That use of it is somewhat dodgy and, perhaps as you say, TCE, but
>>saying something such as "I will never step foot in that pub again" is
>>unremarkable: it is not substandard English.
>
> Hmm. Interesting, since Harvey said much the same thing. Do we have a
> word for an eggcorn -- which this obviously is -- that has become so
> entrenched regionally that it should be considered a regional variant
> or dialect rather than a solecism? (Yes, I'm thinking of things like
> "another thing coming" and "fine toothcomb", but lets not go there
> again, please.)
For some it's an eggcorn, for others an acorn (or ex-eggcorn, if you
prefer).
I wasn't aware that this is non-non-standard in some dialects. I've
marked the Eggcorn Database entry "questionable" and appended a note.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:07:27 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
>wrought:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0100, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
>>>-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>>
>>>I did come across this, though.
>>>
>>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
>>> Never stepped foot in there again.
>>>
>>>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
>>>it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>>>
>>>Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
>>>"that").
>>
>>Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
>>it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
>
>Not directly, no, but this appeared in an exchange between TC and one
>"Holly" in soc.culture.irish and he didn't Oy! it (not that he does
>much Oy!ing even here):
>
> It brings a tear to me eye. I don't believe I can ever step
> foot in Ireland again.
>
>TC, do you know where Holly is from?
>
Holly's American. I think she lives in Denver. The "corn field"
thread reminded me of Holly. She looks "corn fed":
http://wall.ie/scifaces/
There's no way that I would have OY!ed a usage point in SCI. It
simply isn't done there. There's no term in SCI for the OY!
exclamation. Kind of a reverse Eskimo and snow thing.
I generally follow the same practice here that I did in SCI. If
there's a pun, a play on words, or a humorous twist, I'll note the
error. I don't bother OY!ing a typo or a misspelled word.
I make exceptions for Charles. The poor dear needs someone to pay
attention to him.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Not at all. I'm pleased to see another Dylan eggcorn in the
database,
> to accompany the one that appears in "Ballad in Plain D":
>
> "The constant scrapegoat, she was easily undone
> By the jealousy of others around her."
An Englishwoman I knew always said "scrapegoat": I thought I'd sent
it to Chris.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I once found myself sitting next to Bob Dylan while waiting for a
> tandoori takeaway in Tufnell Park.
>
> The experience understandably changed my life. Dipping a naan in my
> raita would never quite be the same again.
May I have your autograph, please?
--
Mike.
Maria Conlon
>
> For some it's an eggcorn, for others an acorn (or ex-eggcorn, if you
> prefer).
>
> I wasn't aware that this is non-non-standard in some dialects. I've
> marked the Eggcorn Database entry "questionable" and appended a note.
Oh, good. BTW, like Nate, I was puzzled as to what "stepped foot in"
might be an eggcorn for. When I looked it up in the database, there it
was -- "set foot in." And I realize now that I say it both ways, with
both versions sounding perfectly logical and standard to me. (Which do I
use more often? I have no idea.)
Maria Conlon, resident of southeast Michigan; native of east Tennessee.
Salvatore Volatile
> And if "step foot in" is regional, what's the region? All North
> America, or just the Midwest (Dylan was raised in Minnesota) and
> Harvey's original area north of the border?
"Step foot in" sounds incorrect (and eggcornish) to me.
Is Minnesota the Midwest? I now believe that it is -- all of Minnesota,
and not just the part east of the Mississippi. This is based on some
recent traveling experiences.
The real transitional area is eastern South Dakota.
But, as we know, there's little if any dialectal significance in 'the
Midwest'. AmE dialectal regions are more horizontal than vertical, if you
follow me.
I never found out how "Cafe Wha?" was supposed to be pronounced. Is it
like [wA:] with a marked upturn in intonation, or just a [wV], or
something else?
Salvatore Volatile
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:07:27 +0000, Charles Riggs <chr...@ircom.net>
> wrought:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0100, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
>>>-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>>
>>>I did come across this, though.
>>>
>>> Never stepped foot in there again.
>>>
>>>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
>>>it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>>>
>>>Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
>>>"that").
>>
>>Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
>>it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
>
> Not directly, no, but this appeared in an exchange between TC and one
> "Holly" in soc.culture.irish and he didn't Oy! it (not that he does
> much Oy!ing even here):
>
> It brings a tear to me eye. I don't believe I can ever step
> foot in Ireland again.
>
> TC, do you know where Holly is from?
I don't think we want to set a precedent here whereby failure to Oy!
something is taken as dialectal approval.
Heck, I don't Oy! every questionable usage by Coop when I respond to his
postings, but that doesn't me a TCE speaker make.
TakenEvent
"Salvatore Volatile" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:dkfvsf$prv$3...@news.wss.yale.edu...
>
> Ross Howard wrote:
> > And if "step foot in" is regional, what's the region? All North
> > America, or just the Midwest (Dylan was raised in Minnesota) and
> > Harvey's original area north of the border?
>
> "Step foot in" sounds incorrect (and eggcornish) to me.
>snip<
It *looks* incorrect. It *sounds* fine. Try it with a drawl.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:01:47 +0100, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:07:27 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
> >wrought:
> >
> >>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0100, Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's autobiography, and
> >>>-- apart from some annoyingly lax copy-editing -- it's a great read.
> >>>
> >>>I did come across this, though.
> >>>
> >>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the afternoons.
> >>> Never stepped foot in there again.
> >>>
> >>>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and, yes, there
> >>>it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
> >>>
> >>>Wow, whodathought -- Bob Dylan's a TCE speaker! (He also uses personal
> >>>"that").
> >>
> >>Do you have an example of where TC wrote "stepped foot in"? I suspect
> >>it is an American Westernism, not a Cooperism.
I don't think it's regional. I believe I remember hearing it from a
friend who grew up in New York and went to a prep school and a fairly
well-known liberal arts college in New England.
> That use of it is somewhat dodgy and, perhaps as you say, TCE, but
> saying something such as "I will never step foot in that pub again" is
> unremarkable: it is not substandard English.
I'd call it non-standard; I wouldn't expect to see it in the _New York
Times_ (although these days...). But, as you and many others say,
unremarkable anywhere in the U.S. I've ever been.
--
Jerry Friedman
Chris Waigl
> I'd call it non-standard; I wouldn't expect to see it in the _New York
> Times_ (although these days...). But, as you and many others say,
> unremarkable anywhere in the U.S. I've ever been.
Oops: 76 GHits for "step | stepped | steps | stepping foot" in the
guardian.co.uk domain: <http://shorl.com/gehusonigoky>.
Ben, do we need an addendum or so? Is it dialectal? Or just becoming
mainstream faster than we were thinking?
John Holmes
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:19:01 -0800, jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I'd call it non-standard; I wouldn't expect to see it in the _New
>> York Times_ (although these days...). But, as you and many others
>> say, unremarkable anywhere in the U.S. I've ever been.
>
> Oops: 76 GHits for "step | stepped | steps | stepping foot" in the
> guardian.co.uk domain: <http://shorl.com/gehusonigoky>.
>
> Ben, do we need an addendum or so? Is it dialectal? Or just becoming
> mainstream faster than we were thinking?
Try a search on "step | stepped | steps | stepping foot forward". That
brings up pages about dance and execise instructions, which might be a
clue to the validity of transitive 'step'. It doesn't show any
regionalism that I could see.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Harvey Van Sickle
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:26:56 GMT, "mUs1Ka"
> <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com> wrought:
>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>> On 04 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>>>> yes, there it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>>>
>>> "Never stepped foot in there again" sounds entirely
>>> idiomatic to me -- regional, but I can't see which word has
>>> replaced a correct one.
>> foot in there again".
> Yes, and Google agrees (with a general Google ratio of about
> 15:1).
>
> You can certainly see where this classic eggcorn came from. I
> say classic, because it pleasingly manages to make a bit more
> sense than the original version that it mangles -- we do
> indeed step into places with our feet, whereas we seldom if
> ever "set" them anywhere. But an eggcorn it is; "step" isn't
> transitively in this way anywhere else, is it?
"Classic eggcorn"? I object, y'eronner.
"Stepped foot" simply does not have the same relation to "set foot"
as, say, "sheik" has to "chic" -- one which I happened to spy on
the "database". (The quotation marks are intentional: that ain't
a database, it's just a searchable list.)
The term "eggcorn" appears to mean whatever people want it mean.
> Oh, and Harvey, here's the relevant entry in the Database:
> http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/index.php?s=step+foot&submit=Searc
> h
>
> (Scroll down; it's the second entry on that page.)
>
Thanks; I'll take a look. (As you can tell, though, I'm not sold
on this catch-all term of "eggcorn": it looks like so broad a
category as to be meaningless.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Chris Waigl
> On 04 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>> You can certainly see where this classic eggcorn came from. I say
>> classic, because it pleasingly manages to make a bit more sense than
>> the original version that it mangles -- we do indeed step into places
>> with our feet, whereas we seldom if ever "set" them anywhere. But an
>> eggcorn it is; "step" isn't transitively in this way anywhere else, is
>> it?
>
> "Classic eggcorn"? I object, y'eronner.
I agree that "classic eggcorn" is a bit of a high-falutin' word to use the
way things stand. But the situation isn't half as vague as you are making
it out to be. (And is this supposed to be French?)
> "Stepped foot" simply does not have the same relation to "set foot" as,
> say, "sheik" has to "chic" -- one which I happened to spy on the
> "database". (The quotation marks are intentional: that ain't a
> database, it's just a searchable list.)
First of all it is, strictly speaking, a database. I'll gladly send you a
gzipped/b2zipped/zipped version of the .sql export. Admittedly, I haven't
got around to providing a more austere interface for the technologically
inclined, or even renamed the tables in a more fitting way. It _is_ a
work-in-progress.
Second, your analogy is askew. The following is still not perfect, but
better: _chic_ is to _sheik_ in "a very sheik venue" like _set_ to _step_
in "(I) never stepped foot in there again". I'd be inclined to re-title
the "step foot" entry as "step" simply. But it remains true that some
eggcorns are part of idioms or fixed expressions ("step foot") and others
aren't ("a sheik venue"). No, the site isn't consistent, and I've been
struggling to find a label for those that are part of idioms. "Idiomatic"
isn't it.
Third, yes, there is quite a bit of vagueness around the contours. We keep
finding entirely new types of eggcorns, with something we hadn't
considered before being reanalysed. Maybe a morpheme. Or the pronunciation
being changed when the spelling isn't. Many, many of the (a bit
overwhelmingly numerous) submissions are just amusing malapropisms, but
things get tricky if they just might be a little more than that. For most
entries, the best one can say is that the substitution is an eggcorn (i.e.
driven by the desire to make sense of an opaque bit of language) for some
writers, and for others it may just be insensitivity to how things are
spelled. This gets particularly hairy for examples that coincide with
frequent typos (an inversion of letters, or a dropped letter, say).
Still, the "About" page and the Language Log posts referenced therein, in
particular Arnold Zwicky's "Lady Mondegreen says her peace about egg
corns"
<http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/000074.html>, with
its careful classification of reshapings, do provide some pointers to the
elements that come into play for eggcorns as opposed to other kinds of
"lexical errors", or as a particular subset of them.
> The term "eggcorn" appears to mean whatever people want it mean.
Is it too much asked to read the available reference material before
stating that the entire thing is too ill-defined to be useful?
> Thanks; I'll take a look. (As you can tell, though, I'm not sold on
> this catch-all term of "eggcorn": it looks like so broad a category as
> to be meaningless.)
Well, I'm not trying to sell the term to anyone. But I'm not only (or even
mainly) in for the amusement value.
Robert Bannister
> That use of it is somewhat dodgy and, perhaps as you say, TCE, but
> saying something such as "I will never step foot in that pub again" is
> unremarkable: it is not substandard English.
>
As Ross says: "interesting". I wouldn't call it substandard, but neither
would I call it "unremarkable". It definitely sends up warning flags to
me and would have to be "set foot" in my various dialects.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On 04 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>
>
>>I've just started to read *Chronicles*, Bob Dylan's
>>autobiography, and -- apart from some annoyingly lax
>>copy-editing -- it's a great read.
>>
>>I did come across this, though.
>>
>> I had stopped going down to the Café Wha? in the
>> afternoons. Never stepped foot in there again.
>>
>>"Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and,
>>yes, there it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>
>
> "Never stepped foot in there again" sounds entirely idiomatic to me
> -- regional, but I can't see which word has replaced a correct one.
>
> So which word is the eggcorned one? (I couldn't find it in the
> Eggcorn Database under "stepped", "foot", or "stepped foot in".)
>
>
"Step" is not usually transitive, except in expressions to do with
dancing or possibly construction. You place your foot somewhere, ie
"set" it. You can also step on someone else's foot.
--
Rob Bannister
Charles Riggs
Looking at it again, Rob, I have to agree. While I have heard "step
foot in" -- perhaps from some cowboy in Jerry's neck of the woods --
"set foot in" is the way I'd say it. It may be not be substandard in
cowboy English, redneck English or TCE, though. There's room for many
dialects.
--
Charles Riggs
Ross Howard
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrought:
>On 04 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:26:56 GMT, "mUs1Ka"
>> <mUs...@NOSPAMexcite.com> wrought:
>>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>>> On 04 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>
>>>>> "Stepped foot in"? I checked with the Eggcorn Database and,
>>>>> yes, there it is (entered by Ben Zimmer).
>>>>
>>>> "Never stepped foot in there again" sounds entirely
>>>> idiomatic to me -- regional, but I can't see which word has
>>>> replaced a correct one.
[...]
>> You can certainly see where this classic eggcorn came from. I
>> say classic, because it pleasingly manages to make a bit more
>> sense than the original version that it mangles -- we do
>> indeed step into places with our feet, whereas we seldom if
>> ever "set" them anywhere. But an eggcorn it is; "step" isn't
>> transitively in this way anywhere else, is it?
>
>"Classic eggcorn"? I object, y'eronner.
>
>"Stepped foot" simply does not have the same relation to "set foot"
>as, say, "sheik" has to "chic" -- one which I happened to spy on
>the "database". (The quotation marks are intentional: that ain't
>a database, it's just a searchable list.)
>
>The term "eggcorn" appears to mean whatever people want it mean.
[..]
>(As you can tell, [...] I'm not sold
>on this catch-all term of "eggcorn": it looks like so broad a
>category as to be meaningless.)
It's defined clearly enough on the "About" page of Chris's site, but
here's my undertanding of the term (correct me, Chris or Ben, if I've
got the wrong end of the shtick):
There are three particular kinds of solecisms in which a soundalike
word or phrase is used instead of the standard one: malaprops,
mondegreens and eggcorns. The difference between them lies not so much
in the nature of the change that the word or phrase undergoes as in
the *reason* why the change was made.
Malaprops result from attempting to use a word that belongs to a
higher register than you are really comfortable with and getting it
hopelessly wrong, using instead another word that you don't really
understand either.. In other words, they stem from biting off more
than you can lexically chew, usually with absurd results:
She talks ever so posh. She's had electrocution lessons, you
know.
Mondegreens are easy to define: they are mis-heard song lyrics, and
may affect not just one word but a whole line. The result may bear
some relation to the original, but it needn't. What it must do,
though, is be composed of a very similar cluster of phonemes.
Now eggcorns. Like mondegreens, they're usually the result of someone
having mis-heard a word or set phrase and getting it -- or, if a
phrase, a key part of it -- wrong. However, they generally have a
strange sort of internal logic, and in many cases they may even make
rather more sense than the original version, at least at first sight.
A good example was mentioned here by Mike Lyle a couple of years ago:
to be "streaks ahead" instead of "streets ahead". It makes sense
because the winners of races do indeed streak ahead of their
competitors, and what are streets supposed to have to do with the
price of fish?
This is why I called "step foot in" a classic eggcorn. (I agree that
"classic" is perhaps not the happiest word I could have used; how
about "canonical", then?) After all, we have "footsteps" so why not
"step foot"? When you think about it, though, an eggcorn it has to be
-- not only should the foot be the subject rather than the object of
"step", but "set" is used to mean place with extremities (as in the
legalese "set my hand" meaning "sign"). "Set foot in" is archaic in
its form, but it's still modern idiomatic English, while step foot in
passes the eggcorn test: it's a soundalike error but it makes a
certain amount of sense
Rather than being meaningless, I find it a useful term for a
phenomenon that is not only of interest here (more on-topic,
impossible) -- it's often a helluva lot of fun.
--
Ross Howard
Harvey Van Sickle
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:16:40 +0000, Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>> "Stepped foot" simply does not have the same relation to "set
>> foot" as, say, "sheik" has to "chic"
-snip-
> Second, your analogy is askew. The following is still not
> perfect, but better: _chic_ is to _sheik_ in "a very sheik
> venue" like _set_ to _step_ in "(I) never stepped foot in
> there again".
That's precisely what I mean by it being too vague: they're only
similar in that a different word is being used to that which is
expected: one's a homonym, whilst the other (I think) is a
difference in idiom.
That two things cause a reader to pause and to say "I think that's
not the right word" doesn't mean that the two things are themselves
similar: it just means that in certain situations, they have the
same effect on a third party.
> I'd be inclined to re-title the "step foot"
> entry as "step" simply. But it remains true that some eggcorns
> are part of idioms or fixed expressions ("step foot") and
> others aren't ("a sheik venue"). No, the site isn't
> consistent, and I've been struggling to find a label for those
> that are part of idioms. "Idiomatic" isn't it.
>
> Third, yes, there is quite a bit of vagueness around the
> contours. We keep finding entirely new types of eggcorns, with
> something we hadn't considered before being reanalysed. Maybe
> a morpheme. Or the pronunciation being changed when the
> spelling isn't. Many, many of the (a bit overwhelmingly
> numerous) submissions are just amusing malapropisms, but
> things get tricky if they just might be a little more than
> that. For most entries, the best one can say is that the
> substitution is an eggcorn (i.e. driven by the desire to make
> sense of an opaque bit of language) for some writers, and for
> others it may just be insensitivity to how things are spelled.
> This gets particularly hairy for examples that coincide with
> frequent typos (an inversion of letters, or a dropped letter,
> say).
This is where I have a problem with the way you appear to be
expanding the territory of what can be called an "eggcorn".
People in this group can spend hours -- and way too many posts --
arguing about the precise difference between an initialism and an
acronym, or between a malapropism and a misused homonym. (I've
seen objections to the "their/there" error being called a
"malapropism", on the grounds that the result is not amusing.)
"Eggcorn" for "acorn" is a specific type of error: it rationalises
the creation of a reasonable -- but previously non-existent -- word
to represent something the writer has heard.
To categorise *all* forms of word-errors by a good term for a
single type of error seems to me to create too vague a category to
be of use. Grouping a whole range of word errors -- everything
from a misused homonym to a malapropism to a typo to a mondegreen -
- under a useful term which describes one specific type of word
error strikes me as erroneous naming.
> Still, the "About" page and the Language Log posts referenced
> therein, in particular Arnold Zwicky's "Lady Mondegreen says
> her peace about egg corns"
> <http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/000074.ht
> ml>, with
> its careful classification of reshapings, do provide some
> pointers to the elements that come into play for eggcorns as
> opposed to other kinds of "lexical errors", or as a particular
> subset of them.
But whilst here you're implying that eggcorns differ from other
kinds of lexical errors, further up you appear to wish to call
everything from malapropisms to typos to differing idioms by the
same name of "eggcorns".
Either an eggcorn is a specific type of lexical error, or it's not:
you don't have to be French to object to the simultaneous use of a
single word as (a) the name of a generic set and (b) the name of a
specific, narrow sub-set of that same generic set.
I assume you wouldn't apply the term "mondegreen" to things like
typos and different idiomatic uses. I don't see the justification
for using "eggcorn" to cover typos, different idiomatic uses,
mondegreens, and everything else.
(I do realise that the misapplication of "eggcorn" to describe word
errors which aren't eggcorns could be ironic. If that's
intentional, though, the collection of errors seems more like a
language plaything -- "here's a wide range of errors, the name of
which is itself an error" -- than the analytical tool you appear to
wish it to be.)
Harvey Van Sickle
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:16:40 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
><harve...@ntlworld.com> wrought:
But when that overlaps with mondegreens or malapropisms -- or with
what I'd maintain is simply a different idiomatic phrase, like
"never stepped foot in" -- it doesn't strike me as a useful
category.
There are good examples of each type, but the overlaps are too
vague, and the inclusion of idiom differences appears to me to be a
case of extending the term to cover all sorts of word errors: a
kind of lexical land-grab.
> This is why I called "step foot in" a classic eggcorn. (I
> agree that "classic" is perhaps not the happiest word I could
> have used; how about "canonical", then?) After all, we have
> "footsteps" so why not "step foot"? When you think about it,
> though, an eggcorn it has to be -- not only should the foot be
> the subject rather than the object of "step", but "set" is
> used to mean place with extremities (as in the legalese "set
> my hand" meaning "sign"). "Set foot in" is archaic in its
> form, but it's still modern idiomatic English, while step foot
> in passes the eggcorn test: it's a soundalike error but it
> makes a certain amount of sense
I don't think it *is* a soundalike "error": I think it's a
regional difference in idiom. And other entries in there --
"bemused/amused" and "every since" -- seem to me to be errors of an
entirely different kinds.
(The first of those strikes me as a meaning shift, similar to
"disinterested", whilst the second could easily be a simple
typo/editing error. Who's to know? There's too little to go on to
impute intent.)
> Rather than being meaningless, I find it a useful term for a
> phenomenon that is not only of interest here (more on-topic,
> impossible) -- it's often a helluva lot of fun.
It might be useful for a specific phenomenon, but when it's
extended to cover meaning shifts like bemused/amused -- or, I'd
maintain, idiom differences like "never stepped foot in" -- it
becomes, to my mind, a meaningless category.
I'll leave you guys to it -- have fun -- but won't be joining in
the seemingly-enthusiastic extension of the term to cover all sorts
of word errors.
Chris Waigl
> On 04 Nov 2005, Chris Waigl wrote
>> Second, your analogy is askew. The following is still not
>> perfect, but better: _chic_ is to _sheik_ in "a very sheik
>> venue" like _set_ to _step_ in "(I) never stepped foot in
>> there again".
>
> That's precisely what I mean by it being too vague: they're only
> similar in that a different word is being used to that which is
> expected: one's a homonym, whilst the other (I think) is a
> difference in idiom.
You can only call it a "difference" in an idiom if "step foot" is indeed
an idiom -- regionally, dialectally, you name it. This is what we
discovered in this very thread. Ben Zimmer immediately labelled the entry
as "questionable".
But for other idiom-related eggcorns, unquestionable ones, like for
example "be up to stuff" or "far-gone conclusion", you are supposing that
something fundamentally different is going on compared to what you'd
prefer to call "homonym errors". Well, "far-gone" and "foregone" are
homonyms, too, at least in some varieties of English.
So what now? Whether you think that for an individual (and that's what
we're dealing with: the written productions of individuals) "homonym" and
"idiom" are sharply defined categories that determine their word
choice will depend on the theoretical framework you're working from.
Hashing out these questions may be highly interesting, but I don't really
see a reason to delay collecting examples until the entire world agrees on
one model of language production.
>> Third, yes, there is quite a bit of vagueness around the
>> contours. We keep finding entirely new types of eggcorns, with
>> something we hadn't considered before being reanalysed. Maybe
>> a morpheme. Or the pronunciation being changed when the
>> spelling isn't. Many, many of the (a bit overwhelmingly
>> numerous) submissions are just amusing malapropisms, but
>> things get tricky if they just might be a little more than
>> that. For most entries, the best one can say is that the
>> substitution is an eggcorn (i.e. driven by the desire to make
>> sense of an opaque bit of language) for some writers, and for
>> others it may just be insensitivity to how things are spelled.
>> This gets particularly hairy for examples that coincide with
>> frequent typos (an inversion of letters, or a dropped letter,
>> say).
>
> This is where I have a problem with the way you appear to be
> expanding the territory of what can be called an "eggcorn".
I am?
> [...]
>
> "Eggcorn" for "acorn" is a specific type of error: it rationalises
> the creation of a reasonable -- but previously non-existent -- word
> to represent something the writer has heard.
Well, yes, there you have it. With two caveats: First, no one can know
what was "previously non-existent"; chances are that the same thing gets
invented many times over independently, and in any case, once invented, it
will spread directly, by imitation, if it is sensible enough. Second,
eggcorns are about production, not perception. I happen to find this
particular distinction useful.
> To categorise *all* forms of word-errors by a good term for a
> single type of error seems to me to create too vague a category to
> be of use.
Obviously. Where is anyone doing this?
> Grouping a whole range of word errors -- everything
> from a misused homonym to a malapropism to a typo to a mondegreen -
> - under a useful term which describes one specific type of word
> error strikes me as erroneous naming.
> [...]
>
> But whilst here you're implying that eggcorns differ from other
> kinds of lexical errors, further up you appear to wish to call
> everything from malapropisms to typos to differing idioms by the
> same name of "eggcorns".
The operative word is "appear". I don't wish anything like this. The above
part, which I left in, was about the difficulty of telling apart, say,
eggcorns and typos. Obviously typos are something entirely different. When
you're confronted with a particular sample of writing, though, you start
out not knowing what went on there to generate a usage you or I think is
"wrong". On the inadvertent side alone there are typos, spell-checker
substitutions, typing automatisms (when you type a particularly common
letter combination while your brain is already processing the next word),
cut-and-paste errors and basic orthographic ignorance. Probably there are
more categories. None of them are eggcorns.
Now how do you go about finding out if a particular non-standard use is of
this type even though the end product makes a new kind of sense? You
usually can't ask the writer, and even if you can, "not knowing how to
spell correctly" comes with so much stigma attached that a lot of them
would rather admit a typo than defend the reasoning that has led them to
making the substitution.
And then there's dialectal variation, slang, and other mechanisms of
language change I know much too little about. And we haven't even started
on malapropisms yet.
The Eggcorn Database isn't the OED, Arnold Zwicky's and Ben Zimmer's
contributions nonwithstanding; still, some thought does go into what is
entered and what isn't. A submission I recently rejected is "sylphilis"
for "syphilis". "Syphilis" is misspelled in various ways, and I found
it unlikely that the users of "sylphilis" were aware of and driven by the
word "sylph".
I also think it would be useful to restrict the term "malapropisms" to the
non-eggcornish type, i.e. those that aren't driven by a desire to make
sense within the constraints of what one perceives the appropriate word
has to be. But the term has its own history, I don't get to decide that.
As for idioms, there's no reason they should be a priori excluded from a
source of language change/variation/error that is available to non-idioms.
Maybe the problem you have with idiom-related eggcorns is that an idiom
makes too good of a target. Most incorporate some sort of figurative
language. Eggcorns are often based on substituting the writer's private
metaphor for an existing one. It is therefore not surprising that
re-interpretations of the sense of an expressions occur particularly often
in idioms.
> Either an eggcorn is a specific type of lexical error, or it's not:
> you don't have to be French to object to the simultaneous use of a
> single word as (a) the name of a generic set and (b) the name of a
> specific, narrow sub-set of that same generic set.
(b)
There's nothing wrong, though, with carrying on the discussion about what
the specifics of the subset actually are.
> I assume you wouldn't apply the term "mondegreen" to things like
> typos and different idiomatic uses. I don't see the justification
> for using "eggcorn" to cover typos, different idiomatic uses,
> mondegreens, and everything else.
Forgive me if I'm blunt, but then don't do it. I certainly don't.
Chris Waigl
> On 05 Nov 2005, Ross Howard wrote
>
>> There are three particular kinds of solecisms in which a
>> soundalike word or phrase is used instead of the standard one:
>> malaprops, mondegreens and eggcorns. The difference between
>> them lies not so much in the nature of the change that the
>> word or phrase undergoes as in the *reason* why the change was
>> made.
Well, these three have been labelled and are sufficiently well-defined for
some of us to be useful as a category of lexical or phrasal substitutions.
>> Malaprops result from attempting to use a word that belongs to a higher
>> register than you are really comfortable with and getting it hopelessly
>> wrong, using instead another word that you don't really understand
>> either.. In other words, they stem from biting off more than you can
>> lexically chew, usually with absurd results:
>>
>> She talks ever so posh. She's had electrocution lessons, you know.
I have this rule of thumb for telling eggcorns and "canonical" (see!)
malaprops apart: In the latter, you substitute a big word you don't really
understand for the original big word you don't really understand. In the
former, you do understand the word(s) you actually use, replacing a big
word you don't really understand; they just happen to be idiosyncratic or
plain erroneous.
>> Mondegreens are easy to define: they are mis-heard song lyrics, and may
>> affect not just one word but a whole line. The result may bear some
>> relation to the original, but it needn't. What it must do, though, is
>> be composed of a very similar cluster of phonemes.
What is also required of eggcorns is phonetic closeness -- they should do
better than "electrocution" for "elocution" or "allegory" for "alligator".
This is something they have in common with mondegreens, but the similarity
ends there. Mondegreens are errors of perception, not of production, and
they are related to specific auditory material: a particular performance
of a song (X sang by Y on CD Z), the Lord's prayer as recited by the
priest of my parish, the Pledge of Allegiance... There's nothing wrong
with saying "excuse me while I kiss this guy" if you actually want to talk
about kissing a guy.
>> Now eggcorns. Like mondegreens, they're usually the result of someone
>> having mis-heard a word or set phrase and getting it -- or, if a
>> phrase, a key part of it -- wrong. However, they generally have a
>> strange sort of internal logic, and in many cases they may even make
>> rather more sense than the original version, at least at first sight. A
>> good example was mentioned here by Mike Lyle a couple of years ago: to
>> be "streaks ahead" instead of "streets ahead". It makes sense because
>> the winners of races do indeed streak ahead of their competitors, and
>> what are streets supposed to have to do with the price of fish?
>
> But when that overlaps with mondegreens or malapropisms -- or with what
> I'd maintain is simply a different idiomatic phrase, like "never stepped
> foot in" -- it doesn't strike me as a useful category.
>
> There are good examples of each type, but the overlaps are too vague,
> and the inclusion of idiom differences appears to me to be a case of
> extending the term to cover all sorts of word errors: a kind of lexical
> land-grab.
Well, thanks for giving me a laugh.
I am glad that you (Harvey Van Sickle) are recognising that there are
"good examples of each type". That's something. It means that we have
grasped the tail end of a useful category.
>> This is why I called "step foot in" a classic eggcorn. (I agree that
>> "classic" is perhaps not the happiest word I could have used; how about
>> "canonical", then?) After all, we have "footsteps" so why not "step
>> foot"? When you think about it, though, an eggcorn it has to be -- not
>> only should the foot be the subject rather than the object of "step",
>> but "set" is used to mean place with extremities (as in the legalese
>> "set my hand" meaning "sign"). "Set foot in" is archaic in its form,
>> but it's still modern idiomatic English, while step foot in passes the
>> eggcorn test: it's a soundalike error but it makes a certain amount of
>> sense
I would agree if there weren't signs of "step foot" being an idiom, maybe
regionally restricted, that exists independently from "set foot", and has
for a while. This would be for the lexicographer to decide.
On the other hand, the vagueness that Harvey Van Sickle criticises is to a
certain degree unavoidable, however much we work on reducing it.
a) A substitution can be an eggcorn for some ("huh, it's supposed to be
'set foot'? but I've always thought of footsteps; well, ok, I'm not
actually sure I've heard anyone else say 'step' -- it could have been
'set'") and an idiom for others ("in my neighbourhood, we have been saying
'step foot' for generations, and that's what my mom taught me to say").
b) What's actually "sounding alike"? Luckily, there are some phoneticians
who are interested in eggcorns and help clear up the matter somewhat. *
c) History. Some eggcorns are becoming mainstream, some ex-eggcorns are in
the dictionaries, labelled as folk etymologies. "Tow the line" and "free
reign" are definitely going down this road. (Both, I may add, are
idiom-related eggcorns.) So for some popular substitutions we will, at
some point, have to grapple with the question "Eggcorn or idiom variant?"
> I don't think it *is* a soundalike "error": I think it's a regional
> difference in idiom. And other entries in there -- "bemused/amused" and
> "every since" -- seem to me to be errors of an entirely different kinds.
d) Newness. The definition is evolving. I'm sympathetic to Harvey Van
Sickle's criticism of "be/amused", but not totally decided yet. This is
indeed an entry that the longer I look at it, the more it moves towards
the "questionable" end of the eggcorn scale. What kinds of semantic
reinterpretations -- and this is indeed one -- do we include?
e) Theoretical frameworks. Some will argue that "ever" and "every" are
semantically near-identical; the few licks of formal linguistic training I
have received, for the time being, happen to be of the school that
grammatical function words have very rich semantics. Others are very
reluctant to delve into the semantics of function words. Interpretations
and analyses of semantics can vary.
And there's probably an f), g) and h) as well.
Even those who have an excellent handle on what an eggcorn is supposed to
be may disagree about whether a particular example falls into this
category. Harvey Van Sickle's last two examples are good in the sense that
a case could be made either way.
Delimitation debates have a tendency to turn sterile. Reducing the areas
of uncertainty and vagueness in the definition of "eggcorn" and in the
actual entries is a worthy goal and some of my and our efforts go into
this. Not missing out on interesting cases which, after a time of
reflection may or may not be grouped with the eggcorns is another worthy
goal.
Maybe some have more objections than others to works-in-progress. That
there will be some unavoidable vagueness despite efforts to reduce it
doesn't give me sleepless nights.
Chris Waigl
> Oops: 76 GHits for "step | stepped | steps | stepping foot" in the
> guardian.co.uk domain: <http://shorl.com/gehusonigoky>.
>
> Ben, do we need an addendum or so? Is it dialectal? Or just becoming
> mainstream faster than we were thinking?
Ok, you were faster than I had imagined. Great.
Chris Waigl
--
blog: http://serendipity.lascribe.net/
eggcorns: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/
personal blog : just ask for the URL
Robert Bannister
> That's precisely what I mean by it being too vague: they're only
> similar in that a different word is being used to that which is
> expected: one's a homonym, whilst the other (I think) is a
> difference in idiom.
>
> That two things cause a reader to pause and to say "I think that's
> not the right word" doesn't mean that the two things are themselves
> similar: it just means that in certain situations, they have the
> same effect on a third party.
Apologies for reviving an old thread, but this morning, my supermarket
had a board advertising "Margaret River desert yoghurt", and I was
reminded of "got his just desserts". Would you consider the latter to be
an eggcorn, a malapropism or just a misspelling?
It seems to me, that few people today see the association between
"deserts" and "deserve", and that for many people "desserts" actually
makes better sense because the see "deserts" and automatically pronounce
it with the stress on the first syllable.
--
Rob Bannister
Harvey Van Sickle
> fHarvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>
>
>> That's precisely what I mean by it being too vague: they're
>> only similar in that a different word is being used to that
>> which is expected: one's a homonym, whilst the other (I
>> think) is a difference in idiom.
>>
>> That two things cause a reader to pause and to say "I think
>> that's not the right word" doesn't mean that the two things
>> are themselves similar: it just means that in certain
>> situations, they have the same effect on a third party.
>
> Apologies for reviving an old thread,
No problem; I abandoned the thread not out of a lack of interest,
but because I felt that my (honestly-held) dismissive view towards
the validity of the category was edging towards rudeness about the
efforts of others. I didn't want to continue going down that path,
so I felt it best to retreat and to let the thread wither away.
(I'll do that again after responding to your question.)
> but this morning, my supermarket had a board advertising
> "Margaret River desert yoghurt", and I was reminded of "got
> his just desserts". Would you consider the latter to be an
> eggcorn, a malapropism or just a misspelling?
>
> It seems to me, that few people today see the association
> between "deserts" and "deserve", and that for many people
> "desserts" actually makes better sense because the see
> "deserts" and automatically pronounce it with the stress on
> the first syllable.
This goes to the root of the problem I have with the category: it
requires the classifier to impute intent, and in my view that's a
rickety foundation for a category: it breaks down when any doubt
exists.
My own feeling is that -- in decreasing order of likelihood --
"just desserts" is either poor spelling; a typo; an eggcorn; or
a pun. It could be any of those, and we can't tell without further
information (like pronunciation) -- which we don't have.
Like others, I find the phenomenon of word misuse interesting, but
my reason for finding the category of eggcorns -- and, for that
matter, malapropisms -- ultimately not very useful is that I
distrust categories which define themselves exclusively by imputed
intent. It works in clear-cut cases, of course, but there's just
too much leeway in the grey areas for the classifier to include
whatever he or she wishes to include. (And it's the grey areas
which, in my view, make or break the usefulness of a category.)
I recognise that this dismissiveness on my part isn't shared by
those who are working on this, but I feel a bit uncomfortable
raining on their parade. Those who find this sort of thing useful
will find this sort of thing useful; since I don't, I think it's
best if I stand aside from the eggcorn-fest.
Chris Waigl
> On 12 Nov 2005, Robert Bannister wrote
>
>
> No problem; I abandoned the thread not out of a lack of interest,
> but because I felt that my (honestly-held) dismissive view towards
> the validity of the category was edging towards rudeness about the
> efforts of others. I didn't want to continue going down that path,
> so I felt it best to retreat and to let the thread wither away.
> (I'll do that again after responding to your question.)
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of polite dimissiveness.
There's obviously nothing wrong with your being dismissive. It does,
however, put me a bit at a loss at how to engage with your criticisms. In
short, many of the points you raised last time were valid, but they were
far from being left unaddressed. Dismissiveness, on the other hand,
implies closure, or less politely, having the last word.
(I should make it clear that I'm only speaking for myself, and
certainly not in the name of "those who work on eggcorns".)
>> but this morning, my supermarket had a board advertising
>> "Margaret River desert yoghurt", and I was reminded of "got
>> his just desserts". Would you consider the latter to be an
>> eggcorn, a malapropism or just a misspelling?
>>
>> It seems to me, that few people today see the association
>> between "deserts" and "deserve", and that for many people
>> "desserts" actually makes better sense because the see
>> "deserts" and automatically pronounce it with the stress on
>> the first syllable.
>
> This goes to the root of the problem I have with the category: it
> requires the classifier to impute intent, and in my view that's a
> rickety foundation for a category: it breaks down when any doubt
> exists.
>
> My own feeling is that -- in decreasing order of likelihood --
> "just desserts" is either poor spelling; a typo; an eggcorn; or
> a pun. It could be any of those, and we can't tell without further
> information (like pronunciation) -- which we don't have.
I agree with this assessment. This is a substitution I kept an eye on
because it seemed likely that some people would write "just desserts"
thinking of a dish. I didn't create an entry until I had come
across "eat one's just desserts", in which the reference to the dish
is beyond doubt. You will also find that your concerns about typos
are being acknowledged: <http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/599/dessert/>
Intent is not a category I find pleasant or easy to handle. On the other
hand, people are aiming for something (a form, a spelling, a word, a
metaphor etc.), and they have a sense of the meaning of that "something".
Many, many potential areas of interest are full of grey zones. Isn't that
just what life is like?
Chris Waigl
--
blog: http://serendipity.lascribe.net/
eggcorns: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/
Harvey Van Sickle
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:58:32 +0000, Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2005, Robert Bannister wrote
>>
>>> Apologies for reviving an old thread,
>>
>> No problem; I abandoned the thread not out of a lack of
>> interest, but because I felt that my (honestly-held)
>> dismissive view towards the validity of the category was
>> edging towards rudeness about the efforts of others. I
>> didn't want to continue going down that path, so I felt it
>> best to retreat and to let the thread wither away. (I'll do
>> that again after responding to your question.)
>
> I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of polite
> dimissiveness.
>
> There's obviously nothing wrong with your being dismissive. It
> does, however, put me a bit at a loss at how to engage with
> your criticisms. In short, many of the points you raised last
> time were valid, but they were far from being left
> unaddressed. Dismissiveness, on the other hand, implies
> closure, or less politely, having the last word.
Well, that's why I didn't pursue it: I have no desire to have the
last word or to appear to want to have the last word -- let alone
to rudely insist to those who feel the category is useful that I
disagree with the principles of the category division. If I can,
I'd prefer to avoid insulting people who are putting an effort into
something.
I've been mulling over my unease with the categorisation, and --
rather to my surprise, as I'd not realised this -- find myself
concluding that categories which separate usage errors on the basis
of what the user intended, rather than what the user actually wound
up doing, strike me as weak.
-snip to discussion of "just desserts"-
>> My own feeling is that -- in decreasing order of likelihood
>> -- "just desserts" is either poor spelling; a typo; an
>> eggcorn; or a pun. It could be any of those, and we can't
>> tell without further information (like pronunciation) --
>> which we don't have.
>
> I agree with this assessment. This is a substitution I kept an
> eye on because it seemed likely that some people would write
> "just desserts" thinking of a dish. I didn't create an entry
> until I had come across "eat one's just desserts", in which
> the reference to the dish is beyond doubt. You will also find
> that your concerns about typos are being acknowledged:
> <http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/599/dessert/>
>
> Intent is not a category I find pleasant or easy to handle. On
> the other hand, people are aiming for something (a form, a
> spelling, a word, a metaphor etc.), and they have a sense of
> the meaning of that "something".
My problem -- which I don't wish to force upon others who disagree
(hence the attempt at polite dismissiveneess....) is that I don't
think that the fact that people are aiming for something, and have
a sense of the the meaning of that something, is a particularly
valid basis upon which to categorise errors.
I have the same problem with malapropisms as a category. As I
understand it, in order to qualify as such it's not enough for,
say, "elocution" to be replaced with "elucidation": the speaker
has to be attempting (and failing) to be grandiloquent, and is
required to be oblivious of the comic effect which results. That
is, if the substitution doesn't have that intent and effect -- if
it was just a slip, or an attempt at humour, or some sort of
dyslexic function -- it's not a malapropism, it's something else.
But the outcome -- the replacement of "elocution" with
"elucidation" is precisely the same. As with eggcorns, the only
difference lies in the intent of the person making the error, and
the classifier thus has to make some judgement about what that
intent was, and whether the error qualifies as type (a) or type
(b).
It's that principle of category division which strikes me as weak.
When faced with "just desserts" -- and judging that it's sometimes
a typo and other times an eggcorn -- my reaction is that whilst the
reason for the error is of passing interest, it would be better to
base analytical error categories on *what* error was occurring
(rather than *why* the error occurs).
> Many, many potential areas of interest are full of grey zones.
> Isn't that just what life is like?
But surely the degree to which the definitions of a category
minimise the uncertainty of the grey areas is a reasonable test of
the validity (or at least strength) of the categorising principles.
An analogy would be the division of urban settlements into
"cities", "towns", "villages", and "hamlets" -- divisions which
lead to disputes about relevant attributes. (Does a "city" need a
charter, a cathedral, a given population, a certain urban mind-set,
all of the above, or none of the above?)
For that reason, whilst one finds these terms being used
colloquially, one doesn't encounter them as a category set for
urban analysis. In analysing settlements, the breakdown would be
based on measurable factors -- population, facilities,
infrastructure, etc. Trying to apply the moniker "city" to one and
"town" to another isn't a particularly useful exercise for urban
analysis, and so these are not used as category definers.
And as it is for urban analysis, so it is for error analysis.
Whether something is a malapropism, an eggcorn, or poor spelling
doesn't strike me as a particularly fruitful distinction if (a) the
end result is the same, and (b) one has no means of telling the
difference. Dividing the errors along these lines -- like dividing
settlements into cities, towns, and villages -- may be a fun thing
to do, but if the intent is to classify for analytical purposes,
the category divisions strike me as fundamentally weak.
Default User
> Intent is not a category I find pleasant or easy to handle. On the
> other hand, people are aiming for something (a form, a spelling, a
> word, a metaphor etc.), and they have a sense of the meaning of that
> "something".
>
> Many, many potential areas of interest are full of grey zones. Isn't
> that just what life is like?
I'm often unsure about these things. To me, an eggcorn needs some
features:
1. Replace a word or set of words in a common phrase with real
alternatives.
2. The alternatives need to change the actual meaning the of phrase at
least slightly.
3. The new phrase should make its own kind of sense in context.
Others probably disagree with me, and as you run the database, your
opinion matters quite a bit.
I saw a case recently that I'm not sure can be classed as an eggcorn or
not. Someone used "chop full of" where you'd expect to see "chock full
of".
A quick Google search turns up some other similar uses, once ones like,
"juicy pork chop full of stuffing" and the like are eliminated.
"'Paradise Lost' is chop full of instant Portland classics."
"Solaris is chop full of goodies, you just need to know how to use
them."
"This fancy new toy of a game is chop full of features."
The problem is, I can't figure out a meaning for "chop full" that makes
any kind of sense. Of course, part of the problem is that to most
people "chock full" doesn't mean much either, the adverb form of
"chock" not being at all common.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:58:32 +0000, Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> > On 12 Nov 2005, Robert Bannister wrote
> >
> >> Apologies for reviving an old thread,
> >
> > No problem; I abandoned the thread not out of a lack of interest,
> > but because I felt that my (honestly-held) dismissive view towards
> > the validity of the category was edging towards rudeness about the
> > efforts of others. I didn't want to continue going down that path,
> > so I felt it best to retreat and to let the thread wither away.
> > (I'll do that again after responding to your question.)
>
> I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of polite dimissiveness.
It's the way you folks at the Eggcorn Forum treated my small but
perfectly formed contribution: "carrot top" as the name for the ^.
Simply "carrot" could just be a mishearing, but the addition of "top"
shows that somebody is thinking of some semantic connection, though I'm
not sure what the connection is.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ross Howard
wrought:
>Chris Waigl wrote:
>
>> Intent is not a category I find pleasant or easy to handle. On the
>> other hand, people are aiming for something (a form, a spelling, a
>> word, a metaphor etc.), and they have a sense of the meaning of that
>> "something".
>>
>> Many, many potential areas of interest are full of grey zones. Isn't
>> that just what life is like?
>
>
>I'm often unsure about these things. To me, an eggcorn needs some
>features:
>
>1. Replace a word or set of words in a common phrase with real
>alternatives.
>
>2. The alternatives need to change the actual meaning the of phrase at
>least slightly.
>
>3. The new phrase should make its own kind of sense in context.
>
>Others probably disagree with me, and as you run the database, your
>opinion matters quite a bit.
You need to add in the mondegreeny factor -- the eggcorned version
must sound close enough to the original for the user not to notice the
difference.
>I saw a case recently that I'm not sure can be classed as an eggcorn or
>not. Someone used "chop full of" where you'd expect to see "chock full
>of".
Although the four features (your three plus the soundalike one) are
all found in classic eggcorns, I think you can also have
second-division eggcorns, where one of the features -- in the case of
"chop full of", sort of making sense -- is missing. So, we'd class it
as an eggcorn simply because it's neither a malapropism ("chop" is not
a high-register word that the writer is only barely familiar with) nor
a mondegreen (only one phoneme altered does not a mondegreen make), so
"chop full of" is an eggcorn by default.
I don't know if Chris would agree with this, though.
--
Ross Howard
Chris Waigl
> [some snipping]
> I've been mulling over my unease with the categorisation, and -- rather
> to my surprise, as I'd not realised this -- find myself concluding that
> categories which separate usage errors on the basis of what the user
> intended, rather than what the user actually wound up doing, strike me
> as weak.
>
>
> My problem -- which I don't wish to force upon others who disagree
> (hence the attempt at polite dismissiveneess....) is that I don't think
> that the fact that people are aiming for something, and have a sense of
> the the meaning of that something, is a particularly valid basis upon
> which to categorise errors.
>
> I have the same problem with malapropisms as a category. As I
> understand it, in order to qualify as such it's not enough for, say,
> "elocution" to be replaced with "elucidation": the speaker has to be
> attempting (and failing) to be grandiloquent, and is required to be
> oblivious of the comic effect which results. That is, if the
> substitution doesn't have that intent and effect -- if it was just a
> slip, or an attempt at humour, or some sort of dyslexic function -- it's
> not a malapropism, it's something else.
As I've been understanding the term, malapropisms are a fairly
unproblematic category: "wrong word", a production error. The main
distinction is the one between advertent and inadvertent ones: the latter
are slips which speakers or writers would and do immediately correct if
they notice the substitution. I don't think grandiloquence is required,
though it obviously lowers one's tendency to doubt and double-check a word
choice. Puns and wordplay aren't errors; they add a whole new dimension of
meaning to a phrasing. Spelling influenced by dyslexia would need to be
parcelled out, too. Eggcorns are then a subspecies of malapropisms.
> But the outcome -- the replacement of "elocution" with "elucidation" is
> precisely the same. As with eggcorns, the only difference lies in the
> intent of the person making the error, and the classifier thus has to
> make some judgement about what that intent was, and whether the error
> qualifies as type (a) or type (b).
For me "elocution" for "elucidation" is a malapropism (if it wasn't
inserted by the spell-checker, that is). Full stop.
I'm unsure why you insist on "intent". I try to minimise thinking in terms
of intent and instead to rely on semantics: there's nothing in the
semantics of "elocution" that would warrant putting it in a slot where
"elucidation" fits. It's not a substitution that makes sense. And the two
words are vaguely similar, but phonetically quite a bit apart. Those two
points prevent the substitution from being an eggcorn candidate.
> It's that principle of category division which strikes me as weak. When
> faced with "just desserts" -- and judging that it's sometimes a typo and
> other times an eggcorn -- my reaction is that whilst the reason for the
> error is of passing interest, it would be better to base analytical
> error categories on *what* error was occurring (rather than *why* the
> error occurs).
That's an interesting point. But I find myself being quite unable to
perceive a clear line between the "why" and the "what", or at least the
"why" as far as it has a bearing on the "what". Then there's the "how",
the "to what end" etc.
Some time ago, I burnt my foot with hot coffee. My friends didn't consider
"I burnt it with hot coffee" a sufficient reply to the question "What
happened to your foot?"
If you describe something, you might phrase the description as facts
("what"), but those facts may relate to the context in which this
something occurs. The leap to causal or final explanations isn't
unproblematic. But again, I don't think "intent" is a crucial category in
defining eggcorns at all. Except if you classify all semantics under
"intent" somehow.
> But surely the degree to which the definitions of a category minimise
> the uncertainty of the grey areas is a reasonable test of the validity
> (or at least strength) of the categorising principles.
Yes, but not minimise above and beyond everything else. Even those in the
hard sciences have parasitic data, noise and the like, that has to be
accounted for.
Natural language is messy. Is there any kind of language data that isn't
potentially distorted by events that are random or beyond the researcher's
control.
> An analogy would be the division of urban settlements into "cities",
> "towns", "villages", and "hamlets" -- divisions which lead to disputes
> about relevant attributes. (Does a "city" need a charter, a cathedral,
> a given population, a certain urban mind-set, all of the above, or none
> of the above?)
>
> For that reason, whilst one finds these terms being used colloquially,
> one doesn't encounter them as a category set for urban analysis. In
> analysing settlements, the breakdown would be based on measurable
> factors -- population, facilities, infrastructure, etc. Trying to apply
> the moniker "city" to one and "town" to another isn't a particularly
> useful exercise for urban analysis, and so these are not used as
> category definers.
How pertinent is this analogy for telling the eggcorns from the acorns,
chestnuts and other slippery phenomena? The problem with "city" seems to
be that the colloquial meaning is too vague in some areas where English is
spoken, and that where it is well-defined, different areas have different
definitions.
With eggcorns, we know reasonably well what they are, though the term has
been in use for a considerable shorter time than "city" and is a
description of a phenomenon that occurs naturally, so it is permissible to
refine the definition to include related stuff that hadn't occurred to
anyone before. Cities also don't occur in multiple examples. So the
question of whether a particular production illustrates an eggcorn isn't
analogous to the question whether, say, Manchester is a city.
Back to "intent": I may, in an informal way refer to someone "meaning to
say" this or that, but even an urban analyst might use the term "city"
once in a while, if the context and the limits are clear.
> And as it is for urban analysis, so it is for error analysis. Whether
> something is a malapropism, an eggcorn, or poor spelling doesn't strike
> me as a particularly fruitful distinction if (a) the end result is the
> same, and (b) one has no means of telling the difference.
We seem to be in disagreement about how much can be inferred from examples
and other available material. When someone writes "I hate what this guy
did to me -- I hope he'll eat his just desserts one day", we know at least
that the writer thinks of the "desserts" in the idiom as something edible.
People choose metaphors. Sometimes they insert homophonous but
historically unwarranted metaphors into existing idioms. I happen to find
this and related phenomena interesting. The messiness of the real-life
data is another matter entirely.
> [remainder snipped]
Chris Waigl
> [me:]
>> I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of polite dimissiveness.
> ...
>
> It's the way you folks at the Eggcorn Forum treated my small but
> perfectly formed contribution: "carrot top" as the name for the ^.
Well, there has simply been no followup to your post. How does this
qualify as "dismissiveness"? [Sorry for the typo above.]
Should I apologise for simply having other things going on that lead to my
not being immediately available for intelligent comment on every single
post? I _am_ a bit sorry that I can't, but somehow think I should't. In
addition, the forum wasn't meant to be a one-way conversation between me
on one side and every other submitter on the other. On how many other
submissions have you commented?
> Simply "carrot" could just be a mishearing, but the addition of "top"
> shows that somebody is thinking of some semantic connection, though I'm
> not sure what the connection is.
The reason this one stumped me a bit is the addition of "top", which makes
it slightly atypical: the "top" part is not phonetically justified
by anything that is present in "caret". I haven't had the time to look
into the examples; and I'm a bit confused about how the caret resembles
the top of a carrot. Which end of the carrot is the top anyway? Presumably
the one that is closest to the surface, right?
Questions over questions...
Chris Waigl
[I'm going to copy part of this reply over into the eggcorn forum thread.]
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:26:32 -0800, jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > [me:]
> >> I'm trying to wrap my mind around the concept of polite dimissiveness.
> > ...
> >
> > It's the way you folks at the Eggcorn Forum treated my small but
> > perfectly formed contribution: "carrot top" as the name for the ^.
>
> Well, there has simply been no followup to your post. How does this
> qualify as "dismissiveness"? [Sorry for the typo above.]
>
> Should I apologise for simply having other things going on that lead to my
> not being immediately available for intelligent comment on every single
> post? I _am_ a bit sorry that I can't, but somehow think I should't. In
> addition, the forum wasn't meant to be a one-way conversation between me
> on one side and every other submitter on the other.
I don't mean you personally--no one commented on it. I understand that
you and the other participants are busy, and that it's no one's
individual responsibility to respond to submissions. On the other
hand, you're asking for submissions to the forum. (In fact, you're
ordering: "Contribute!") So since I complied, I think a response is in
order, even if you don't have time to make it an intelligent comment.
As it was, I didn't know whether you and the other contributors thought
my suggestion was so obviously invalid that it wasn't worth commenting
on (why invalid?), or were going to have to ignore it because of the
press of better submissions (better in what way?), or meant to ignore
it because I'm not a regular, or were going to try to get to it, or
something else. So that's why I felt that the lack of response was
dismissive.
> On how many other submissions have you commented?
Zero. (I'm sure your question was rhetorical.) Are you suggesting
that I don't get my suggestions commented on till I pull my weight, or
just pointing out that people can be too busy to comment?
> > Simply "carrot" could just be a mishearing, but the addition of "top"
> > shows that somebody is thinking of some semantic connection, though I'm
> > not sure what the connection is.
>
> The reason this one stumped me a bit is the addition of "top", which makes
> it slightly atypical: the "top" part is not phonetically justified
> by anything that is present in "caret". I haven't had the time to look
> into the examples;
Nothing in them explains the connection.
> and I'm a bit confused about how the caret resembles
> the top of a carrot. Which end of the carrot is the top anyway? Presumably
> the one that is closest to the surface, right?
>
> Questions over questions...
>
> Chris Waigl
> [I'm going to copy part of this reply over into the eggcorn forum thread.]
Thanks. I'll reply there.
--
Jerry Friedman
ArWeGod
news:mtqln1ts64ps9gmjl...@4ax.com...
I agree with this boast.
--
ArWeSailing