As our language continues to "evolve"...

[avevale_intelligencer]

I notice that the phrase "to home in," common when I was a youngster, is now being misreplaced with increasing frequency by the meaningless phrase "to hone in," presumably from some idea about locating a place or a person being akin to sharpening. I expect that, as with most of these changes, nobody has any idea that it hasn't always been like that, and certainly nobody cares.

I look forward with a certain glum fascination to the first reference to "honing pigeons."

Comments

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Would that be the process of sharpening a pigeon, or pigeons that sharpen other things?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Honing pigeons are pigeons that elbow their way into someone else's good thing.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

No, those are *horning* pigeons. If you'll, ah, pardon the expression. [BLUSH]

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes. Exactly.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Where is this being done? I haven't seen it at all.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007102104.htm") and (http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/11/ftc-antitrust-investigators-hone-in-on-android/") there (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/MI28Ad01.html). (That'sjust the first page of Google, right after all the grammar nazis like me saying it's wrong.)

[keristor.livejournal.com]

The first two give me "page not found" and the third looks to me like a typo. On the first page (100 entries) of my Google search just now I found only one case (which could again be a typo) of it being used incorrectly (among lots of uses as a name and correct uses of 'hone'), again in a headline and, one case of a person complaining about it. Both times it seems to be the only time the word is used, no evidence of a consistent or deliberate use. Hardly of epidemic proportions.

Given the proximity of 'n' to 'm', and the similarity of shape and sound, and that speeling chequers won't carch it because it's a valid word, as far as I can see it's an uncaught (before publication) typo. If I complaned about "off by one" errors I'd be rightly pulled up on account of the hundreds of those I make. I find their/there/they're and than/that far more common, 'hone' is buried in the noise.

A rant about the low esteem in which proofing is generally held by publishers is, however, something I support...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Okay, (http://www.procurementleaders.com/news/latestnews/4206-procurement-chiefs-hone/) try (http://task.fm/2011/10/how-can-executives-hone-in-on-and-make-use-of-their-best-assets/) these (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007102104.htm). I'm (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/art-collectors-beginning-to-hone-in-on-19th-century-oriental-rugs-131588228.html) not (http://www.ere.net/2011/01/05/matchmaking-job-site-to-hone-in-on-sales-positions/) imagining (http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-07-hone-protein-precise-role-disease.html) it (http://www.pcworld.com/article/181312/trade_talks_hone_in_on_internet_abuse_and_isp_liability.html). You'll find it in the body of at least two of those as well as the headline. I have also repeatedly heard it used orally on television, and yes, I was watching the speaker's lips move. It's not a proofing error.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

OK, that's fine, what I wanted was evidence because I've never seen it (or if I have then I've auto-corrected it as a typo because it was a single occurrence in the document). I still suspect that the majority are typos, ones which go uncorrected because the words are similar enough to be missed, like all the that/than errors in printed books.

But (also referencing akicif's point) I remember a respected, articulate, literate UK filker getting into an argument with me on {rec/alt}.music.filk becase they insisted that the correct spelling of 'separate' was 'seperate' and wouldn't believe me until I showed them in a dictionary (long before dictionaries were available on the web, probably before either of us had access to the web). And I remember my cousins' parents, one a teacher of English in secondary school and the other with a doctorate from Oxford, having the most weird pronunciations and spellings of words even when confronted with the correct ones (Tolkien, for instance, they both spelt and pronounced (as German) -ein). There are several well-educated SF fans who write Heinlien in the face of the evidence.

And I remember at the turn of the century the proliferation of alternate spellings of 'millenium' and the people insisting that 'milenium' or 'milennium' were correct. Doing a Google search at one point returned more incorrect spellings than correct ones (it's impossible to tell now, because Google 'corrects' what it thinks is an incorrect spelling and mixes them up -- I just tried with 'milennium' and it responded with 144 million matches compared to the 871 thousand for the correct spelling, but then displayed matches for the correct spelling mixed in).

In fact it's been happening all my life, some people just can not get it, the rest of us just ignore them (or in the case of some of your examples decide that a company which puts out that sort of erroneous spelling and refuses to correct it is probably not one with which we want to do business). The way some people do seem to be responding to the errors by telling the companies that they look stupid with misspellings is probably acting as a control on their proliferation. Like most things, cmplaining to the place wher the error occurred will do a lot more good than ranting on a blog which they probbaly don't read...

[akicif.livejournal.com]

No, honestly - it's all over the place. And the rows people get when they try to point out the correct expression are quite scary: see, for example, the usage of got another THING coming versus got another THINK coming....

[keristor.livejournal.com]

See my other reply about 'seperated' and 'milennium'.

In the case of "another thing/think coming", I suspect that both are right, and that those arguing that only one is correct are wrong. Both phrases have probably been in use for long enough that they are both common, probably in different areas. Similarly with "I could/couldn't care less", I've interpreted the former as an abbreviation with implied "but not much", and again it's been around longer than I have.

[batyatoon]

My personal peeve is "free reign".

I don't like these either, but...

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

Yes, languages change. But it's a mistake to confuse the changes that we can see in the course of a human lifetime with the massive changes that occur over multiple generations, say between Cicero's language and Berlusconi's; and it's a mistake to assume that change is improvement (as from Cicero himself to Berlusconi). So, Modern Standard Italian evolved from Vulgar Latin; is it any better? No, not in any absolute sense: it's just, in general, better fitted to the needs of its speakers and its time, because things that haven't been needed have dropped out (Dost thou grasp my meaning?) or become exceptions to be tolerated (knighthood).

The idea that "evolution" is a process of improvement is, in biology, a leftover from the thought that Homo sap. is the crown of creation, and everything prior to him (male pronoun used intentionally here) has been aspiring to this supreme status upon earth, just a step lower than the angels. Which is hogwash. Species adapt to the needs of their environment, or perish. Languages change too. And in both cases much of the change, at the low-level short-term view, is random or almost so.

Some of these are eggcorns, where a single word, a compound, or an idiom that no longer makes sense is revised to SEEM to make sense. The eponymous eggcorn was the reinterpretation of "acorn" (huh? why "A"? why "corn") to "eggcorn" in dialects where the pronunciation was barely different or identical ("egg" as "aig"). Now it seemed to make at least partial sense: an acorn is shaped like an egg, once its cap is removed. Who cared that it came from Old English ... WHOA! I went to OED, and the story is orders of magnitude hairier than I'd thought!:

Etymology: The formal history of this word has been much perverted by ‘popular etymology.’ Old English æcern neuter, plural æcernu, is cognate with Old Norse akarn neuter (Danish agern , Norwegian aakorn ), Dutch aker ‘acorn,’ Old High German ackeran masculine and neuter (modern German ecker , plural eckern ) ‘oak or beech mast,’ Gothic akran ‘fruit,’ probably a derivative of Gothic akr-s , Old Norse akr , Old English æcer ‘field,’ originally ‘open unenclosed country, the plain.’ Hence akran appears to have been originally ‘fruit of the unenclosed land, natural produce of the forest,’ mast of oak, beech, etc., as in High German, extended in Gothic to ‘fruit’ generally, and gradually confined in Low German, Scandinavian, and English, to the most important forest produce, the mast of the oak. (See Grimm, under Ackeran and Ecker .) In Ælfric's Genesis xliv. 11, it had perhaps still the wider sense, a reminiscence of which also remains in the Middle English akernes of okes . Along with this restriction of application, there arose a tendency to find in the name some connection with oak , Old English ác , northern ake , aik . Hence the 15th and 16th cents. refashionings ake-corn , oke-corn , ake-horn , oke-horn , with many pseudo-etymological and imperfectly phonetic variants. Of these the 17th cent. literary acron seems to simulate the Greek ἄκρον top, point, peak. The normal mod. repr. of Old English æcern would be akern , akren , or ? atchern as already in 4; the actual acorn is due to the 16th cent. fancy that the word corn formed part of the name.

All I'd known about before was that late underlined bit.

Whew! Anyhow... no point in crying over spilled phonemes. Πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rhei) "everything flows".

And I to my bed, much later than I had meant to.

Re: I don't like these either, but...

[keristor.livejournal.com]

And I thought 'acorn' was because it doesn't have a horn, or point (it's pointless)[1]. (Actually, that derivation came as a result of thinking about Anne McCaffrey's book 'Acorna', in which the girl is so called because she /has/ a horn which is totally wrong. Not, IMO, one her best stories...)

[1] Except that it does have a point...

Re: I don't like these either, but...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

"The idea that "evolution" is a process of improvement is, in biology, a leftover from the thought that Homo sap. is the crown of creation..."

And you know that I think the idea that evolution is the correct concept to be applying here is just as hogwashy, and in a way just as arrogant, as that other belief, once commonly held among wise and intelligent people. I look forward to the day when we see both ideas in the same light.

"Eggcorn" is an interesting concept, but I think I personally prefer the term "mistake." (Which of course is not to say that mistakes are a bad thing or that everyone has to speak perfect English or that there is even one clear idea of what perfect English is and public schools and BBC and colonialism and snobbery and how dare I and blah blah blah blah blah and blah.) Everything may flow, but if my chair flows under me I get it fixed or get a new one.

Words are chairs. We rely on them for support.

Words are bricks. We build our lives out of them.

Words are power tools. We need to control them or people could get hurt.

But words, above all, are ours. They belong to us, and we must look after them.

Re: I don't like these either, but...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks. This is cool.

I will point out the evolution as improvement to a "higher" state meme was very common a hundred years ago, but is pretty much shaken out of biology now.

Eggcorns are so common...

[michael cule (from livejournal.com)]

... that they have their own website:

http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

And are distinguished from mondygreens which are sort of the same but different...

(All that stuff I learned for the linguistics paper at university: gone now...)

Michael Cule