...for some value of "the literature." See
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001133.html#more , about halfway down in the discussion of the "Retart Zone".
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13
...for some value of "the literature." See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001133.html#more , about halfway down in the discussion of the "Retart Zone".

The entire article, both parts, is well worth reading. It covers a number of AUE shibboleths with much good sense. I hope there's some way to get it into the AUE FAQ materials, preferably in searchable fashion.
Thanks for pointing it out, Richard.

Bob Lieblich
Going "nuclear" with another think coming
...for some value of "the literature." See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001133.html#more , about halfway down in the discussion of the "Retart Zone".

The entire article, both parts, is well worth reading. It covers a number of AUE shibboleths with much good sense. I hope there's some way to get it into the AUE FAQ materials, preferably in searchable fashion.

I'd never heard the "hone in on"/"home on in" debate before - it's always been 'hone' for me.
OTOH, I'd only become aware of the "another thing coming" thru AUE, but what shocked me here were the google counts. Even for Australian sites, "thing" is more common (by a factor of nearly 2), and even in phrases of the form "if x thinks y, then x has got another thing coming"* This truly surprised me, as in AusE the difference between the two is generally quite audible. Not only that but a number of -ing words are pronounced with an -ink by many speakers (anythink, somethink). Maybe there's a ling kicking around there somewhere.
* Googling both "if * think" "another thing coming", and "if * thinks" "another thing coming"
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
...for some value of "the literature." See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001133.html#more , about halfway down in the discussion of the "Retart Zone".

The entire article, both parts, is well worth reading. It covers a number of AUE shibboleths with much good sense. ... materials, preferably in searchable fashion. Thanks for pointing it out, Richard. Bob Lieblich Going "nuclear" with another think coming

In the second part of the article, the author (the pages were posted by Arnold Zwicky) makes a point which I have myself made in regard to several usages, including "between you and I" and "I could care less":
From
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001134.html
(quote, with bracketing double-asterisks representing my emphasis)

Geoff Nunberg's Going Nucular" piece
( http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/nucular.html )
makes a significant advance in trying to get these ideas out to linguistically unsophisticated people. First, it makes an inadvertent/advertent distinction (via the labels "typo" vs. "thinko"); some people say "nucular" because they've inadvertently reshaped the pronunciation to fit a common -ular pattern for learned words (tabular, globular, tubular, vernacular, oracular, popular, spectacular, oracular, etc., but especially molecular), but other people say it because they think that (at least in some contexts) this is the way the word is pronounced.

**What Nunberg doesn't stress is that these days virtually everybody who says "nucular" is in the second group; though the support of other -ular words helps to make "nucular" sound right, these people are saying it because other people say it. (The same point can be made for almost any innovative usage. Though hypercorrection surely played some role in the development of nominative coordinate object pronouns the famous "between Kim and I" for some time now people with this usage have it because that's what they hear, with some frequency, from the relevant people.)**

(end quote)
Most people who say "between you and I" do so because the people who were their language models said "between you and I." Most people who say "I could care less" do so because the people who were their language models said "I could care less." There's no question of their choice of usage being due to a lack of intelligence, any more than the choice to say "in the hospital" or "in hospital" depends upon one's intelligence, and only a very few people say the variants in question because they are re-inventing the usage.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
The entire article, both parts, is well worth reading. It ... it into the AUE FAQ materials, preferably in searchable fashion.

I'd never heard the "hone in on"/"home on in" debate before - it's always been 'hone' for me.

I'd never heard this debate either, but my first thought was "How could it be 'hone', when the derivation is clearly from 'homing', as in pigeons?" Leastways, I'd never considered anything other than 'home'. But then I've always said (and thought) another 'thing' coming, so there you go.
Edward

The reading group's reading group:
http://www.bookgroup.org.uk
Most people who say "between you and I" do so because the people who were their language models said "between ... upon one's intelligence, and only a very few people say the variants in question because they are re-inventing the usage.

I suspect that this is true of nearly all the usage maven Usual Suspects, once a brief period of initial adoption is past. The vast majority of language users don't think about their language enough for the situation to be any different.
What I find interesting is how, out of all the changes to the language, a tiny fraction get chosen by the usage mavens as shibboleths, and of those, how most quietly die out while others can persist for centuries. I have yet to detect an intelligible pattern.

Richard R. Hershberger
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I'd never heard the "hone in on"/"home on in" debate before - it's always been 'hone' for me. OTOH, I'd only become aware of the "another thing coming" thru AUE, but what shocked me here were the google counts.

Many people call them purists if you like frown about such shortenings as 'thru' for 'through', 'tho' for 'though', and 'nite' for night. I'm less often joined by those who look unkindly on such atrocities as IMO, IMHO, and so forth. How lazy are we, or should I ask how important is it that not even one single person is confused by what we write, if that can be avoided? Established, good writers published ones never, in my observation, use IMO, IMHO, and the countless others: that's enough to know, I'd think, if good writing is our aim.
As for OTOH, it always causes me a raised eyebrow, for I can't help thinking of OTHR or OTHT, which are militaryspeak for over-the-horizon radar and over-the-horizon targeting, a couple of familiar subjects to me. Now if the writer had written 'on the other hand', my focus from what he was saying wouldn't have shifted for a second. So it goes with all the others, some of which can be annoyingly obscure: not just to a few of us, as with OTOH, but to many of us, I would think.

Charles Riggs
Most people who say "between you and I" do so because the people who were their language models said "between ... upon one's intelligence, and only a very few people say the variants in question because they are re-inventing the usage.

I know you're right, for irritating as 'between you and I' is, one of the best educated persons in Westport I know uses it all the time. Educated in England, even. I politely, and sometimes not so politely, point out the error in his ways, but he never budges. Worse, he tells me that 'between you and me' is grammatically incorrect! Still worse, his lovely young girlfriend always backs him to the hilt. (And do you know that another pretty young lady had the audacity to tell one and all yesterday that I say whatever pops into my mind, or words to that effect?) I get no respect.

Charles
I'd never heard the "hone in on"/"home on in" debate before - it's always been 'hone' for me.

I'd never heard this debate either, but my first thought was "How could it be 'hone', when the derivation is ... never considered anything other than 'home'. But then I've always said (and thought) another 'thing' coming, so there you go.

Merriam-Webster sides with you:
Main Entry: hone in
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: alteration of home in
Date: 1965
to move toward or focus attention on an objective
usage The few commentators who have noticed hone in consider it to be a mistake for home in. It may have arisen from home in by the weakening of the \m\
sound to \n\ or may perhaps simply be due to the
influence of hone. Though it seems to have
established itself in American English (and mention in a British usage book suggests it is used in
British English too), your use of it especially in writing is likely to be called a mistake. Home in or in figurative use zero in does nicely.

Best Donna Richoux
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more