Eggcorn Forum

Discussions about eggcorns and related topics

You are not logged in.

Announcement

The Eggcorn Forum and the Eggcorn Database are currently in the process of being converted into static sites.

Once the conversion is complete, all existing posts are expected to still be accessible at their original URLs. However, no new posts will be possible.

Feel free to comment on the relevant forum threads.

Chris -- 2025-05-10

#1 2006-10-15 16:18:17

jtaylor196
Member
Registered: 2006-10-15
Posts: 1

Credibility Vs. Credulity

In today’s NY Times Book Review, (Oct 15, 2006) the essay on the last page by Henry Alford, itself a charming spoof on candid literary obituaries, makes the classic error of confusing credibilty with credulity.

I quote: “To encounter…a transformation…that any film actor in ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ would have thought strained CREDIBILITY.”(para 3, lines 8-10) The correct usage here is “strained credulity”.
Judith Taylor
San Francisco CA 94115

Offline

 

#2 2006-10-15 16:37:37

jorkel
Eggcornista
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1456

Re: Credibility Vs. Credulity

Interesting entry.

In a tangential way, it reminds me of the old joke of telling someone that the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary—then waiting around until he/she checks. I think that joke would have been a greater hit if the chosen word were “credulity.” I would even venture to guess that many people do not think it is a word. (Perhaps a few will have to check to find out for sure!)

Last edited by jorkel (2006-10-15 16:39:02)

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
PunBB is © 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson
Individual posters retain the copyright to their posts.

RSS feeds: active topicsall new posts