Discussions about eggcorns and related topics
You are not logged in.
Registrations are currently closed because of a technical problem. Please send email to
The forum administrator reserves the right to request users to plausibly demonstrate that they are real people with an interest in the topic of eggcorns. Otherwise they may be removed with no further justification. Likewise, accounts that have not been used for posting may be removed.
Thanks for your understanding.
Chris -- 2018-04-11
I have heard people comment (on more than one occasion) that they were “disorientated”, rather than “disoriented”. I am curious to know if such a term is actually proper, because I’ve always considered it to be a malapropism.
Offline
Bernadette: I use the terms ‘oriented’ and ‘disoriented’ but I rarely encounter anyone else who does so; when others try to correct me I point out that ‘transportated’ is unnecessary when we have the word ‘transported’ but to no avail. I’ve no idea whether we’re right – in fact if we’re so badly outnumbered I suppose we can’t be. It would be interesting to know what country you’re writing from and, incidentally, this post should have been in the ‘Slips, innovations etc’ section as ‘Contribute!’ is meant to be devoted to possible eggcorns…
Offline
True—this really should be in the “Slips, etc.” section. Thanks for the pointer, Peter; we really do need to emphasize that a bit more.
The OED says both “oriented” and “orientated” are standard. I was surprised to find that “orientated” actually has the earlier citation—1857, vs. 1875 for “oriented.”
I’m usually in the “if it’s standard, I ain’t got a problem with it” camp, but “orientated” bugs me. It has such a “Pentagon” feel to it—an impression reinforced by the fact that I used to hear Colin Powell use it in speeches fairly often.
Offline
Maybe some individuals derive “orientated” from “orientation”?
Offline
patschwieterman wrote:
I’m usually in the “if it’s standard, I ain’t got a problem with it” camp, but “orientated” bugs me. It has such a “Pentagon” feel to it—an impression reinforced by the fact that I used to hear Colin Powell use it in speeches fairly often.
Bugs me too. Orientated is just a “high falootin’” oriented. Another one that bugs me is “utilize.” Why use utilize when you can utilize use instead?
Last edited by Craig C Clarke (2007-05-30 11:41:00)
Offline
I’m relying on old memory, since at work I don’t have have any decent dictionaries. I think there is a real distinction between the verbs “orient” and “orientate.”
You orient yourself to figure out what your position is. With a specifically religion-related meaning, you orientate yourself to face a certain direction for worship. Something like that! So I suppose if you forgot which way your altar is, you could then be disorientated?
Offline
I agree that “did do” and “going to go” are a bit clunky (but just a bit). I’m not convinced however that the “dids” in those first 3 examples are in a technical sense redundant. They’re all fairly typical instances of what linguists call “the emphatic do”—it’s used when the speaker wants to counter or anticipate opposition, or when s/he is trying to emphasize that something really did occur. In all these cases, the first “did” carries a burden of meaning—that emphatic, insistent quality—that would be lost if the speaker used just the one “do.”
Coincidentally enough, Arnold Zwicky’s Language Log post today is also concerned with apparently “needless” or “redundant” words: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language … .html#more
It’s a long post, so you have to scroll down about half way to find the relevant section. In this particular case, Zwicky’s arguing that the “then” in “if… then…” clauses isn’t necessarily redundant.
Offline
I was thinking I would be the only frequent-visitor to this website not to chime in on this thread, but Pat pushed one of my hot buttons—the “if.. then…” issue—with this:
Coincidentally enough, Arnold Zwicky’s Language Log post today is also concerned with apparently “needless†or “redundant†words: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language … .html#more
It’s a long post, so you have to scroll down about half way to find the relevant section. In this particular case, Zwicky’s arguing that the “then†in “if… then…†clauses isn’t necessarily redundant.
(Thanks for drawing that post to my attention, Pat, it was actually a pretty informative read).
Now, on the “if… then…” issue:
My viewpoint—and my practice in my technical writing—is to include “then” not just as a matter of clarity and parallelism, but as a courtesy to the rapid reader: I’ve had numerous occasions where I was skimming through a document containing an “if” clause and was forced to slow down and hunt for the “then” clause because the word “then” had been omitted. So, if there are situations where one is writing for individuals who have immense amounts of material to cover, then it helps to include “then” as a flag to get the reader back toward the main point. This is particularly true for those of us who like to read the “then” clause first—and return to the “if” clause only if we really need more convincing. (Just go back and reread the if-then statement in this very paragraph: my main point is contained more in the “then” clause than in the “if” clause).
[... he said as he stepped down from his soap box]
Last edited by jorkel (2007-05-31 11:03:35)
Offline
Perhaps I’m a pretty clunky sort of bloke but I can’t see ‘did do’ and ‘going to go’ as possessing any redundancy at all – certainly it is possible to delete much of a sentence and retain the essential meaning but that meaning is usually impoverished by such deletions. I feel the same way on the “if… then…” issue but not having jorkel’s energy or powers of analysis I’m grateful he steps up on that soapbox when I need him…
Offline