Discussions about eggcorns and related topics
You are not logged in.
Registrations were closed for a long time because of forum spam, but I have re-opened them on a trial basis.
The forum administrator (chris dot waigl at gmail dot com) 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 -- 2015-05-30
I came across an excerpt of a book, and other computer-assisted writing errors, by William Carroll, 2005. It’s a collection of errors gleaned from student essays, errors which he says have increased with the advent of computers. , then. I’ve included one of the to be found on the word wide web.
This one struck me as particularly interesting, as a neat double-yolker. To “go inside with” sounds like acceptance, a consensual movement.
ENOUGH WITH THE PRE-GAME SHOW
La Presse leads, the Post fronts, and The National, CTV News, the Globe, the Star, and the Citizen all go inside with stories about how Canada’s political leaders continue to jockey for public attention only a couple of days before an expected election call.
Last edited by David Bird (2010-08-08 12:33:56)
I love double-yolkers, and “go inside with” is a good and surprising example. I’d love to know how users thought this worked. Is coincidence thought of as being a kind of intimacy here, with the two things being all snug and inside together? Or is it that the insides of both things are pictured as lining up in a one-to-one analogy? Or something else?
It’s interesting too that in the couple of online instances where the writer uses “insides” instead of “inside” (your citation #2 is one of them), they clearly realize that something is odd about the phrase because they hyphenate “go” and “insides.”
In the fifth citation, I think 50 really meant “go inside”—he’s talking about the physical contents of the album package. And it’s possible (but I’m not sure) that in the fourth citation, the writer is using a variant of that journalistic phrase “to go inside something” (as in “the report goes inside the tension between Al Qaeda operatives and local tribal leaders”), meaning to provide deep coverage of a topic; reading the larger context didn’t resolve this for me. But “go inside with” clearly does exist out in the wild.
I’m glad you pointed us to the book, though it looks a bit tedious—I was bored after a couple of pages. There must be a really good, detailed and penetrating study of typographical errors out there somewhere, but I’ve never run across it.