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
Found in an email. Google gives +M hits including some song titles. Does that make it a mondegreen, too?
All depends on your definitions. If any restructuring which happens to occur in a song is thereby shown to be a mondegreen, sure it is. But that may not be the most useful definition.
I would consider it somewhat mondegrenous by my definitions whether or not it occurs in a song or poem (which I take to be a peripheral aspect of what I take to be the mondegreen phenomenon). It is a restructuring, standard for at least some of its perpetrators (like an eggcorn) probably arising from mishearing (a slip of the ear rather than the tongue), which doesn’t make a lot of sense (as most mondegreens don’t but eggcorns by definition do.) It is not, however, like most mondegreens, restricted to a single context (by occurring only as part of a longish phrase); there are lots of examples of have way across , have way through , come have way , have way house and so forth; it seems likely to be a restructuring of halfway in pretty much any context for some people.
It probably has a better claim to be called a malapropism: it is the use of the wrong word ( have ) in place of a similar-sounding right word ( half ) with no particular semantic appropriateness to the substitution.
If it made sense (and who am I to say it can’t—I just haven’t seen it yet) it would be a good eggcorn.
btw, welcome back to the forum, ray. (smiles evil Lee)
*If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
we would be too simple-minded to understand it* .