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
Since I receive my eggcorns most often in the spoken form I request a clarification…does it have to be seen to be an eggcorn?
I have three favorite sources who reguarly produce these beauties. I can vouch for the authenticity of most (I didn’t simply mis-hear the speaker) since I have heard the speaker(s) use/misuse these terms more than once in similar contexts.
Tonights topic is a good example. In our physique/health conscious age, discussions of obesity, high blood pressure, exercise, etc. often arise. The lovely speaker in reference here occasionally struggles with her own weight and worries that “her daughters will become o-beast”. I have known this lady for many years, but don’t correct her many, fun twists of the language….her wild revisions of the english language only make her more exciting.
She also uses eagle-maniac for ego-maniac.
Offline
Well, there are eggcorns and then there are eggcorns. Anybody who’s been eggcorn-hunting for some time knows that there are lots of potential eggcorns that have, say, just one or two hits on the Web. If they meet the usual criteria of eggcorns, then technically they probably are eggcorns. But after you’ve done this for a while, those kinds of reshapings don’t seem all that interesting. First of all, you start realizing that there must be thousands or tens of thousands of eggcorns out there showing up in only ones or twos or threes; eggcorns that put up those kinds of numbers just don’t seem all that special. And second, I think most of us here have a real interest in the kinds of eggcorns that have legs—those that really seem to have the potential to spread from speaker to speaker. When the google numbers are really, really low, the eggcorn seems fairly idiosyncratic and less likely to be “communicable.” Over the years, I’d guess that I’ve run into hundreds of eggcorns online that I never posted because the numbers were too low. I usually won’t bother if I can’t find at least five or six good examples, and even that seems pretty borderline. And if I hear something in speech that I can’t find any examples of online, I’ll often make a note of it to check later, but I usually won’t post it unless there’s something about it I find unusually striking.
Another thing about “oral” eggcorns is that we have fewer clues as to what the speaker intended. For example, you’ve transcribed your friend’s reshaping as “o-beast.” But I think it’s at least as likely that she might have written “obesed.” Both spellings get lots of hits, but “obeast” probably has a better shot at eggcornicity than “obesed”—for us, the speaker’s own choice between thost two options can make all the difference.
And of course not every reshaping is an eggcorn. I think an argument might be made for “obeast”—perhaps extreme obesity seems “bestial” to some. But perhaps the people writing that are just representing the second syllable in a very familiar form. I like “eagle-maniac” a little better—eagles often do seem somehow arrogant, haughty, standoffish, etc—some of the connotations of egomania might arguably attach to the popular conceptions of eagles, too. But I’d be more convinced of this line of reasoning if I could find more authentic-looking examples online.
Last edited by patschwieterman (2009-11-17 01:21:44)
Offline
Scooped! I thought I had reported “obeast” some time ago, but apparently didn’t.
.
I also heard it spoken first, and then repeated several times, so I’m pretty sure the pronunciation is standard (or at least was standard that week) for the speaker. As with Jay, it was a good friend that said it, but I didn’t want to derail the conversation or risk the relationship by asking her if she meant something “beastly†by it. I think she might very well—she pronounces it with considerable emphasis on the second syllable, in contexts generally compatible with a feeling of disgust towards the condition. “That woman’s gotten simply o-BEAST!â€
.
With all due respect to Pat, I count as quite legitimate an eggcorn that comes from only one person and is only in spoken form, if I am sure that (a) it is standard for that person and (b) it carries the shifted meaning for that person. Repetition is a pretty good indication of (a); asking the person can substantiate (or disconfirm) both (a) and (b). Of course even that can’t prove them—we’re not really sure of all that goes on in our own heads. But I do think of it as the gold standard—I’d rather have one person’s testimony that “yes, that was what I said and thought everybody was saying,†and “Yes, that’s what I meant by itâ€, than a hundred examples from the Internet that might all be plausible one-off goofs, purposeful jokes, etc.
.
This one’s not quite gotten there yet. Maybe I’d better ask her.
.
It shows up a lot on the Internet, but most of the examples are likely to be purposeful. Still (1) some seem to be reportings like Jay’s and mine of something more likely to be truly eggcornish.
But then Mummy thinks her child is “obeast”, so I dunno. How dumb can people get?
also (2) it seems to have become mainstream enough that many people, hearing a speaker for whom it is a joke, may learn it as standard. I mean, when you have 16 definitions in the Urban Dictionary, you’re talking some sort of standard!
Urban Dictionary: obeast – [ Traducir esta página ] obeast – 16 definitions – Severely overweight woman with any of the following : 1) Thick facial hair 2) Hairy chest 3) Fucked up Grill (teeth) 4) W…
Last edited by DavidTuggy (2009-11-18 11:32:19)
*If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
we would be too simple-minded to understand it* .
Offline
The obeast raised its head on this forum, lo these three years, here
Offline
OK, so I’ll try to get clarification next time I hear it…I’ll report back and maybe we’ll pull a gem out of this rough…
Jay
Offline
It’s quite possible that these are just mispronunciations, as already mentioned. Common usage is now “tex” in the present and “text” (or, I guess it would be “texed”) in the past for using your cell phone to send a printed message. It is also very common in some regions to hear “ideal” for “idea”, which could explain “eagle-maniac”.
Bruce
“I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific.” – Lily Tomlin
Offline