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
The expression is “no less a …”, confirmed by Merriam-Webster in its definitions for “less”, of which the second is “of lower rank, degree, or importance – ‘no less a person than the president himself’” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/less). However, while Google find 515 (genuine) examples of “no less a person”, it finds 405 (genuine) examples of “no lesser person”, eg
“No lesser person than the Premier of Britain approaches Holmes to save Lady Hilda’s reputation and her spouse’s career.” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0699464/
and
“The name of the model who has made herself comfortable here on the sofa has been given to us by no lesser person than Casanova. She was Marie-Louise O’Murphy, born in 1737,” http://www.wallraf.museum/index.php?id=226&L=1
What has happened here, I think, is that “no less a (X)” has been reanalysed in a somewhat eggcornish manner under the influence of the expression “no greater (X)”, (as in “no greater villain”, or “no greater hero”), to become “no lesser (X)”.
But while “no lesser” is not “standard” idiomatic English in the way that “no greater” is (or “no less a” is), I can’t see that, logically, it’s actually wrong. There seems no difference in saying “no lesser person than” and saying “no less a person than”, except that the latter version, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is the one that has been around since 1628. So – eggcorn or not?
Offline
For me it’s a real catch, but one of those that, while it may fit the definition, yields so little “kick” from the shift that I have a somewhat “bleah” reaction to it. Trivial eggcorns?
.
Not to deny that they are interesting. I think a lot of grammatical shifts take place at least in part by such means. (We were mentioning the “he’s verbing” vs. “his verbing” vs. “him verbing” kind of alternations in some posts the other day—the topic about boring etymologies, as I remember.) The implications they raise are fascinating. But each shift by itself seems to lack the immediate oomph that I hope for from a good eggcorn.
*If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
we would be too simple-minded to understand it* .
Offline