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
Over the years, I have marveled at the fact that so few people seem to know the word “voila” (which I’ve had to write without its accent mark). People seem to think it’s just a sound, similar to ta-da, and usually use a W as the first letter. The spelling I use in my Subject line is one I saw on FaceBook today. I know I can’t really call it an eggcorn, since it is not substituting a word, but it’s halfway there, being the substitution of something for an actual word that isn’t understood.
“I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific.” – Lily Tomlin
Offline
Bruce, I’ve always interpreted wallah and viola as intentional variations intended to avoid the appearance of snobbery that would attend the use of voilà in its naked frankness. Or making sure to add the French accent. At least the first times they were used, they were likely to have been intentional. Since then, if wallah has taken on a life of its own, then isn’t that exactly how anglicization occurs? Kem and I have obliquely discussed the odd practice of some, to recover anglicized words in their original forms, as if that form is the proper way to use and pronounce the word. I seem to recall an SNL skit that poked fun at attempts to pronounce words we have borrowed from Spanish as if they were still Spanish. Imagine recovering the pronunciation of tornado to rhyme with avocado, or garbanzo as garbantho. Wallah seems to be making its way into dictionaries, alors, wallah, fata complete.
Offline
Well, David, I disagree with you on the intentional part. I think that only a small percentage of them are intentional, because I have observed how much ignorance is out there. I do see your point about absurdity, though. Since the word is used as a fanfare more than anything else, then the spelling and pronunciation don’t matter much. Thanks for your reply. What I don’t like is using anglicized words instead of already existing English words. Restaurateur has been replaced by restauranteur, instead of restaurant owner. Amandine has been replaced by almondine, instead of with almonds. This is what I see as snobbery.
“I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific.” – Lily Tomlin
Offline
yanogator wrote:
...What I don’t like is using anglicized words instead of already existing English words. Restaurateur has been replaced by restauranteur, instead of restaurant owner. Amandine has been replaced by almondine, instead of with almonds. This is what I see as snobbery.
I agree that it could be snobbery in many cases. But English is a Frankensteinian patchwork of around 100 languages—more than any other language. Without words that have been anglicized from other languages, there would be little left of English at all. It also has more words than any other language; thus it’s unexcelled in ability to convey more shades of meaning, as well as offering more synonyms to choose from so as to avoid redundancy and give poets and other writers more variety of sound, rhythm, etc. With all this in mind, preferring using already existing English terms over anglicizing new ones seems pointless to me.
Offline
David, your point about wallah may be true in some cases, but I find it hard to imagine that viola for voila is anything other than a misspelling.
Offline
The (despicable) lack of discrimination between w and wh is also in evidence in this particular (miss)spelling.
.
Previous notices (with the spelling wa-lah! ) here (advertent but alluding to encounters with the “real†error) and here (in post #12, one of those “real†errors.)
Last edited by DavidTuggy (2015-08-30 03:06:30)
*If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
we would be too simple-minded to understand it* .
Offline
Dixon Wragg wrote:
With all this in mind, preferring using already existing English terms over anglicizing new ones seems pointless to me.Sorry, I don’t know how to separate my new post from the quote, so this line will take care of that
No, it’s not pointless. My point is that with so many words already, we don’t need to replace the existing words with invented words that mean the same thing. There’s an English word for it and a French word for it, so what’s pointless is to invent a third word for the same thing. Anyway, there’s no way to stop it, but at least I can release my frustration here, where people understand the situation.
“I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific.” – Lily Tomlin
Offline
My brother says viola. I’m pretty sure he’s kidding.
Offline
yanogator wrote:
There’s an English word for it and a French word for it, so what’s pointless is to invent a third word for the same thing.
I take it you have little interest in poetry or other forms of creative writing, Bruce. Without multiple “pointless” synonyms, the English vocabulary would be a fraction of the size it is, and not nearly as rich in options.
Anyway, there’s no way to stop it…
You’re right. It’s called “evolution”, and without it, there would be no English language at all. C’est la vie.
Offline