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.e. read as “in essence” instead of “id est” seems like a verbal eggcorn to me. do those count?
I’ve come across people who think ‘i.e.’ stands for ‘in effect.’ But I haven’t figured out how to Google search for this.
why do you need to google search it? especially if it’s read aloud?
Eggcorns should have some popular currency. Without a Google search or some other reality check, I don’t know how to discriminate eggcorns from my idiosyncratic cognitive hallucinations.
No ghits for “i.e. stands for in effect” or “i.e. stands for in essence”, with or without periods, and none with “means” instead of “stands for” (but see below)
15 ghits for “re stands for regarding”.
Until I was in my 30s, I thought cc stood for copies (like pp for pages).
Here’s a disappointing one:
I allways get a good chuckle when “smart” publications get i.e. and e.g. mixed up.
i.e. means “in effect” (thats not what it acutally stands for), and you use it to clarify a statement.
e.g. means “example given” (again, I dont’ think this is what it acutally stands for), and you use it when you are giving an example
right, but my question is whether verbal as opposed to written examples count for this database (google is not relevant).
i have never seen it written that ‘i.e.’ stands for “in essence” but I have heard people read ‘i.e.’ aloud as “in essence,” which i think could make it a cross-language and also verbal eggcorn, if you are counting verbal ones at all.
it was not a hallucination but if you require google for validation, i guess the answer is that you’re excluding anything verbal. i think it’s great to use google as a tool, but it’s not a valid reason to throw out data points unless you’re only talking about written examples.