Eggcorn Forum

Google says:

824,000 ghits for “kid gloves”
11,700 ghits for “kit gloves”
1,070 ghits for “kiddy gloves”
1,380 ghits for “kitten gloves” Note: Around 20% of these are talking about gloves for kittens, gloves with kitten-related designs, or instances of the word “kitten” followed by a comma, and then an instance of the word “gloves”.

I am surprised by this, since I see “kiddy gloves” used a lot, but never “kit gloves”. “Kitten gloves” is rarer, but just as annoying, and one can certainly see where one would get the false etymology from.

I’m sure I understood “kid” to be a synonym for “child” the first time I heard the expression “kid gloves.” Possibly this is case for most people. And not only the first time they heard it, but every time since. I’m wondering, in fact, if we might be looking at a massive stealth eggcorn, one in which only a minority of users are aware of the original imagery (i.e., only a minority understand the word “kid” to be an adjective referring to type of soft leather).

Hidden acorns of this type are hard to prove. But I think we can get a glimpse of it by looking at three similar phrases. One, noted in an earlier post in this thread, is “kiddy gloves.” (e.g., “Why does everyone want Mikey to be treated with kiddy gloves?” at http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/show … p=24347790 ) There are nearly 300 ughits for this expression, and almost all of them occur in contexts that require “kid gloves.” Of these 300, 50 ughits occur in the idiom “with kiddy gloves.” No question that those who write “kiddy” have children’s gloves in mind, not gloves made from soft leather.

A second expression we could look at is “with kids gloves.” In the expression “with kid gloves,” “kid” is an adjective. English does not pluralize adjectives, so those who say “kids” are either adjectifying a plural noun or writing a possessive without an apostrophe. In either case, they are turning “kid” into a thing rather than a quality, and I think it unlikely that the thing underlying “kids” is a reference to an immature goat-the image is probably that of a human child. The great majority of the hits for “with kids gloves” are replacements for “with kid gloves” (e.g., “bill and hillary destroyed monica but want us to treat their grown daughter with kids gloves.” at http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/ … istle.html ). That’s another 300 ughits.

Finally, we can add 150 ughits for the apostrophied version, “with kid’s gloves.” Again, not many of these writers could have baby goats in mind.

So we have 500 ughits for expressions that carry some hint of an eggcorn (“with kiddy/kids/kid’s/kids’ gloves”). Compare this to 800 ughits for the ambiguous “with kid gloves.” Doesn’t this suggest a stealth eggcorn behind most uses of the idiom?

Last edited by kem (2008-07-20 16:45:45)

I think David’s right. Kem’s alternative interpretation of “kid gloves” makes it a stealth eggcorn. It’s nice when the new imagery can be teased out by locating a modification to the original, e.g., “kid’s gloves.” Nicely done Kem.