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
A few years ago a correspondent sent this line to me in an email: “I…spend my spare time working on my house…and dapple into a little of everything as a amateur artist.â€
She meant “dabble†when she wrote “dapple,†of course. But the switch is easy to make-the meanings of “dapple†and “dabble†share semantic spaces. To “dabble†is to move one’s hands or feet through (shallow) water. Here in coastal BC, where we have many pelagic ducks that dive deep to get their food, we call the nondiving ducks who uptail in ponds “dabbling ducks.†To “dapple†is to mark with round, undelineated spots. “Sunlight dappled the lawn under the spreading oak.†So dabbling can be paddling the hands here and there and a dapple pattern could be the result of performing this intermittent activity with some kind of marking device.
Most people know the word “dabble†better in its figurative sense, the sense used by my correspondent. To “dabble†in this sense is to pursue a goal in a non-serious way. “He dabbled in pottery, but sculpture was his calling.†Even in this figurative sense “dappling†is not an inappropriate replacement for “dabble.†Idly marking a canvas with dapples of color, for example, is a way to show that one doesn’t take painting seriously.
Several thousand web page authors make the same mistake as my correspondent. Here are three examples:
A blog film review: “I just saw The Dark Knight today and came away with a few thoughts. After some of the people I know had said it was too dark, and others hailing it as the best summer film I thought I’d say a little. I won’t really dapple into directing, it was good and so were the effects lets leave it at that for this entry,†(http://atragicomedy.blogspot.com/2008/0 … n-why.html)
Post on a game review site: “I don’t usually dapple into the arts of the PS2 but here goes: †(http://www.supercheats.com/playstation2 … sually.htm)
Post on a forum: “And I knit, a lot. Seriously. Oh and crochet too & I dapple in other fiber arts.†()
We can complete the round trip for these two terms-people also replace “dapple†with “dabble.†This error is not very common. My guess is that it occurs on no more than a dozen web sites:
Web fiction: “Sanchez nodded and returned quickly leading the dabbled mare. †(http://www.geocities.com/yospoker/fan_f … mayhem.htm)
A nature blog: “A maple leaf dabbled lawn looks so sweet to me this morning.†(http://www.nhfishandwildlife.com/diary- … &year=2005)
A post: “My sister has a dabble dachshund and he’s multi colored vs. solid black or brown.†(http://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1400 … ts?page=68)
One could argue, I suppose, that many of the writers making this second substitution really did mean to use “dabbled.†But “dappled mare†and “dappled lawn†are such common, almost trite, expressions that the switch looks suspicious. The last example can only be an error-“dapple dachshund†is a technical term among dog breeders.
Hatching new language, one eggcorn at a time.
Offline
I didn’t mention one small problem with the dabble >> dapple eggcorn (the real eggcorn here-dapple >> dabble is a minor event). I would have thought that “dabble” was much more familiar to the average English speaker than “dapple.” Or am I relying too much on the data points from my own experience?
Hatching new language, one eggcorn at a time.
Offline
My intuitions track with yours: dabble is an ordinary word, and dapple tends towards the esoteric. (Both our intuitions rely heavily on data points from our own experience—what else would intuitions about commonality of usage depend on?)
I think (and I’m serious about this, though it may seem a tad bizarre) that there is something about the voicing contrast that is meaningful to us. There are a number of cases like drip/dribble or hop/hobble where the voiced consonant before the _ -le_ easily becomes associated with a stronger or more intense case of the process denoted by the stem. (Of course the frequentative meaning of _ -le_ matches and helps produce that.) If someone dapples in(to)/with something that sounds more delicate or dilettante-ish than if they dabble with/in it.
I can see a kid, or a duck, dabbling in a mud-puddle, but hardly dappling in it, though I can see him or her getting dappled in the process.
The “round trip†cases would arise in the more normal way: substituting the better for the lesser-known form.
Last edited by DavidTuggy (2008-10-31 08:13:01)
*If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
we would be too simple-minded to understand it* .
Offline
the voiced consonant before the _ -le_ easily becomes associated with a stronger or more intense case of the process denoted by the stem.
I find this an interesting idea. As a rule, we should always look for surface phonological explanations before we descend to the semantic mines. If I understand you, you are saying that the speakers do not associate a known meaning with “dapple,” so they co-opt the word as an intensive for “dabble.”
But wouldn’t this run counter to your other examples? In the case of “hop” and “hobble,” the voiced consonant, “b,” marks the intensive. In “dapple” the unvoiced consonant would mark the intensive. Or am I misunderstanding your suggestion?
Hatching new language, one eggcorn at a time.
Offline
No, I’m saying that once we have the contrast [voiced = intensive] vs. [unvoiced = less intensive], then the way is cleared for [dabble = intense messing around] vs. [dapple = less intense messing around, just dipping into something instead of risking getting dirty in it.] (Granted, dabble itself is not really getting down and dirty in it.)
This is of course not just phonology, but a separate entrance into those murky semantic mines.
*If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
we would be too simple-minded to understand it* .
Offline
I think I’m getting it. An ingenious idea. And it would account for the familiarity counterlean with “dapple” and “dabble.”
Last edited by kem (2008-11-01 23:51:53)
Hatching new language, one eggcorn at a time.
Offline