| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » ``A new tact'' |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ron Hardin |
 Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mat Towery
The decision to inject humor into the world of opinion with my
lighthearted column last week proved that plenty of people would
rather fight than laugh.
But that's OK. For now, let's try a new tact.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/matttowery/2006/04/28/195440.html
Google gives 13600 hits on a.new.tact
Is it still a mistake?
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Arnold Zwicky |
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4451DDDA.5E2@mindspring.com>, Ron Hardin
<rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote:
[quote:81b7ca8794]Mat Towery
The decision to inject humor into the world of opinion with my
lighthearted column last week proved that plenty of people would
rather fight than laugh.
But that's OK. For now, let's try a new tact.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/matttowery/2006/04/28/195440.html
Google gives 13600 hits on a.new.tact
Is it still a mistake?
[/quote:81b7ca8794]
well, the keepers of the eggcorn database (of whom i am one) think so:
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/76/tact/
compare 13,600 for "a new tact" to 137,000 for "a new tack", and note
even more lopsided counts for a "take another tact" (367) vs. "take
another tack" (18,400), and stunningly for "change tact" (601)
vs. "change tack" (116,000).
it might well be that "tact" is the wave of the future, but we're
clearly not there yet.
arnold, noting that the opposite replacement is also attested:
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/515/tack/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan |
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
[quote:60e62659ec]Google gives 13600 hits on a.new.tact
Is it still a mistake?
[/quote:60e62659ec]
Yes. But what do you call this kind of mistake? It's not an eggcorn,
since "tact" doesn't make any kind of sense here. It's not a
mondegreen, since it's not from a song. Is it maybe a malapropism? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
[quote:98d1144c83]Mat Towery
The decision to inject humor into the world of opinion with my
lighthearted column last week proved that plenty of people would
rather fight than laugh.
But that's OK. For now, let's try a new tact.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/matttowery/2006/04/28/195440.html
Google gives 13600 hits on a.new.tact
Is it still a mistake?
[/quote:98d1144c83]
As long as "tact" doesn't mean "tack", I would say so.
Another way of looking at these things: if an expression originated, in
a sensible way, as X, but now some subset of the people using the
expression share a common misstatement of it as Y, conduct a study of
100 of them. Explain to each of them that the expression is supposed to
be X, explain *why* it's X, and explain how Y is based on a
misunderstanding. If more than some percent P of those people say, "Oh,
I see, I was mishearing it" or "Oh, I see, I didn't know that" and seem
to appreciate that X is correct, then call Y incorrect. If less than P
percent of those people say that, and the rest say, "Well, this is how
I've always heard it", then call Y correct. Choose P according to your whim. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul J Kriha |
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Arnold Zwicky <zwicky@Turing.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message news:e2tijh$ip2$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
[quote:62a84e30de]In article <4451DDDA.5E2@mindspring.com>, Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote:
Mat Towery
The decision to inject humor into the world of opinion with my
lighthearted column last week proved that plenty of people would
rather fight than laugh.
But that's OK. For now, let's try a new tact.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/matttowery/2006/04/28/195440.html
Google gives 13600 hits on a.new.tact
Is it still a mistake?
well, the keepers of the eggcorn database (of whom i am one) think so:
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/76/tact/
compare 13,600 for "a new tact" to 137,000 for "a new tack", and note
even more lopsided counts for a "take another tact" (367) vs. "take
another tack" (18,400), and stunningly for "change tact" (601)
vs. "change tack" (116,000).
[/quote:62a84e30de]
Thirteen thousand people who never sailed a boat? :-)
I wonder, would "a new tact" suddenly start making sense
if they were found to be in majority on the web?
Are they the same people as those who write "Here, here!"? :-)
[quote:62a84e30de]it might well be that "tact" is the wave of the future, but we're
clearly not there yet.
arnold, noting that the opposite replacement is also attested:
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/515/tack/
[/quote:62a84e30de]
Now, that strikes me as even weirder. 
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:25 am
|
|