Talk:Hypercorrection/Archive 3

""This is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put!" (or some variant ending "up with which I will not put"). "

The "variant" is the same as the original. Either the original or the variant (or both) are wrong, or the parenthisized variant is not a variant at all and has been erroneously placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.150.45 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the *first* part of the sentence changes in the telling, while the ending remains the same. So the existing wording is correct. The important part is that the ending is phrased weirdly, not the specifics of what he was refusing to put up with. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the common misconception that ending a clause with a preposition is incorrect, this would be the perfect section to include another, perhaps even more common one: the split infinitive. Not only is there no reason whatsoever that you cannot, or shouldn't, split an infinitive in English, it is quite often the most appropriate, and least awkward, way to word a sentence.
It is mentioned in the article that John Dryden, in 1672, is the one who first proposed that a clause should not end with a preposition, and I believe it was he who also popularized the incorrect rule that you should not split an infinitive. This is because, in Latin, it is literally impossible to split an infinitive, since infinitives in Latin are a single word. In English, however, infinitives consist of the word "to" and a verb, such as "to be" or "to go", and it is perfectly acceptable, and ofttimes quite useful, to split them. Claiming that the rules of English should be more like Latin is an absurd proposal in the first place, and I weep when I think of Picard saying, "To go boldly where no one has gone before." It's just wrong. -=[ Alexis (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC) ]=-

Other Languages : German : Genitive versus dative

Take it from a German native speaker that 'entlang' truely and only demands the genitive and not the dative. The combination 'entlang' + dative is considered dialectal (swiss) by the German language authority 'Der Duden'. While I vaguely recall having read some 19th-century texts that use 'entlang' + dative, this is at least considered both anachronistic and poetic and the combination is not part of the modern spoken language.86.51.114.108 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)js

You're kidding, right? Let me quote this comment related to the book 'Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod':
"Sündenfälle sind: "... gemäß des Gesetzes ..." ist falsch, weil etwas dem Gesetz angemessen oder gemäß ist, also Dativ. "... entsprechend des Planes ..." kommt aus der Funktionärsspache der DDR und breitet sich jetzt aus. Wie immer hilft im Zweifel die Frage mit dem Verb: Wem entspreche ich? Die Schraube entspricht dem Muster. "... entlang des Flusses ..." steht immerhin im Duden (Stand 1996, 21. Aufl.), aber als "selten" bezeichnet, man sollte den Akkusativ oder Dativ bevorzugen, je nachdem es sich um Bewegung oder Stillstand handelt (ich gehe den Fluss entlang, die Bahn ist entlang dem Fluss gebaut). Rottet den falschen Genitiv aus!"
This actually mentiones the example given in the article and it is a very good example of hypercorrection.--93.104.61.152 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

English

One that I think is worth mentioning is the pronunciation of the final constants in -ing, as in "reading and writing." I have neither the expertise to locate an authoritive source, nor to write out the phonetics. I'm trying to remember a poem about a "kitting" playing with "knitting." Many people overcorrect writing as though it were righ-TING, rhymes with thing. In fact, the vowel is shorter and the consonant properly ends with a soft g. The overcorrection is the result of losing a character for ng and having the word trasncribed as n-g. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.61.249 (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In most pronunciations of English, neither "thing" nor the present participle ending ends with ɡ: it is a plain ŋ for both. The two "ng"s in "singing" are identical, and there is no trace of a hard g in either (except in some Northern dialects of UK English): contrast "singer" with "finger", where the g is pronounced. The only difference between "singing" and "thing" is that the vowel is pronounced more fully when it is stressed.

I don't know if anyone does tend to insert a final g in "singing" to overcompensate for the "huntin', shootin' and fishin'" pronunciation (in which ŋ has become plain n). If so, that would be a valid example of hypercorrection. (But then maybe "huntin'" was originally a hypercorrection to compensate for "singgingg". Who knows?) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem arises less often with the simple dropping of the final "g" sound (as either [HUN-tin], [SHOO-tin], and [FIH-shin], or [HUNT-n], [SHOOT-n] and [FISH-n]), all of which are clearly incorrect, than with an overly-pronounced "g" sound (such as [HUN-ting], [SHOO-ting], and [FIH-shing]), none of which are technically incorrect, but nevertheless terribly awkward to say.
The way to remedy this is to realize that not merely should the "g" be dropped, but the vowel sound of the "i" should be changed as well. The typical pronunciations of the words, and what *I* would consider correct, are [HUN-teen], [SHOO-deen], and [FIH-sheen]. -=[ Alexis (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC) ]=-

Octopi

very amusing about ignorance in 3 languages. when a word is referenced like that, should it not be quoted? --Jrm2007 (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (pg. 678-679) states that octopus comes from the New Latin "octopus", which came from the Greek "oktopous". It also says that, " the evidence shows that octopuses is gaining in frequency of use, with octopi dropping back, but still a respectable second". I removed the statement "ignorant in three languages", but that entire section could use work. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

After further reading, I propose that this section be removed. It seems to rely on original research, with the writer dicussing "people mistakenly believing it is Latin in origin", and then giving a Latin grammar lesson (i.e. even if it is Latin, it would be wrong anyway). Although originally Greek in origin, the word came to the English language from the Latin language. The statements about "mistakenly believing it to be Latin in origin" are, at best, misleading. Although not the prefered style, there is nothing incorrect with the term "octopi". If octopi does qualify as a "hypercorrection", it is not clarified in this article. While inviting anyone with knoweledge of this to rewrite or clarify it, is there any objection to removing it for now? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the writer's point about Latin grammar, "octopus", like other Latin words borrowed from Greek, is an irregular noun in Latin. "Hippopotomus" is another word that is Greek in origin, but came to the English language by way of Latin. English plurals taken from Latin do generally follow their respective declensions (i.e. "hippopotami", "uteri", "stimuli", "formulae", "appendicies", ect.). "Octopus" is a unique case, as it is an irregular Latin noun. While I agree that "octopuses" is almost universally prefered, there is nothing "hypercorrect" about "octopi". "Platypus" might be a good example to use instead. "Platypi" is occasionally used instead of the correct "platypuses". This is, in fact, a hypercorrection, as "platypus" did not come from Latin. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyperforeignism for comic effect

Perhaps someone could add this in the correct format: I recall on the TV show Saturday Night Live, a skit where the parents were arguing about what to name their baby. The punch line was a pizza delivery for Mr. "Asswipe", said as "Ass Wipe". Mr Asswipe immediately corrected that with "it's pronounced As-wipé" (as-wee-pay; the joke was that it really didn't matter what the baby's first name was with a surname like that). Wapiti (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypercapitalization

i like Lfh's proposal from 25 January 2007, of hypercapitalization. i would like to add to Lfh's point that i've seen many companies' letterheads, websites, signs and even official/trademarked logos that show "Inc." and "Ltd." in all caps. i have yet to see it for "Co." or "Corp.", but i imagine i eventually will. as an example, "Joe Blow Automotives, INC." or "Jane Doe & Partners, LTD." the hypercorrection comes from (i assume) the company's advertising specialist/webmaster/sign maker has seen "L.L.C." or "L.P." without periods, knew that acronyms are in caps, then acronym-ed their company's extension's abbreviation also, regardless of the actually meaning.

the article "Corporation" even abbreviates "public limited company" as "PLC", when i've only seen it written as "plc". the article "Limited company" renders the German "GmbH", Polish "Sp. z o.o.", Czech "s.r.o." and Slovak "s. s r.o." correctly, but i assume if anglophones do it, others might too.

i don't know if this technically qualifies as a type of hypercorrection, so i'll leave it here open for discussion. if it is, perhaps a mention could be made at the bottom regarding "hypercapitalization" in various languages, or at least a small mention in the english section, with examples such as the 2 company extensions to which i referred.

don't bother pointing out the irony of me bringing up hypercapitalization. all my posts are email-stylized. i capitalize in discussions only when quoting or when making a point.Ivansevil (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hypercorrection versus similar phenomena

I know of no sources, and see none cited here, that call "hyperforeignism" a type of hypercorrection. Wells (1982), who is cited as the source and who does use the term, calls hyperforeignism a source of variation in pronunciation akin to spelling pronunciation or hypercorrection, but he does not appear (based on an admittedly quick reading of the relevant chapter) to say that HF is a kind of HC. Even assuming that Wells and others do equate HF with HC, devoting more than a third of the page to HF, as is currently the case, seems to give undue weight to what, from my understanding of the broader literature, is at best one somewhat marginal case.

Similarly, I know of no source calls the supposed prohibition against sentence-final prepositions a hypercorrection, and none is cited here. This sort of usage advice is often labeled a "grammar rule" despite not reflecting any rule of English syntax. In turn such advice, and in particular its confusion with grammar is critiqued and variously labeled, but it is not called hypercorrection.

Hypercorrection refers, as the lead section suggests, to "errors" (non-standard production) that occur from an over-extension of phonological or syntactic rules. Of the English examples listed on this page, only the over-extension of nominative personal pronouns comes close to the standard definition of a hypercorrection, and as the page indicates, that classification is controversial.

I would suggest that if sources cannot be found to say that HF is HC as such, then Hyperforeignism should be split from this page. Similarly, if no sources say that adherence to particular usage prescriptions is hypercorrection, those elements should be removed and possibly merged elsewhere. Cnilep (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

As I describe above, hyperforeignism is not clearly identical to hypercorrection. Furthermore, giving nearly one third of the page to a single phenomenon gives it disproportionate weight. I therefore propose that content be split to Hyperforeignism, which currently redirects to this page. The two resulting pages could of course link to one another, either through in-text internal links or a See also section. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hearing no objections, I will make the split. (By the way, I've read Wells more carefully now. Although he mentions hyperforeignism and hypercorrection in the same chapter, he does not call them examples of the same phenomenon.) Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Prepositions

I would just like to share my great pleasure at whoever wrote "That an English clause should not end with a preposition – that a preposition should not be "stranded" – was a "rule" long propounded by prescriptivist grammarians. It was routinely shown up as a fiction not only in conversation but also in literature; it appears to have been invented in 1672 by John Dryden and uncritically repeated thereafter."and chose to end it with "thereafter" 124.197.51.38 (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Thereafter" is an adverb, not a preposition.
Ulmanor (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hypercorrect usage in English

User:NotFromUtrecht retitled the section, "Hypercorrect usage" to "Hypercorrection in English", noting "section title needs to mention English since this is implied by the title of the next section". I then re-retitled the section "Hypercorrect usage in English". The section does currently treat English, and this contrasts with the following section "Other languages". At the same time, though, it treats hyper-correct usage and this contrasts with the previous section, "Grammatical hypercorrection". I can't think of a simple way to fix this by retitling, but maybe someone else can. Otherwise, should the page be remedied by making English one of the languages treated—maybe removing "Other languages" and making its sub-sections into sections, and treating grammar and usage more generally, perhaps with limited data from multiple languages? Or is it OK as it is now? Cnilep (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Hypercorrect usage in English" is a better section title than the one I suggested, so thanks for making that change. However, in this edit I have attempted to restructure the article, which removes the excessive focus on English while allowing room for a general section on 'Hypercorrect usage' which (as you suggest) should feature content relating to a variety of languages. Also, it might be worth restructuring the various sub-sections relating to individual languages, perhaps using the article on Subjunctive mood as a model. Feel free to revert my change if you think it needs further discussion. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think that solution is fine in principle. The resulting sub- and sub-sub-sections will require some work on clean-up, references, etc. in addition to the expansion needed. Cnilep (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)