Talk:Malapropism

Removed Vandalism

I removed some vandalism. I also saw that on this user's talk page he'd been given a last warning about vandalism nearly 2 years ago, so I notified this to the administrator who had give him his last warning. 70.119.126.195 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Balkanize

Regarding this malapropism from the main page: "However, they delineate—quotas, I think, vulcanize society." (i.e. balkanize) - George W. Bush, Although it is possible that he meant balkanize, it doesn't fit well with the larger quote from which this is derived: "What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate quotas, I think vulcanize society. ..." I think it is more likely that he meant "polarize". Any ideas? Michael.Urban (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Enormity

According to my dictionary (Webster's New Collegiate, 1961) ENORMITY has the following meaning:

"state or quality of being enormous; especially exceeding wickedness; also, an outrageous act or offense"

This seems to imply that enormousness is one of the meanings of enormity.

Also, BARBARIC is defined as:

"1. Uncivilized or having a primitive civilization; rude; as, barbaric empires. 2. Showing lack or restraint or refinement; wild, showy, or exuberant; as, barbaric magnificence."

This implies that barbaric sometimes means barbarous. In fact, one of the definitions of BARBAROUS is "barbaric".

I will change the main page unless I hear a good argument against it. Perhaps the original author(s) is making the point that the malapropisms have made their way into the language to the point of being acceptable. This is not clear in the article. --Samuel Wantman 06:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might want to look into British vs. American English usages regarding barbaric/barbarous but especially in enormity/enormousness. Cigarette 17:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ditto "fortuitous"[1] according to Merriam-Webster Online. " (the sense) has been influenced in meaning by fortunate. It has been in standard if not elevated use for some 70 years, but is still disdained by some critics." M-W's editors have similar comments regarding "enormity." --Exia 25 July 2005 6:57 (UTC)

Would this count as one?

Hey Jack, you're late! (As in ejaculate)

No, that's a pun. --Heron 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush?

Umm, is the Bush reference necessary? Seems a tad NPOV (as in, HAHA THE PRESIDENT IS A DUMBASS HAHA). I'm just curious. --Thorns Among Our Leaves 29 June 2005 00:40 (UTC)

I dunno, looking at much of the rest of Wikipedia, it seems that HAHA THE PRESIDENT IS A DUMBASS HAHA is considered "neutral".

Much like global warning is no longer up for debate, the president being a dumbass has not been questionable for quite some time.

Well, most people (~95%) from out of the country would agree with you, but unfortunately, thirty percent of the good ol' U-S-of-A disagree, and thus Wikipedia has to be neutral. However, maybe a reference to teh internets might be worthy, or speculation about if our children is learning. WBHoenig 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, based on that poll (sounds about right to me) that we only need to be 30% neutral in this case. For the sake of them poor 'Merkin dumbasses, dontcha know. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way, BUSH is a dumb ass. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.77.233 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ringo Starr

This has been moved from the article:

"Ringo Starr was famous for his many malapropisms, some of which became Beatles songs, including:

• Tomorrow never knows
• It's been a hard days night
• Eight days a week"

I think an explanation is needed of what these phrases would have been if properly expressed, as is done with the preceding examples. It's not obvious how they are malapropisms or if, in fact, they really are.

I don't think any of those are malapropisms. "Eight days a week", for example, is just an exaggeration, like stupid coaches demand their players to give 110% (assuming you would drop dead if you gave 100%, 110% must require that your ghost put in some effort, as well). StuRat 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"A hard day's night" sounds perfectly fine to me, using "day" to mean a 24 hour period, and "night" to mean the dark portion of that day. Thus, it means "the dark portion of a difficult 24 hour period". I'm sure they chose it for the apparent oxymoron, if "day" had been taken at it's other meaning, "the light portion of the 24 hour period", then you would get a meaning like "a difficult light portion's dark portion". I suppose even then you could interpret some meaning, though, like "a difficult eclipse". StuRat 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tomorrow never knows" seems to be an example of anthropomorphization, where the possibility exist that a day can "know" anything, when we know that it can't. StuRat 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No. "Tomorrow never knows" was a comment by Ringo which had meant to be "Tomorrow never comes". Similarly, "A hard day's night" was Ringo's comment after a hard day's work of filming for the movie, meaning "that was a hard day's work". Both reported as such in "The Beatles Anthology" (Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 2000), where they are referred to as "Ringoisms". To quote Ringo himself: "I used to, while I was saying one thing, have another come into my brain and move down fast. [...] ''Tomorrow never knows'' is something I said - ''slight [i.e., sliced] bread'' was another. John used to like them most. He always used to write them down." Grutness...wha? 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems to show that the first two are, but not the third (because it was intentional, and used for exaggeration):

• Tomorrow never comes -> Tomorrow never knows
• A hard day's work -> A hard day's night

StuRat 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, oppose intravenous fertilization

It isn't a moral opposition, or anything. I'm just pretty sure it's the wrong way to do it. Squidd 20:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This might be a bit ectopic, but don't worry, no fertilization will occur, as long as the needle is sterile. :-) StuRat 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm nauseous - er, nauseated - er, sick of this!

Merriam-Webster Online basically says it's now OK to feel nauseous - lookie here.

I think you mean "Merriam-Webser Online now acknowledges that people say they feel nauseous", because modern dictionaries observe usage, not dictate it — mendel ☎ 16:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I.E.

I.E. stands for "in example", yet it is used to clarify the actual word that the malapropism replaced. Therefore the actual word is not an example, so all the "i.e."s should be removed.

No it doesn't. It stands for id est, which means 'that is'. --Heron 20:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And this is on this talk page? *snorts*

I agree with Heron, i.e. does not mean "in example" no matter how widely that error is believed. Blue Dinosaur Jr 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The level of ignorance around here is astounding. I.e. = "id est" = "that is"; what you're looking for is e.g., "exempli gratia" = "for example" (close enough for government work). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing

The introductory paragraph of the article gives two different etymologies...either the word is directly from the French or from the name, which is from the other English word, which is from the French. Not knowing which is true I won't edit it, but someone should.--Mobius Soul 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hard Day's Night

The thing about the origins of "Hard Day's Night" is (slightly) interesting, but doesn't belong here, in my opinion. There are no real malopropisms involved. dbtfz^talk 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this anecdote, since it is related in more detail in a more appropriate place, namely, A Hard Day's Night (film). dbtfz^talk 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time "Hard Day's Night" has been removed from this page and probably won't be the last. Unfortunately, it seems from the article about the film that both John Lennon and Paul McCartney have both, wrongly, described this phrase as a malapropism. It clearly isn't but as a result no doubt people who have read the film article will continue to add this phrase to the "malapropism" page. With any luck, other vigilant editors will continue to remove it! Adrian Robson 18:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note the comment about Ringo further up the page. Though the exact definition of "A Hard Day's Night" as a malapropism is open to debate, several of his other "Ringoisms" are most definitely malapropisms. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the first commenter up above; "A Hard Day's Night" parses perfectly well, and makes perfect sense. Someone here asked me, if they (this and "Tomorrow Never Knows") aren't malapropisms, then what are they? To which I can only answer, clever song titles: ones which work and are well-suited to their purpose. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read the comment I pointed you to above which makes clear that they were malapropisms by Ringo apopropriated by John and used as titles from there. I thought hat the single most authoritative book on The Beatles (and also by the beatles) would have been enough of a reference, but if you want me to find more I can. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Although many people couldn't care less...

My dad and I got in a huge, hilarious fight about this. Is it "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less". I argued for the latter and my dad said I sounded like a dumbass.

"I could care less" to me implies that the person cares about the subject to some degree, because compared to the degree they currently care, it is potentially possible that they could care less in comparison. If a person does not care at all, they could make the statement "I couldn't care less". They do not care at all now, and so there is no possibility that they could ever care less than that. If you don't care about something, it seems more appropriate to say "I couldn't care less". Asa01 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Unfortunately, a good portion of the people say it the wrong way, including your dad. StuRat 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase I couldn't care less may be explained by this illustration.

I wish to go down further but I could not go down any further because there is no more further down to go. Therefore I couldn't go further down, even though I wanted to.

Similarly,

I would have cared less. I really want to care less but there is nothing less that I could care about it since I really don't care about it. Therefore, I couldn't care less, even though I wanted to care further less.

Similarly,

I couldn't be happier. Please come to my home for Rosh HaShanah. You won't be intruding because there is nothing that would make me happier. Therefore, I couldn't be happier because having your company for Rosh HaShanah is my ultimate joy.

Miamidot 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it can work both ways, and it doesn't really matter these days, because both give people the same impression. To me, "I could care less" is like mocking the person, saying, "I'd be fine if I somehow cared less about this subject than I already do." In my opinion, you show even the slightest bit of care by acknowledging what the person said and responding with "I couldn't care less," so to me..."I couldn't care less" is more like an opinion that has to be held before stating while "I could care less" more appropriately exists as an opinion after having acknowledged that you'd be responding.

...Did I confuse anyone? Malumultimus 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it can't work both ways. Unless you feel that language has no meaning. "I could care less" means, literally, that I care more about something than I conceivably could, which is the opposite of "I couldn't care less"; for a pungent simile for the latter, try "the instrument has yet to be invented which can measure my indifference towards ________". +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

removal of unattributed malapropisms

The following were removed with no reason given:

• "I'm going out for a breast of flesh air." (i.e. breath of fresh)
• "Scabway: Eat Flesh." (i.e. Subway: Eat Fresh)
• "It'll only take a mint" (i.e. minute)
• "Escalator!" (i.e. See you later!) - Also works with calculator, ovulater, emulator, A.C. Slater, Purolator, mashed potater, etc.
• "It'll be black in a bitch." (i.e. back in a bit)
• "Fangs and good knife." (i.e. Thanks and good night)
• "Twat? I cunt hear you. Tits okay. I must have an ear infucktion. Bare ass me again." (i.e. What? I can't hear you. It's okay. I must have an ear infection. Better ask me again.)

or Tits ok i'll finger it out later. (It's, figure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.77.233 (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the majority of the examples on the main page are typically accidental malapropisms, and perhaps the above were seen as 'too contrived'. However, they are still perfectly good examples of malapropisms (i.e. "an incorrect usage of a word by substituting a similar-sounding word with different meaning, usually with comic effect").

I will add them back, and if anyone objects please state your view.

Thanks, nkife 06:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, these are not malapropism. They shouldn't be listed. They are either intentional phrases or they are misquoted phrases. However, in misquoting a phrase and yet understanding the actual meaning of the misquoted phrase is not malapropism.

e.g. Having heard Neil Sedaka's song wrongly and singing,

Oh Carol, I am bloody fool

instead of

Oh Carol, I am but a fool

is not malapropism because I understand what the wrong lyric that I am singing actually means.

To be malapropic, I would misunderstand pineapple of my career as having the meaning of peak of my career.

Secondly, malapropism not malapropisms. It is a collective noun. Equipment not equipments. Deer not deers. Data not datas - even though we have lots of data, it is still data not datas. Unless we are making a list of various types of a collection. e.g. The various soils where the pineapple could grow.

Miamidot 04:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

^Call me a pedant, but data is not a collective noun, it's the plural form of 'datum'. One datum, lots of data, it's just it's not very often we have just one datum. A Collective noun is moose - the word moose is both the singular and the plural. Data is simply a plural like Criteria - one criterion, many criteria - where the plural of the word is much more commonly used than the singular. --Elín 16:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The association of the singular datum with data has faded in the English language. Datum has normally been used as an architectural or engineering term. A point or line of reference. In fact, in engineering and architectural language the plural for datum is datums not data. And to avoid further confusion, we call them datum lines or datum points. Data as an information technology term should be perceived as uncountable like water is. It should not be perceived as being able to be counted in any discrete singular quantity. Therefore, data as refered to in information technology is itself a collective noun without any practical association to its root word datum.

To quantify water we have to containerise it - a cup, a gallon, a litre. In engineering, to quantify data, we say a piece of data rather than a datum. Imagine, a programmer yelling, "That datum is missing." I don't think so. I believe she/he would rather yell, "That piece of data is missing."

Miamidot 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "data" has entirely migrated from plural to uncountable (collective) noun, although it's clearly well on its way. As a programmer, I typically write emails saying things like "the performance data back me up on this optimization" (plural agreement), and "backs me up" sounds less natural to me. But another (and younger) programmer recently "corrected" almost exactly this statement on our development wiki by changing it to "backs," so that isn't universal.

And something like "that data needs to be handled somewhere" (singular agreement, hence collective) sounds more natural than "those data need" even to me. (Maybe it's agreement with that/those rather than just a verb that makes it sound stilted as a plural?) But I'm sure the people who write angry letters to the editor about how "The kids/the TV/the Americans are ruining our language and it's making me nauseous" would disagree.

I am, however, sure that moose is not a collective noun; it's a normal, countable noun whose plural happens to be the same as its singular. --76.205.215.91 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As an older programmer, I have to agree that 'data' is collective. I would never use the term data to refer to a singular value like an integer, but when speaking generally, data is 1 or more pieces of <something>. However, I wonder if some of the differences of usage is related to the British habit of referring to a group of people as if they were individuals. For example "Congress have said ...", referring to the individuals in Congress, while in the U.S., it is more common to say "Congress has said ...", meaning that the statement came from the group, rather than the individuals within the group. Michael.Urban (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

encyclopedia

Why does this entry belong in an encyclopedia? It looks like a dictionary definition with lots of examples. I think this falls under what wikipedia is not... Pdbailey 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary documents the meaning of a word.

An encyclopedia documents instances and situation of existence of that word.

Otherwise, there should be no encyclopedic entry for "Calculus" because it is a word that could be and should be found in a dictionary. However, an encyclopedic entry on "Calculus" would list the various fields of Calculus as well as dwelling on the subject in further detail.

One must differentiate the need for an encyclopedic entry from its need to be in a dictionary entry.

Clearly, a dictionary couldn't care less about giving all these interesting and educating examples of malapropism.

Miamidot 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Better make like a tree and get outta here" (leaf)

In this example, it seems that the intended word was a malapropism for "leave", but in it's final form it's really not a malapropism, right ? So, should it be removed from the article ? StuRat 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and in fact I would say that even the intended word was a pun, "make like a tree and leaf" is a common pun in the English language. I went ahead and removed the phrase.Jaardon 09:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My Malapropism

I don't know whether this example is appropriate for the entry, but I like it. I'm biased, of course.

"It's simple to be happy if you're happy to be single!"

You'd might have to know me or be a fixed-gear/single-speed junkie to get it. See www.sabertoothsalmon.com/stuff/malapropism.html.

Unattributed

the following "unattributed" are removed from article:

• "He missed that field goal by a microcosm." (i.e., micrometre)
• "You know I get ravishing when I play indoor cricket." (i.e. ravenous)
• "I feel like a social piranha." (i.e., pariah)
• "Don't talk about the baby; she had a misconception." (i.e., miscarriage)
• "It's been a pressure." (i.e. pleasure)
• "...tapered to suit your needs." (i.e. tailored)
• "Close but no guitar" (i.e. cigar)
• "I want everyone to conjugate over here." (i.e. congregate)
• "It'll only take a mint" (i.e. minute)
• "Spank you!" (i.e. Thank you)
• "Mute point" (i.e. Moot) Many people erroneously consider this to be a real phrase, implying the point is silent.
• "Moo point" (i.e. Moot) Some believe the phrase refers to the type of point a cow would make (i.e. ill-considered and irrelevant)

According to wikipedia rules, please provide references, to ensure notability. Wikipedia is not a place to collect anonymous nonnotable witticisms or sillicisms. `'mikka (t) 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotefarm

As an encyclopedia article, the body needs explanation of background, contextualizing in language & society... that sort of thing. A few examples (3-5?) are necessary for illustrations, but beyond that quotes should be at WikiQuote. ENeville 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dogberryism

Is there anything established here (WP:NOR)? ENeville 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Damon Wayans

Several of his comedic characters have had a lot of fun with various malapropisms, to the point where it's become somewhat of a comic trademark. Probably worth a couple of citations. Black Max 10-30-06

Medical malapropisms

ChartFarts.com seems to have a pretty large collection on medical malapropisms. They claim to be authentic and either come from patients or their medical records. Funny name, too.

More Removals

The following two "examples" have been removed:

• "Come on down for a free canceltation (i.e. consultation) - Senor Cardgage
• "It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses." (i.e. missile launches) -- George W. Bush

As much as I like Homestar Runner and making fun of George Bush, neither canceltation nor mential are words. These are not malapropisms. Blue Dinosaur Jr 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Michael Richards bit

Michael Richards, better known as Kramer from Seinfeld, didn't help matters during a Jerry Seinfeld-orchestrated apology on David Letterman's show, making repeated reference to "Afro-Americans" and becoming agitated when the audience tittered at his malapropisms.

I just watched the entire apology and there was only one thing that could be a malapropism: "I'll get to the force field of this hostility", and there is no audible audience reaction to that line. It might not even be a malapropism, more of a mangled metaphor. "Afro-American" certainly isn't a malapropism, and I don't know what else might be referred to here. - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Explanation

When I used define: malapropism, I found this:

Common malapropisms in modern English include use of: * Disinterested (impartial, unbiased) for uninterested ("A judge should be disinterested, but not uninterested")* Fortuitous (random, by chance) for fortunate* In the ascendancy for in the ascendant ("One has the ascendancy" vs "One is in the ascendant")* Barbaric for barbarous ("Barbaric" can be positive and is used of culture, "barbarous" is negative and used of behavior: "Barbaric splendor" vs "Barbarous cruelty")* Enormity (a heinous ...

This is an excellent way of explaining it- and explains the difference between the two words far more clearly. However, when I followed the link - that's not what I found at all. I can't find the above quoted in the article at all. Moreover, instead of having the format:

Fortuitous (random, by chance) for fortunate

This article would say something like:

Fortuitous for fortunate

Without actually explaining WHY they are not the same word, which is the whole POINT of a malapropism.

--Elín 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Add

I added Frank and Ernest to this page and am surprised no one else had yet! Anyone that can get a website, more useful comments please do so. --24.245.11.103 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Common Malapropism Added

I added a fictional reference from King of Queens, because in my opinion, it is actually common. 74.109.149.135 07:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ringo thing, again

Please read the beginning of the article carefully, as it outlines what a malapropism is:

"A malapropism is an incorrect usage of a word by substituting a similar-sounding word with different meaning, usually with comic effect."

First, Ringo's comments don't necessarily count as malapropisms. He may have meant to say one thing, and substituted a word that sounded similar with a different meaning, and it may have been technically correct, but the phrases still make sense, even if they make a different sense then what he had intended to say, and given what you have explained about the context, many of them seem to still make sense in context. Even if these are technically malapropisms and I don't believe that they are, because intention is only half the game, the rest is how it's perceived, they don't belong on the list.

That may sound harsh, but most of the stuff on the list doesn't belong there. The list should be short and should be examples of notable malapropisms, both to help show what a malapropism is, and to give historical context by way of example.

The list needs to be severly edited, but we've at least started to keep it from getting cruftier.

If I mean to say cheese and I say freeze, it's a malapropism. Does it belong on this list? No. People may look at me oddly, but it's not a classic malapropism, and so it demonstrates nothing about the language itself, and it's not a famous malapropism. Add Ringoisms to an article that they belong to.

However, if you have references that show that he was famous for this type of language, we could probably add a line somewhere about that with a clearer cut example of a malapropism, like "slight bread". But that really depends on how overly crufty the article is. It certainly isn't necessary by any means and that's generally how the line is drawn. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• If Ringo "meant to say one thing, and substituted a word that sounded similar with a different meaning", how does that discount it from the definition of a malapropism youi gave? It is basically identical with it. He meant to say one thing but said another, and the effect was comic. There is nothing in the definition which says that it is intentional - and indeed most of the examples listed on the page are unintentional ones. "Tomorrow never knows" doesn't make any sense other than in the context of a malapropism. And it is far, far more notable than most of the examples given here - a Beatles song title compared to random quotes from The Sopranos? There is a huge difference between one person saying cheese when meaning freeze and the same misstated phrase becoming a song title by one of the world's most famous bands - if it had been, it would be a famous malapropism: famous as a song title, and a malapropism in that you accidentally substituted one word for another, with comic effect. In fact, chances are if you asked people for notable examples of malapropisms, the Ringo ones would be some of the most readily mentioned. Previous comments on this talk page seemed to be suggesting that the only reason they weren't here was because - without any refence to back it up - it was unclear whether the phrases were simply "clever song titles" or real malapropisms. I provided those references - references that also show clearly that "he was famous for this type of language". So basically, what we currently have is a famous comment which falls within the definition given for a malapropism, with documented evidence stating that it is a malapropism and that the speaker of it was noted for making malapropisms, yet for some reason it is being discounted from this page as not being a famous malapropism. If you wish to change the definition of malapropism so as to confirm the exclusion, do so, but moving goalposts is never a satisfactory way to reach a solution, when including these as classic examples of famous malapropisms would be far simpler - and more accurate. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on; now it sounds as if your simply being obtuse about this.

But I'll play along. Say Ringo did "mean to say one thing, and substituted a word that sounded similar" in the case of "Tomorrow never knows". If so, then what was the intended phrase that got mixed up?

These song titles are simply poetic and non-literal, just like tens of thousands of other song titles. Like a mondegreen, you must be able to show both "ends" of a malapropism: the intended thing, and the mishearing (in the case of a mondegreen), or the mangling in the case of a malapropism. As many others here have pointed out, that isn't the case here at all. You seem to be standing alone against the field on this matter. Stop being so obstinate. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that he addressed this issue in the section #Ringo Starr, above. This is the third discussion on the insertion of this material, afaik. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Grutness--I've reverted you again, and I will once again explain why this material does not belong in this article.

Malapropisms do not have to be intentional. I said he may have substituted a similar sounding word, etc, I am not arguing those grounds, or saying that on those grounds these "Ringoisms" are not malapropisms. I'm arguing that they may not be based on the rest of the definition. First, you are correct, this article needs editing in more than just paring down the list significantly. The definition from Wiktionary is a much more accurate one:

"The blundering use of an absurdly inappropriate word in place of a similar sounding one."

and the Wiktionary entry includes some very good examples. The main problem with your examples is that no one can tell that they are malapropisms, and it should be obvious if the phrase is removed from context and it isn't even obvious in context. One of the key requirements for a malapropism is that it is noticable, and even if it weren't, we would try and shy away from examples that needed excessive explaining or that weren't clear because they aren't good examples. Material like that would only be used if the material itself was famous, and while Ringo Starr might be, and while the songs might be, the origin is not.

Also, your argument that there are other things that seriously don't belong in the article is true. I expressed that quite clearly, as did the tags screaming "Clean me up please!" But, just because an article needs clean-up or a list is seriously flooded with cruft doesn't mean that we mess the article up more or keep adding unnecessary things to the list. The basis for inclusion in Wikipedia is not what is already here, is not someone else's mistakes. Just because someone else screwed up worse, and your entry isn't as bad, isn't a reason to add it. Each piece of material is judged on it's own, and trust me, this article will get cleaned. Maybe this will inspire you to do some research and work on this article or other articles that really need the work. But this material seriously does not belong on this page.

For the record, the OED defines a malapropism as,

The ludicrous misuse of words, esp. in mistaking a word for another resembling it; an instance of this.

proving that this article, definition and all needs some work. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me? You're arguing that no-one can tell that these are malapropisms, although they use an absurdly inappropriate word? Tomorrow never knows is not the sort of thing anyone might say other than as a malapropism - the normal usage is "tomorrow never comes" - a phrase which makes perfect sense, something that "tomorrow never knows" does not do. "Tomorrow never knows" is a textbook example of the definition given by the OED. And my argument about the page needing cleaning up is simply that removing the items which don't belong is far better that refusing to allow in ones that clearly do belong. Cleanup works both ways - the page should both lose the non-significant or incorrect ones and allow in significant and correct ones. I give up. I provide evidence in published sources that these are malapropisms, but it is refused on the grounds that these items don't belong here since they are not malapropisms. If I can't convince you, then fair enough - though I would recommend that you find clear sources which say that they definitely are not malapropisms. Unless you do, they are bound to reappear on this list again - not from me, but from others who equally prefer to trust authoritative sources on the subject over the "I don't think so" of a handful of Wikipedian editors who do not have any evidence to back their claims up. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, "Grutness", tell us: if you think "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a malapropism, what do you make of "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter"? Surely that makes no sense, and must be a malaprop, right? Or how about "Rubber Soul"? Don't you get it? Those titles (and song lyrics) use poetic, non-literal language. That doesn't qualify them as malapropisms.

The person you replied to had a good point, which is that with a classic malapropism, one can immediately know what the "original" (i.e., un-mangled) phrase was: this seems to be a hallmark of the genre. When that character used to say "What? I can't extinguish your voice over the telephone!", we immediately understood that he meant to say "distinguish". Not true with any of those Beatles titles you're suggesting. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"The heart is a lonely hunter" is both prosopopoeia and synechdoche, and might even qualifty as antonomasia, except that he heart is not a proper noun. Rubber soul is a simple pun, a play on soul music and the soul of the shoe, made by Paul McCartney to indicate that he thought the music was a poor attempt at making music after being influenced by soul. Note that I did not include the antiphrasis of "Eight days a week" in the above comments, since it is clearly not a malapropism, and made it clear that "A hard day's night" is questionable. However, Tomorrow never knows is clearly a malapropism, as would have been obvious in the original context in which it was made. Removed from that context as the title of an album, it is less clear, but that does not mean that there was no clarity in the original comment. Now, will you actually adress some of the comments I made before about the necessity of you finding proof for your statements, or are you going to continue to beg the question by comparing the phrases with other things which are clearly in no way relevant? Grutness...wha? 23:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks, I think I'll decline that invitation. See, the thing is, while you need to provide evidence that you are, indeed, an elephant, I don't need to provide any that I am not one. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You do if someone's provided evidence that you are an elephant and wish to argue the point. You seem to be arguing for the acceptance of the null hypothesis, viz. scientific method. The null hypothesis is only accepted, however, if there is no evidence to the contrary. If there is evidence to the contrary, counter-evidence needs to be presented to support the null hypothesis is accepted again. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[restarting indenting since it went to ____ anyway]

The only proof you have Grutness is that the Beatles said that these were malapropisms. You are currently outruled here (see WP:CONSENSUS), so we do not have to go searching for evidence to prove anything to you. You have to bring something to us, to show either that the common person sees these as malapropisms, or, a literary discussion of these as malapropisms.

Either way, they would still be poor examples, as while the Beatles are notable, these examples, as malapropisms are not, and this article should have a FEW examples of notable malapropisms. Malapropisms, not people or words or anything else that could somehow get in the article by way of _______.

These, even if you could prove that they fit the definition, which they don't, don't belong on this list.

That's really the end of things. But, I'll explain why tomorrow never knows is not a malapropism.

Tomorrow never knows isn't, "The ludicrous misuse of words, esp. in mistaking a word for another resembling it; an instance of this."

Tomorrow never knows, makes sense, it's painful and poetic and clever and Ringo may have been meaning to say, "tomorrow never comes" and instead came up with something really brilliant, but to say that "tomorrow never comesknows" is a lidicrous misuse of words, is ludicrous indeed.

Meaning to say one thing and substituting a similar sounding word happens frequently. However, not all instances of that, not even close to all instances are in fact malapropisms. And, while malapropisms in the public view may happen with some frequency, uttered by a notable person, or on a TV show etc, few of the malapropisms themselves are notable, either for a literary reason or because they become known as malapropism or as new phrases, with a different meaning, or they take over the original phrase.

"Tomorrow never comesknows" isn't a malapropism--it's a clever slip of the tongue that fits some of the requirments of being a malapropism. And even if it were, the phrase is not notable for a literary reason, or as a malapropism--it is notable as a song title, and notable in terms of the Beatles and Ringo. This has zero place in the article. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

excessive reverting: WP:COOL

Also, Grutness, you reverted 3 times in 24 hours, come very close to breaking WP:3RR, and have inserted the material a total of 6 times (with 2 reverts in different 24 hours). This is the only editing you have done on this page and you are being told by two long time editors and maintainers of this page and similar pages that this is not an appropriate example. It would be probably be a good idea for you to cool off a little. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to actually get a reasonable answer to the points I have raised

This is, frankly, getting absolutely ridiculous. This is the summary so far:

• 1) I add an item to the page based on its listing in various works as a malapropism, and in keeping with the definitions of malapropism. This is reverted, with the claims from ILike2BeAnonymous that they are not malapropisms, with no evidence on this editor's part to support that.
• 2) I re-add the item, and also add supporting evidence to the talk page showing that they are listed in various places as malapropisms. This is again reverted, with the claim that the references must be wrong uin claiming that they are malapropisms. Again, no evidence is given for why they are wrong.
• 3) I explain why they are malapropisms, providing yet more references. I point out that unless some concrete evidence is shown to indicate that these cannot be regarded as malapropisms, they will continue to be added to the page - if not by me, than by others. This time I am met with a straw man argument relating to several things which are clearly not malapropisms, and my comments about the necessity to show that these are not malapropisms is totally ignored.
• 4) I again state that information needs to be presented to clearly show that these are not malapropisms. This time I am met by the rebuttal from Miss Modegreen that attempts to show that what Ringo say was not a malapropism - which is a far description that has been a looong time in coming in this argument - but follows that up by saying that even if it was a malapropism it didn't belong in an article on malapropism, and finally that I should in some way be admonished for deliberately not breaking the three-revert rule. Of course I didn't revert more than three times in a day - is there something wrong with not breaking that rule? And my previous lack of editing on this page is irrelevant. As, for that matter, is the fact that you are "maintainers of this and other similar pages". I didn';t breat 3RR, please don't fall victim of WP:OWN. Please, please, continue to argue to the point - no-one wins from unwarranted implications ad hominem.

• 5) Now - I ask again that the reasons given that "tomorrow never knows" is not a malapropism is enshrined here somehow, preferably with concrete evidence. If you wish to exclude these terms some definitive reason needs to be stated here so that no-one else will try to add them to the page. As things stand at the moment, anyone could come along and re-add the items, as there is no way that many Ringoisms currently fall outside the definitions given for this page. I also ask for a good reason why Miss Mondegreen would suggest that it doesn't belong on the page even if it is a malapropism.

I fervently hope that this time you address my actual concern, rather than trying to imply that I have done something wrong previously done on this page - which is untrue - or trying to get around the question by comparing Ringo's comments with other figures of speech which are clearly not malapropisms. Unless these concerns are met, you will continue to have problems with people adding these items to the page - just as it appears you have had in the past. Address the problems - don't shoot the messenger. Grutness...wha? 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Grutness

• 1) this arguement holds no water. Editors don't provide proof that what is in the article is incorrect before reverting. I have no idea how they would find that proof, since it's generally lack of evidence that keeps something in, and this concept behind wikipedia wouldn't work.
• 2)You cannot add supporting evidence from a talk page. Adding references, which is what I assume you meant to say here, is not always enough. Just becuase Joe Shmoe says that x is a malapropism, doesn't mean it is, even if Joe Shmoe is famous, as it is the malapropism itself that has to be notable for inclusion, not the person, and if Joe Shmoe is incorrect, the malapropism can't be notable as it isn't a malapropism. The phrase however can be, which is the current case. Also, I repeat, the reverting editor is not required to prove why something is wrong. The burden for proof is on the editor who adds something to the article.
• 3)I have no idea what you are referring to. I've explained several times why the examples in question are not malapropisms, and I've gotten arguments in response that have had little to do with what I said, and you've asked for explanations I've already provided. You've said this "straw man" thing several times, but I don't know what you're referring to.
• 4)I'm glad that you appreciate my explanation. I'd like to point out that I explained why the collection in general were not malapropisms more than once before hand, and that this was not a long time in coming. I don't owe you anything. You want to add something to this article, and you don't have consensus, and you're being very rude to editors which makes it unlikely that they will repeat explanations that you didn't understand the first time. Editors are less likely to work with you or assume good faith when you are being rude and accusing them of various things. Had you simply asked why I didn't consider this particular one a malapropism because you thought it fit the OED definition perfectly or something else, I would have responded much faster and much more nicely.
• WP:COOL -- I did not suggest that you be admonished or punished for a rule you didn't break. I pointed out that you were pushing something on an article that you had no prior involvement with, and you had excess reverts and edits in general on this one thing that you want included and I was suggesting that you cool down. I was suggesting this not only because of the excessive edits, but because of your tone here. You have been incredibly rude, you have accused the editors of various things, and you're ignoring a variety of policies and guidelines. You expect people to do research to prove that your information is incorrect, which makes no sense, instead of doing the research to back your information up. You ask for explanations, and when you get them, ask why people aren't explaining anything, and never reply to the explanations. All I was suggesting was that your behavoir in this matter was pushy at the least, and that you should cool off. That you replied by accusing me of WP:OWN just proves that. All I was suggesting when I said, "two long time editors and maintainers of these pages", was that when we said certain types of examples don't belong on the list, you might want to listen and ask why instead of railing at us. I certainly haven't contributed enough to any of these language articles to own anything, and while I can't speak for ILike2BeAnonymous, afaik, he's mainly been watching the pages and keeping the lists from getting worse. My point about the lists stands. Even if these were malapropisms, and they aren't, they wouldn't belong on the list. That list is going to be seriously trimmed, because most of the items on the list do not belong on their either. I'm guessing that it won't be more than fifteen or twenty at the most when the list is trimmed and the article expanded. There will be examples from the rivals, occurances in real life, and a small section of malapropisms that are notable. Nothing else. If a particular character on a show is notable for making malapropisms, or the show has many of them, and this makes it's way into print, it will probably be mentioned in an additional paragraph.
• 5) I have provided reasons that this isn't a malapropism multiple times. Enshrined? Enshrined how? Concrete evidence? From the article "Ringo's said malapropisms not really malapropisms"? Or perhaps from the tabloid article, "Ringo abuses the English language! Not a malapropism after all!" We don't keep lists of things on here that people shouldn't add with proof as to why. It's called a watchlist. People with time and dedication watch this article, and anything that isn't a malapropism or isn't NOTABLE gets removed.

"I also ask for a good reason why Miss Mondegreen would suggest that it doesn't belong on the page even if it is a malapropism. "

Every single time I have commented here and replied to you I have explained this. Including this time.

I have addressed your actual concerns every time. And I don't believe I implied that you were doing something wrong before. What suggesting someone cool off generally means is that their behavoir is pushing the boundaries, and if it is currently ok, it probably won't be soon. Instead of cooling off you escalated your behavoir, and I would consider your behavoir to be problematic. You're being rude, and accusing editors of various sorts of misconduct. You're asking for explanation after explanation, attacking editors for not providing explanations or evidence when we've provided multiple explanations and evidence doesn't work like that.

And yes, we will always have problems with people adding stuff to this page, even though we rarely talk with most of the ones who do. Every article that contains a list generally does, and certain things make it worse. If the list includes pop-culture references that'll add to it. If the list is overblown and crufty then people really go haywire. Short compact lists in well written articles are easy to maintain, and people tend to add less, because it's easy to see that the quality is being maintained and people think more about their edits. In articles like this, people think, "oh, well this malapropism is more notable then this" or "that is there, it must be ok to add this".

"by comparing Ringo's comments with other figures of speech which are clearly not malapropisms"

You said that he had been meaning to say, "tomorrow never comes", right? That is all I compared it to. I did however mix up "knows" and "comes" a couple times above and I've fixed that now with strikeouts.

Please, take your own advice, "Address the problems - don't shoot the messenger". If this continues, I won't answer your questions or provide you with explanations in the future--every time I have, you've reacted with more and more hostility, and it's not worth my time and energy crafting a reply to your questions just so you can get angrier and accuse me of not answering your questions and various other things. I don't mind explaining things more than once if someone really doesn't get it, but I do mind if the other user hasn't bothered to read my comment, or is too hostile to listen.

You're attack the very people that you are asking and demanding things from. If you want something from other editors, don't attack them--that's common sense. If consensus is against you and you want to work with other editors to change their mind or come up with a compromise, don't attack them. I really do hope that you will calm down and take a step back and be willing talk about this matter differently, though I don't see what more needs to be said. I've explained why I don't think it belongs here, as has ILike2BeAnonymous, and we've been going in circles--you ask for explanations, we provide them, you ask, etc. Unless something changes, I don't see why this should need to be discussed further, but if you have questions etc, and want to ask me politely, I'll try to help. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

• 1) Editors do and should provide evidence for a revert - especially when that reversion is in the face of published sources.
• 2) I did not add supporting evidence from a talk page. I added supporting evidence int he form of references to this talk page.
• 3) I am referring to ILike2beAnonymous's straw man argument: OK, then, "Grutness", tell us: if you think "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a malapropism, what do you make of "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter"? Surely that makes no sense, and must be a malaprop, right? Or how about "Rubber Soul"? Don't you get it?. Yeah - of course I get it. If you can't argue the point I raised, then argue some completely different, unrelated point.
• 4) If there was any rudeness on my part, I apologise, but all there was was an attempt to get a solid answer to points I raised, which took a great deal of time in coming, as you say yourself. In fact, the mainpoint I raised still hasn't been dealt with.

  I did not suggest that you be admonished or punished for a rule you didn't break. I pointed out that you were pushing something on an article that you had no prior involvement with, and you had excess reverts and edits in general on this one thing that you want included and I was suggesting that you cool down I was suggesting this not only because of the excessive edits, but because of your tone here. I did not have excessive edits - as you state yourself I did not break the three-revert rule. I added something which was missing from the article, and was faced with just one editor reverting those changes. Note that once it became clear that one other editor was also disinclined to have those iems here I did no further reverts. I was faced with a situation of one editor (myslef) backed with information supporting adding things to the page, against one edotir (ILike2BeAnonymous) who made mno claims to back up his reversions other than that he did not like the items being placed there. I added firurther comments to the talk page countering previous comments about the items, and contacted the editors who had left those comments, asking that they review what I had domne and comment here if they thought I was incorrect. None of them commented here, though I did have one comment added on my talk page which expalined things far better that ILike2BeAnonymous ever even attempted to do.

  You have been incredibly rude, you have accused the editors of various things, and you're ignoring a variety of policies and guidelines. Again, I apologise if I have been rude, though I am surprised that you claim so - all I have done is seek answers to qustions, and for the most part those questions have been ignored or met with attacks rather than direct answers. You have at least given me one direct answer to one of my points, unlike ILike2BeAnonymous, but by claiming that I have ignored policies and guidelines (which I have not done) you are also being objectionable.

  You expect people to do research to prove that your information is incorrect, which makes no sense, instead of doing the research to back your information up. I provided references - I could provide far more if you prefer, or give further examples of Ringo's malapropisms ("I like the harmoniums you added there Paul", for example). Only one side in this argument seems to have made any attempt to provide references.

  You ask for explanations, and when you get them, ask why people aren't explaining anything, and never reply to the explanations. All I was suggesting was that your behavoir in this matter was pushy at the least, and that you should cool off. This coming after your own comment of "I'm glad that you appreciate my explanation." - a respnse to my reply to your explanations, is pretty facile and insulting. Can I also point out to you my detailed response to ILike2BeAnonymous's fallacious responses furtehr up the page? I still have no explanation as to why you cannot add something to the page explaining why Ringoisms should not be included in the page - I repeat that unless you do, others will make the same addition to the page at a later stage.

  That you replied by accusing me of WP:OWN just proves that. All I was suggesting when I said, "two long time editors and maintainers of these pages", was that when we said certain types of examples don't belong on the list, you might want to listen and ask why instead of railing at us. I did ask why. I didn't get an answer for a very long time - ILike2BeAnonymous never even attem,pted to provide an answer. Given that you gave me an answer - finally - I then asked what measures could be put in place to stop further editors from adding the same items to the list. I am still waiting for a reply to that. Again, note that once it became clear that it wasn't just me arguing with one other editor, I stopped any reverting.

• Even if these were malapropisms, and they aren't, they wouldn't belong on the list. That list is going to be seriously trimmed, because most of the items on the list do not belong on their either. I'm guessing that it won't be more than fifteen or twenty at the most when the list is trimmed and the article expanded. There will be examples from the rivals, occurances in real life, and a small section of malapropisms that are notable. Nothing else. If a particular character on a show is notable for making malapropisms, or the show has many of them, and this makes it's way into print, it will probably be mentioned in an additional paragraph. FINALLY, an explanation to the second of my questions. Now I simply require an answer to the third.
• 5) I have provided reasons that this isn't a malapropism multiple times. No, actually, you said it wasn't several times - you only provided reasons on the last time, and you will notice that since then my main argument has revolved around how to stop them from being added to the list again in future. The best way to do that is topprovide some for of documentary reference that shows conslusively that they are not, or - as you suggest above - to cut the list down to such an extent that it is clear that even comments as notable as the basis for beatles song titles will not be notable enough for the list.

"I also ask for a good reason why Miss Mondegreen would suggest that it doesn't belong on the page even if it is a malapropism. "

• Every single time I have commented here and replied to you I have explained this. Including this time. Up until now you have simply commented that it wasn't a malapropism and as such didn't belong here (although it was not until the last time that you explained why it was not). With this statement, though, you went one further and said that if it was a malapropism it still wouldn't belong here. It is only with your latest reply that you explain why not.

• And I don't believe I implied that you were doing something wrong before. What suggesting someone cool off generally means is that their behavoir is pushing the boundaries, and if it is currently ok, it probably won't be soon. Instead of cooling off you escalated your behavoir, and I would consider your behavoir to be problematic. You're being rude, and accusing editors of various sorts of misconduct. You're asking for explanation after explanation, attacking editors for not providing explanations or evidence when we've provided multiple explanations and evidence doesn't work like that. My behaviour has not escalated at any point - in fact it has reduced. I have simply sought the answers to three questions: (a) why aren't Ringo's comments malapropisms; (b) why would they not belong on this page if they wre; (c) what can be done to stop others from adding these items to the list in future. The first of these was answered by you in your statement before last. the second was finally answered this time. The third has yet to be addressed.

If the list is overblown and crufty then people really go haywire. Short compact lists in well written articles are easy to maintain, and people tend to add less, because it's easy to see that the quality is being maintained and people think more about their edits. In articles like this, people think, "oh, well this malapropism is more notable then this" or "that is there, it must be ok to add this". So fix it.

"by comparing Ringo's comments with other figures of speech which are clearly not malapropisms"

You said that he had been meaning to say, "tomorrow never comes", right? That is all I compared it to. I did however mix up "knows" and "comes" a couple times above and I've fixed that now with strikeouts. You did, that is true - but I was referring to ILIke2beAnonymous's comparison of it to "Rubber Soul" and "The heart is a lonely hunter".

Please, take your own advice, "Address the problems - don't shoot the messenger". If this continues, I won't answer your questions or provide you with explanations in the future--every time I have, you've reacted with more and more hostility, and it's not worth my time and energy crafting a reply to your questions just so you can get angrier and accuse me of not answering your questions and various other things. I don't mind explaining things more than once if someone really doesn't get it, but I do mind if the other user hasn't bothered to read my comment, or is too hostile to listen. You have explained the frst of my three points well, and have finally addressed the second. You have made some start on the third, though the apprent solution of cutting the list down to a bare-bones size has still not been adressed. it is, however, progress. perhaps if I hadn't been insulted repeatedly by ILike2BeAnonymous with such comments as his edit summaries ("sez you is not evidence"), and his repeated calls to read an item which I had written - apparently without reading it himself - this would not have escalated in the first place.

You're attack the very people that you are asking and demanding things from. If you want something from other editors, don't attack them--that's common sense. If consensus is against you and you want to work with other editors to change their mind or come up with a compromise, don't attack them. Again, I point out that the reversion only took place when it appeared to be one person reverting seemingly reasonable additions to the list, with no explanation as to why he did it. If ILike2beAnonymous had been less abrupt and rude in his comments, then I would not have responded in kind. You might note that I was close to considering an RfC on his comments at one stage, simply because of this behaviour. If I had not been treated with rudeness in the first place, then any rudeness there may have been on my part would not have come about. For your part, there has been notihing to complain about at all, though your comments implying that I have ignored policies and guidelines is a little questionable, to say the least.

I really do hope that you will calm down and take a step back and be willing talk about this matter differently, though I don't see what more needs to be said. I've explained why I don't think it belongs here, as has ILike2BeAnonymous, and we've been going in circles--you ask for explanations, we provide them, you ask, etc. ILike2BeAnonymous has made no attempt to explain anything other than that he thinks I am wrong. For your part, you have answered two of my three points clearly and well. The thir still remains to be dealt with, though at last some progress has been made towards that. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, impressive: someone should do a word count here. How many thousands of words spilled out by this guy (I'm convinced now it is a guy) over, what, an idiotic reference to Ringo Starr, for chrissake? This must be some kind of new record around here; there oughta be a museum for this kind of stuff. Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what I mean. I raise points and ILike2BeAnonymous responds. Not with constructive answers to my questions, or comments on my statements, no - with a flippant comment that I have written too much, and claims that my original comments were idiotic. This is what I've been getting all along from him: flippancy, failure to address the topic, and outright rudeness. At least Miss Mondegreen answered some of my comments rather than going straight in to attack the writer, but that has been your lline all the way through ILike2BeAnonymous - oh, sorry "ILike2BeAnonymous". If you had given some reasonable explanation in the first place rather than going straight for the insults and asking me to read comments I'd already replied to, then perhaps this would have been settled ages back. As it is, it took Miss Mondegreen to provide largely constructive replies, for which I thank her. For your obnoxiousness, though, no thanks at all. Grutness...wha? 06:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ringo conversation is closed

• List

Grutness, there's a reason that we are both annoyed. You are rude and and demanding answers and then don't listen to them.

The very first comment I made, see #The Ringo thing, again said the following:

"Even if these are technically malapropisms... they don't belong on the list....most of the stuff on the list doesn't belong there. The list should be short and should be examples of notable malapropisms, both to help show what a malapropism is, and to give historical context by way of example. The list needs to be severly edited, but we've at least started to keep it from getting cruftier....it's not a classic malapropism, and so it demonstrates nothing about the language itself, and it's not a famous malapropism. Add Ringoisms to an article that they belong to."

I explained it again in my next response to you, and then again, stating quite clearly:

"Either way, they would still be poor examples, as while the Beatles are notable, these examples, as malapropisms are not, and this article should have a FEW examples of notable malapropisms. Malapropisms, not people or words or anything else that could somehow get in the article by way of _______. These, even if you could prove that they fit the definition, which they don't, don't belong on this list."

You then claimed that I had never explained why they wouldn't belong in the article. I had explained three times and then explained once more, which you finally recognized as answering your question. I should not have to repeat myself four times. I should not have to go back and quote myself to prove to you that I answered your question before you even asked it. If one of my explanations wasn't clear, you could ask me specifically to expand on something I said. Simply saying that I hadn't answered your question is only going to make me repeat my answer over and over. I don't know if you suddenly understood what I was saying the fourth time, or if you finally read what I wrote. Either way, it's inconsiderate and it's not how productive disucssion works.

• Reverts

You had 6 edits on ONE piece of information in a relatively short amount of time. 2 reverts one day, 3 another. You did in fact revert after I came to the article. I posted on the discussion page against the addition of the material and you added it back and THEN I reverted you. This was taken to the discussion page multiple times in a few days. When it's one v. one and the opposing editor is against your addition, continually adding the material, instead of continuing discussion is called edit warring. When you found a source you thought was good, since you knew the edit was contested, you should have brought it to the talk page first. You could have also asked for an Rfc if discussion didn't work. You didn't really try discussion, you reverted a lot of times for one piece of material, and you kept that up once I came here. I wasn't suggesting you be punished, I was looking at the situation and suggesting you cool down, something that you're ignoring because you disagree with my assessment, apparantly includign factually. You don't consider your edits to have been excessive, and the problem is, is that when you don't consider what you did to be excessive and you're being told that it is, that's probably the biggest sign that you need to cool off.

• Your published sources

Your published sources were irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Joe Shmoe thinks something is a malapropism, even if Joe Shmoe is famous. Joe Shmoe has to know what he's talking about and be relevant. We don't include what football players say and advanced theoretical physics, and we don't take what advanced theortical physicists say about football players unless they are directly relevant and reliable. That's generally not the case and it wasn't here. Reverting editors aren't therefore required to prove to you that Ringo Starr isn't an expert on malaprops, or anything else, especially when you won't respond in discussion.

• Other Ringoisms

I've already said that some of the other malapropisms you mentioned seem textbook. I don't know whether they should be added or not, because the notability of either the malapropisms, or Ringo for making them is what's important. We could probably add a sentence about it, but if this can only be found in a biography of the Beatles, it doesn't sound very notable. There's all sorts of obscure trivia about famous people--whether it's known is another issue. If his creative misuse of language was mentioned in articles or interviews, Ringoisms would probably warrant a sentence or two in a section on other people notable for malapropisms.

• Page patrol etc

I don't know what it matters that we patrol that page--I don't know why you're asking what can be done about and why you're charging me with "so fix it". You are the one that brought up the issue of constantly reverting people, not me. This is on my todo list. If it's urgent and important to you that this article be cleaned up and people stop listcruft, then you do reasearch and fix the article. You're only involvement with this article has been to come here and take the time of editors to push Ringoisms. You haven't listened to a word we've said, and yet you seem to be very interested in telling us what to do. This is it Grutness. If you would like to come back to the talk page with article sources talking about Ringoisms, or interviews, we'll deal with that then. Until such a time, stop complaining, stop telling us what we did wrong. This has taken far more of my time than necessary and I despise having to deal with editors who ignore what I have said and then charge me with something that isn't true. I'm not going to continue to defend myself to you, and that's what you require when you say, "you didn't do x, or you did x", instead of justing asking whatever it is that you want to know.

You have gone on and on about the kind of responses you have gotten here, and complained over and over again about not getting answers, but if you were so concered about getting answers, you should have asked instead of attacking. You would have gotten more and better answers and they wouldn't be buried in paragraphs of defense. The conversation would have been more productive and you would have gotten so much more out it. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

norm crosby

Is anyone out there familiar with the work of the 1960-70's comedian Norm Crosby. I believe his work would qualify as examples (for those of us entrenched in the baby-boom generation). I recall my now-deceased father laughing hard at Norm on the Ed Sullivan Show.

Some of his malaprops - drinking "decapitated coffee” and sharing “inflammation” with co-workers.

I see a Wikipedia note for Norm's career, but shouldn't ther be a link to Malapropism? Mwannen 16:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

famous comedian/standup comic from the 70s/80s

I can't remember his name, but his whole routine was like an observational comic but he related his witticisms with mixed up words, i.e. using words that sound similar to what he meant but with a comically different meaning. Can't remember his name, possibly [somebody] Crosby or similar-sounding... anyone recall who I'm talking about? 199.214.26.180 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ... oops, never mind -- it's Norm Crosby, the Talk: section right above this one ::rolleyes::

Ringo: Another point of view

I know this was settled a couple of months ago, but...

I think Grutness is mostly right: Ringo is noted for malapropisms, to the point that John started carrying around a notebook to write them down to use them as inspiration. Most of the examples that John and Ringo refer to are not malapropisms, but many are. And, while Ringo's tendency toward malapropism is not as famous as that of George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, or Mike Tyson, it is more famous than, say, Tonya Harding's.

However, I still don't think any Ringoisms should be added to the list, because no particular malapropism of his is really that notable. In particular, most people have heard of "Tomorrow Never Knows," but most people do not know that this was a malapropism rather than intentional poetry.

That being said, the article desperately needs to be restructured and de-listified. (Is George W. Bush "from popular culture"? Is he not "in real life"?) When that's done, there will probably be a paragraph or brief section about people who are famous for malapropisms, and Ringo, with the "Tomorrow Never Knows" story, would probably fit there very well. Until that's done, I don't think anyone should be trying to add any examples to the article. --76.205.215.91 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful to explain what Ringo meant to say when he said "Tomorrow Never Knows" ("...grows"? "...blows? "...shows"? "...goes"?), as I cannot figure it out. The phrase actually makes sense in a way (especially in its original context) and is therefore an eggcorn, if anything, surely. The explanation of "A Hard Day's Night" should be here too, though it disproves the malapropism thesis: day and night do not sound remotely like one another. ("We went to do a job, and we'd worked all day and we happened to work all night. I came up still thinking it was day I suppose, and I said, It's been a hard day... and I looked around and saw it was dark so I said, ...night! So we came to A Hard Day's Night.") Jubilee♫clipman 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have rewritten this section with explanations. Hope this helps to clear the matter up. Jubilee♫clipman 04:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Abercrombie Fizzwidget from "Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando"

I think a good addition to this page would be to include (even if it is a very brief comment such as under "Examples of Malapropisms") the character Abercrombie Fizzwidget from Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando, who, for the duration of the game, speaks primarily in malapropisms. Just a suggestion, however it is a very poignant example of malapropism use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.20.75 (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LHC

I can't believe this page is missing Large Hardon Collider — or Large Hadron Collider. I won't add it because the page needs a cleanup more than it needs new entries, though. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mrs Malaprop was missing!

Bazaarly, Mrs Malaprop was missing from the lists! Have added a phew... The Shakespear list (which I have moved to a more obvious place) needs a litte detention, too: "Bottom says " Thisbe, the flowers of odious savours sweet!" He said odious which really means repulsive instead of a pleasant odour." This is not a malapropism but mirely a verbal slip and will be removed. Jubilee♫clipman 14:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Have massively cleaned up and pruned down that list! I left in a few well known and apposite examples. I was going to move the list here, but it is too big and can be found in the history anyway. Jubilee♫clipman 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Awful wedded wife"

I heard this on a TV show - I think it was called Redneck Weddings. Doubledork (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Infill

I have added some malapropisms from Smollett. I realize it is important for the page not to get crufty again, but I think it is absurd, historically speaking, to skip from Shakespeare and Sheridan to Laurel & Hardy, as if there were no intervening usages of note. It seems to me that occasional malapropists can be left out, but that those authors who delightfully and intentionally exploit the form should be mentioned, even if it means shortening the Shakespeare/Sheridan sections slightly. (Another author who really belongs here, by the same token, is Patrick O'Brian, whose lead characters in the Aubrey-Maturin series are both serial malapropists.) Valli Nagy (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mrs. Malaprop -- Is the malevolence / benevolence really a malapropism?

Aren't the two words just opposite? Malevolence doesn't make the sentence nonsensical. It makes it contradictory, but it still makes sense to me.. Mavrisa (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's more of an ironic statement than a malapropism, and it certainly makes sense. I will remove it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Amos and Andy

This entry probably has to many examples to be encyclopedic, but I find it hard to believe that Amos and Andy aren't mentioned. A great deal of their humor was based on malapropisms, and at least one of the examples was borrowed from their show. Weetoddid (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Future - Biff Tannen

Shouldn't the character Biff Tannen be included? I saw a discussion on one of his ("Make like a tree and get out of here"), but he has several, and they are even a central part in the humour of the stories.

"I'm gonna hunt you down and shoot you like a duck"

George McFly also has one: "I'm George McFly.. I'm your density!"

Didn't wanna include them straight away on the page, as I'm still shaky on the definition after the discussion on "make like a tree". Anyone care to second or rebut my suggestion? Jenkin (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rickyism?

The lead para had this "also called a [...] rickyism". I'd never heard of that. Google shows it as possibly a reference to a humorous television programme from Canada - hardly notable from a WP point of view, I think. If "rickyism" is anything other than a niche usage, someone can put it back. --Kay Dekker (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Scott from the Office

Michael Scott isn't discussed here. It seems to me that he's the 'heir' to Archie Bunker as the major sitcom character who constantly uses malapropisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.151.151 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Shakespeare examples

"Crowner" was a common lower-class pronunciation of "coroner" for several centuries. It may be a solecism, but it is not an individual malapropism. Also, "I desire some confidence with you" doesn't sound like much of a mistake at all, considering that one meaning of "confidence" was "confidential intimacy" (OED). "Incarnal" has a wrong combination of prefixes and suffixes, but the meaning is not changed at all; I don't really don't see how "incarnal" is different from "nucular" or "refudiate" or whatever (which do not fall under the usual definition of malapropisms). AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gary Larson Cartoon

I'm not sure that this was intended as a Malapropism by Larson. As I recall, he applied emphasis to the word "tutored". This suggests (at least to me...) that the joke is intended thus: the first dog is genuinly about to be tutored, and he is boastfully "rubbing salt into the wounds" of the second dog, who has just be neutered. If this is the case, the use of the word "tutored" is correct, and hence not a malapropism. I concede, of course, that the other interpretation is equally valid...we'd have to ask the man himself, I suppose... 82.5.68.95 (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)