From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.[edit]

My latest edit put in a link to but it was blacklisted. I have no idea why but I have deliberately put in a broken link to get it in somehow. Somebody who knows how might be able to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sofa King lyrics[edit]

Anyone object to me putting the example from the Sofa King article? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Liver goes well with tea[edit]

... And to the republic; For which it stands; One nation underdog; With liver, tea, and justice for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Other languages[edit]

I wonder why the section on Mondegreens from other languages was removed without even discussing. For a link I added for Hindi somebody just wrote "No a reliable" source and just slashed off the entry. Do I need to file a legal affidavit to prove a source as reliable, the site has English captions and anybody who can read can tell its about Hindi Mondegreens, and its the only such site known to me. Why do Wikipedians try to be smart and pretend to know about all other cultures and languages? --Debashish (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So restore it. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 15:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


For years I thought Eric Clapton when he was singing "Leila" was singing "Crazy love." Is that just me? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC) apparently it is. (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

War Drobe reversion[edit]

I love losing edit wars. If I'm wrong and I'm making an original analysis, maybe the whole War Drobe article should be deleted too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?[edit]

Do you know that swedish hard rock band called Europe, they have a song called "The final countdown". According to this wikipedia "it is still heavily associated with the introductions of the Detroit Pistons at their home games..."

well the chorus is: "it's the final countdown" repeatedly when I first heard it, to me was like: "it's the fire on downtown" xD

I don't know if this is because english is not my mother tongue (I'm brazilian) but if you guys think that's a good one, you should add it to the lyrics examples

thx. bye (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It would need to have been previously identified as such in a published source. See our policy on original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey red pen of doom why don't you just delete the whole stinking article? Who died and made you the king of wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkrajewski (talkcontribs) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Killing in the name[edit]

A famous mondegreen in Italian in from the song Killing in the name, where the sentence "And now you do what they told ya" is sung in a whole lot of different ways, such as "Vai a farti una doccia" (Go take a shower) or "Io ti spacco la faccia" (I'll beat you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looris (talkcontribs) 21:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Saxon wives[edit]

As I was coming from St. Ives, I met a man with Saxon wives; every wife had seven sacks; every sack had seven cats; every cat had seven kits: Kits, cats, Saxon wives, how many were coming from St. Ives?--Wetman (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Lee[edit]

I was always very impressed with this guy Lee when I went to Mass as a kid. After each bidding prayer, the priest would say "Lord hear us" and we'd reply "Lord Gracious, Lee hear us" (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Buttocks-Pressing Song[edit]

Earlier today, User: added this example, which was reverted in good faith by User:DavidWBrooks with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by; Not sure what that means - was this a deliberate mondegreen? did somebody misunderstand it?"

I agree with User:DavidWBrooks that the initial example was unclear, but I have restored the contribution by User: because I was easily able to find several references for the mondegreen example they were trying to document, and it's a unique mondegreen in that a song title is misheard as an artist's name + strange song title. Wright's original definition of the term 'mondegreen' when she coined it included the point that a mondegreen is significant because it's better than the original, which this example seems to be. Hence, it is worthy of inclusion in this article because it certainly is "better" than the original if "more entertaining" counts as "better". Obviously the community can decide if this example is worth of inclusion; I felt that the original contribution was simply not clear as contributed, which led to it being reverted. IMO, reverting the contribution was hasty, but it was done in good faith (just as it was contributed) and I know this article is regularly flooded with examples. Thanks! Hananekosan (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for verified examples?[edit]

Since this article is regularly updated with examples, I'm wondering if we shouldn't consider creating a separate article that lists examples? Obviously, the point of this article is to describe what a mondegreen is, and including some examples helps in that description, but too many examples would weigh down the article. There are many other topics in Wikipedia that are "lists," so would it be reasonable to also have a list of mondegreens as well? Obviously any such list would need to adhere to some of the terms regarding examples that have already been discussed on this talk page (the examples should be verifiable and include citations; they should be notable; the list need not be exhaustive; the list certainly would not be a place for everyone to list every mondegreen occurrence they've ever had/heard of/been witness to). This is not something I feel strongly about nor am pushing for, but it could be a way to keep this article from getting bogged down by examples. Hananekosan (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

While a seperate "List of " article would help keep this article page from being overloaded with listcruft, I do not really see the encyclopedic value of a "List of mondegreens" article. Or am I missing something? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Point taken, and it would be interesting but, upon further consideration, I agree that it's not in the top 10% of lists that would have overwhelming encyclopedic value. ;) Then again, we have many other lists that could be seen the same way, so perhaps we should keep the idea in mind should the need and value become obvious in future. Hananekosan (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


See also oronym. If anyone can tell them apart, please explain it to me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mondegreens are unintentional mishearings from the listener. It seems to me oronyms are intentional sound-alikes from the speaker. --Kjoonlee 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've only learned the word "oronym" just now, so please take my opinion with a pinch of salt. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 10:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, and, it seems to me, no different that the 'deliberate mondegreen' in the article. (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Eric
I have just found a piece of paper in my own hand of a decade or so ago, with mondigreen [sic] and cochran written on it. The only explanation of the latter offered by this piece of paper is 'veiled as mondegreen'. I've searched online for this word (and all the ways in I can think it might actually be spelled - ie all permutations of co + c/ch/ck + r + a/ai/ei/ay/ey + n/ne) but can find no trace. Does anyone know what word I meant to make a note of, and what it means, please?! I imagine it's of no greater significance to the article other than as a synonym for either reverse or deliberate mondegreen etc, but I'd jolly well like to know. It is most likely I made this note from a BBC Radio 4 programme, or whilst at college (UK). Here's hoping! Gandru (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

French Erotic Film/Opblaaskrokodil[edit]

I think way back the first time I hit this page, it was from Gringo (green grows the grass) but that's gone... and I could have sworn I found the Animutation French Erotic Film here as well... it's a deliberate mondegreen of Dutch to strange English, but mondegreen it is. (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't list every reported mondegreen, especially if you start including mondegreens from other languages, or the article would sink into a morass of unsubstantiated trivia. That raises a question of which mondegreen(s) should be listed, of course- but dealing with that sort of uncertainty is what makes wikipedia such a delight! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

{{tooshort}} tag[edit]

The lede of an article is supposed to be an adequate summary of its key points, not just an introduction to it. Right now this isn't a very full article anyway (consisting as it does of little more than a series of examples), but the lede should still contain a brief summary of how the term was coined, how it varies from similar notions, and probably also a little about how the phenomenon is occasionally used deliberately. This is all drawn from WP:LEDE, which is linked from the cleanup tag which was just removed. Until such point as that work has been done, a cleanup tag will help to get it fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is supposed to be a summary of key points - I'm not sure that I agree with your argument that history, similar terms, and that it is used deliberately (can we even source that very well? we have two examples, in which the sources don't use the word "mondegreen") are key points. It appears to me that the key point is "what is a mondegreen" and that is indeed summarized in the lead. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It rather seems that you're trying to imply that the subject has no real importance beyond its existence, and the examples that consist of it. In that case we really don't need an article on it at all. Assuming that there is some value to having an encyclopedia article on the subject, all of those things (which connote real-world notability) are of importance to the article. That they are presently given little attention in the article is because the article isn't very good right now IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm asking what "key" components are there which are even sourced? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope the tag was removed because no Talk page discussion was instigated - a tag without any Talk justification deserves to be removed, because then it's just drive-by tagging. Now you do have a discussion started, and I agree with you; the introduction should be more than the one sentence. Writing that better intro is the next job. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. That's why I removed the tag with a request for discussion in the edit summary. As you agree with Thumperwad, perhaps you could take a look and say waht you think should be in the intro which is not, and which we can properly source? Unfortunately, the article is example heavy and somewhat poorly sourced. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
DavidWBrooks's dislike of tags is a personal matter; there is no prohibition on tagging without discussion, drive-by or otherwise, and it is only frowned upon when it is used as a replacement for discussion. If things in the body need sourced then so be it, but working on the assumption that anything in the body which isn't referenced is inherently unimportant rather seems to be working backwards. In my experience, a good lede encourages the expansion of the body. Conversely, a lede which provides only the bare minimum of context (as this one presently does) provides no direction for growth and thus tends to remain inadequate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've made a very preliminary effort that will need work. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
An excellent start nonetheless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

F.U.C.K. me[edit]

If rendering Britney's lyrics "If u seek Amy" as "Fuck me" is a mishearing, then I'm Queen Ranavolona of Madagascar - you know, what with one rendering making grammatical sense and the other one not. The whole song's just a set-up for this. Not so much a mondegreen, more an extremely single entendre. :) Captain Pedant (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Does she mention Michael Hunt somewhere in there? :) And this is like with The Who's "My Generation", where they sing, "Why don't you all just fu-fu-fu-fu-fade away?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Bohemian Rhapsody has a line referring to thinking you could STONE me and spit in my eye, but it is misheard a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What did you mishear it as?--MightyJAK (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Stands[edit]

Many American schoolchildren mistake the line "for which it stands" in the Pledge of Allegiance for "for Richard Stands." I think this is a common enough mondegreen to be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs citation. DavidOaks (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not The Nine O'Clock News: Kinda Lingers[edit]

The lyrical refrain at the infinite coda to the comedy song by the "Not The Nine O'Clock News" team is shown by accompanying subtitles to be, "kinda lingers", whilst the cast are heard to repeat the phrase cunnilingus.Dubfeather (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Es are good[edit]

Ezer Goode. Ezer Goode. He's ebeneezer Goode. Remember that song by The Shamen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This one deserves a mention, I reckon. Jonthedrummer (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Paring the list[edit]

Additions made without citations are rightfully subject to deletion. But rather than subjective judgments of what's a minor example, why noyt consider separating out a list and keeping only, say, three top examples per genre. No one is forced to read such a list who does not wish to do so.μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean -- I think I did keep the top examples -- such judgments necessarily being somewhat subjective -- by keeping those that had the best sources (again subjective, but preferring mainstream print to blogs), and yes, arbitrarily limiting the number: the purpose of the list is illustration, not archive/catalogue. Let's reject the approach of "nobody has to read it" -- that's what produces endless trivia lists like the mention of every great dane in every cartoon, movie and Lady Gaga video at Great Dane. Moving away from mere trivia, the Urban Legend article's consensus was finally against a list of all UL's (even those with articles at Wikipedia) -- you might consider creating a list page, as was suggested there. Additionally, this article has long carried a notice warning about injudicious additions. How about you identify those you think are crucial? Do users really need the Rugrats and Simpsons items in order to grasp the concept, its subtleties and variations? Get some third-party consensus on the worthiness of a given item, and we'll keep the article focussed DavidOaks (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That something be truly crucial is not a WP policy - just your subjective judgment, no more weighty than than the opinion of the original contributing editor. Aa I said, feel free to delete all unreferenced examples. Then we can look at your reasons for deleting referenced ones.μηδείς (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Medeis, you're doing mass reverts -- in fact, did it twice -- encompassing other edits as well; this is really bad form, and it's getting close to edit warring. Please be selective, and moreover be mindful of WP:3RR. You've got wikipolicy precisely backwards -- note that the burden of proof is upon those wishing to include challenged material -- you have been asked twice to take this to the talk page and make a case for those items you feel advance understanding of the subject. It is not my job to supply refs or to explain the necessity of Rugrats references to clarify a literary form. Finally, observe that in fact the consensus thus far is for keeping the list trim -- have a look at the hidden comments. DO NOT restore these items without making a case for their importance, and ideally securing some additional support. It's how the process works, ok? DavidOaks (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you have not distinguished in your edit between referenced and non-referenced examples. As it stands your first edit summary was misleading, and I don't have the time today to do your work for you. Please simply remove only the unreferenced examples you want removed, and I will not revert you. Until then, I remind you of 3RR as well.μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some items from the lists, mostly unreferenced but a few that struck me as trivial, to try getting it down to manageable size. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to the cover of "Twisted" by Joni Mitchell. I could find no source that confirmed it was a misheard 'mondegreen' rather than a flubbed line by Mitchell. Also the original referenced webpage has been removed. It just doesn't seem to be notable. Tumacama (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ramona The Pest - The "Dawnzerly" Song[edit]

I remember reading Beverly Cleary's 1968 children's book "Ramona The Pest" as a child and being taken with the incident involving five year old Ramona's misunderstanding of the words for "The Star Spangled Banner." Instead of hearing "The dawn's early light," she hears "the dawnzerly light." She thinks it's funny and calls the song "The Dawnzerly Song." I'm going by 35 year old memories here. Perhaps someone more diligent can check this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[edit]

I'm adding "its a dog eat dog world" heard as "its a doggy dog world." Any one mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, it needs to be reliably sourced, per WP:RS and WP:V. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this[edit]

"Deck the Halls" is a traditional Yuletide and New Years' carol. The "TRA-LA-LA" refrains were most likely originally played on the harp. The tune is Welsh dating as far back as to the 1500s. In the eighteenth century Mozart used the tune to "Deck the Halls" for a violin and piano duet. The repeated "TRA-LA-LA" is from medieval ballads and used in Nos Gala.Many people believe the lyrics to be "fa-la-la" but this is not correct.Documents from medieval minstrels were discovered in an abbey in west England, claiming the lyrics to be "TRA-LA-LA" and not otherwise. Archaeologist Edward Clarkwell reported, "Deck the Halls is a famous christmas carol sung for hundreds of years and will be sung for hundreds more. It is a shame that the lyrics have been interpreted wrongly. Going out on the streets at Christmas it pains me to hear "fa-la-la" when it should be "TRA". The rest of the lyrics are American in origin dating from the nineteenth century.In 2011 Debby Ryan famously recorded her legendary cover of the track, which is the version that we know and love today. Unfortunately she sings the lyrics "fa-la-la," which as we know are incorrect. This led a court case and a fine of over a thousand dollars.

This is the entire text of a new article I came across just now. Usable? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting bit of musical history (I, for one, would be curious to learn more about how a Mondegreen that doesn't even involve words in the English language could trigger a lawsuit). I don't think it adds to the readers' understanding of Mondegreens. I suggest you add it the article on "Deck the Halls". Bloody Viking (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - but it needs a source. Just pasting that text into the article isn't good enough. And what the heck is that about a "legendary cover" that just occurred this year? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Not all changes in the lyrics to songs are "mondegreens". If you have a reliable source for all this, you may want to see how you can add it to the Deck the Halls article. The contribution also needs to be more WP:NPOV -- rather than saying that 'fa' is "incorrect", it would be better to document when the 'fa' variant started and perhaps who uses it (US vs. UK? or whatever). Anyway, if all the rest of the lyrics are 19th century American, why would one expect the refrain to remain the same? --Macrakis (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that most, if not all of the lyrics given over the years for Boston Charlie (in Pogo) are Mondegreens. (e.g., "Deck us all with Boston Charlie, Walla Walla, Wash and Kalamazoo!"JDZeff (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Skyrim Main Theme[edit]

This was probably intentional but the lyrics for the Theme in the videogame The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim is also a Mondegreen. The original lyrics are in the fantasy Nordic language as

Dovahkiin! Dovahkiin! Naal ok zin los vahriin! Wah dein vokul mahfaeraak ahst vaal! Ahrk fin norok paal graan! Fod nust hon zindro zaan! Dovahkiin Fah hin kogaan mu draal!

However it is also heard as this:

For the king! For the king! For the sake of Skyrim! For our land, for our home, for Hrothgar's Blood. For the Nords, for the Gods, for the sole single son, Dovakhiin, our king, who will dawn in fire! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Elton John material[edit]

I removed the Bennie and the Jets reference on the following grounds:

The Bernie Taupin/Elton John song "Bennie and the Jets" contains the line "She's got electric boots, a mohair suit" which is often misheard as "She's got electric boobs, and mohair shoes".[24] A scene in the film 27 Dresses shows that this is but one of many mondegreens that listeners have invented for this song.[25]

No evidence for "often misheard". Source is an opinionated blog from a non-notable source out of the field of study. It actually states:

Implausible or ridiculous or silly, something about these things just tickles me. Here are some more. Bennie and the Jets: “She’s got electric boots, a mohair suit.” mondegreen: “She’s got electric boobs, and mohair shoes.”

There is no evidence for often misheard, nor is this stated in the reference material either.

A scene in the film 27 Dresses shows that this is but one of many mondegreens that listeners have invented for this song.

This seems like original research/supposition. The evidence is a film clip on YouTube which only shows the comedic effect of a scriptwriter.

Please feel free to reinstate if you can produce better verification of the material.

Candy (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

hidden mondegreens by terry pratchett[edit]

I didn't edit this in directly, because currently only mondegreen-titles are listed, but I think Terry Pratchetts The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic should be named, because they contain a large amount of intentual (albeit hidden) Mondegreens. In them, the "tourist" character Twoflower regularly uses complex phrases toward foreign people, however instead of the actual phrase he always "translates" a mondegreen. For example: For financial aspects the phrase "hollow sound under the earth spirits" is used, a pun based on "echo-gnome-ics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting use of language, but it wouldn't be an example of a mondegreen. Mondegreens are unintentional mishearings, whereas the homophonic phrases which Pratchett uses to create his "hidden meaning" phrases are intentional. They are actually closer to eggcorns than mondegreens. Bloody Viking (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Catcher in the Rye…[edit]

The example from Catcher in the Rye isn’t a Mondegreen, merely a mis-remembering of the song’s actual words. To be a mondegreen, the replacement words or lyrics must surely sound like the originals homophonically (and the lady who coined the term also suggetsed that the new ones should ideally be better/ funnier than the original); replacing “meet” with “catch” surely doesn’t qualify? Jock123 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is full of items that aren't really mondegreens. Childish gags and puns using intentionally altered lyrics aren't mondegreens. Not every misquotation of a song is a mondegreen. But that won't prevent this article from being inundated with this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I Want to Hold Your Hand[edit]

Famously, before ever meeting them, Bob Dylan believed the members of the Beatles were into pot smoking based on mishearing the lyric "I can't hide... I can't hide... I can't hide..." as "I get high, I get high, I get high." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

First citation link does not seem to exist any more[edit]

Following the link in the first citation, " "Mondegreens" - Commonly Misheard Song Lyrics" just takes you to the Yahoo! front page, so it seems pretty clear the original page does not exist any more. Perhaps someone can either find an archived copy? Magidin (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)