Malapropism

Josh Lalonde   Sat May 05, 2007 3:36 am GMT
Malapropisms can be regarded as mistakes if the variety you're trying to speak is some standard form that doesn't (yet) accept it. I had a friend who always said 'just' for 'gist' as in "I get the gist of it." Obviously in any Standard English context this is a mistake, yet if it became common enough that people didn't notice it, then it no longer would be. This is basically the process that has occurred with the who/whom distinction. While it would at one time have been a mistake to say "Who did you give it to?" it's now so widespread that it's accepted as standard. For non-standard varieties it's harder to say whether a particular usage is a mistake, since they aren't as codified. I think you would have to go by numbers with this: if a certain usage is accepted by a significant number of speakers, it can no longer be considered a mistake. I don't know what the "magic number" would be though.
Humble   Sat May 05, 2007 5:40 am GMT
I do not understand what malapropisms have in common with whom-who.

Collins: malapropism
1) the unintentional misuse of a word by confusion with one of similar sound, esp when creating a ridiculous effect, as in "I am not under the affluence of alcohol"
2) the habit of misusing words in this manner

In my understanding the word is very close to its roots - it denotes a mistake made by someone who's dying to look well-educated and important.
If the speaker has no intention to knock the listeners dead with his "literacy", it's just a slip in fact.
furrykef   Sat May 05, 2007 6:25 am GMT
> I do not understand what malapropisms have in common with whom-who.

Nothing, really, except we're trying to determine if native speakers can make "errors", and malapropisms are just one potential example. The point is that, at one time, confusing "who" and "whom" was indeed an error that no native English speaker would make, but now "who" is standard usage in almost all cases, though "whom" is usually an acceptable variant.

- Kef
Guest   Sat May 05, 2007 6:31 am GMT
"You" and "ye" is another example, although in that case the objective form replaced the subjective form. How did that happen? I wonder if some day people will go around saying "Me am." instead of "I am."
Liz   Sat May 05, 2007 2:48 pm GMT
<<I do not understand what malapropisms have in common with whom-who.>>

Nothing actually. The who/whom distinction doesn't really fit into the category of malapropism. However, language changes constantly, so it might happen that something that once counted as a malapropism becomes totally acceptable or even standard. That's what has happened to "who/whom", too.

<<In my understanding the word is very close to its roots - it denotes a mistake made by someone who's dying to look well-educated and important.
If the speaker has no intention to knock the listeners dead with his "literacy", it's just a slip in fact.>>

Yes, you are right in thinking that malapropims are usually made by those who are eager to sound educated and sophisticated but who aren't really in fact. But people don't always do it consciously. You might not think hard about what you say and especially how you say it, these words just slip out somehow. However, it isn't necessarily a slip of the tongue. As I said in one of my previous posts, you might not think that you don't use the word correctly as you have never seen it written down. As for me, I try not to use words which I haven't seen in the written form for the same reason.
Guest   Sat May 05, 2007 3:08 pm GMT
>> Malapropisms can be regarded as mistakes if the variety you're trying to speak is some standard form that doesn't (yet) accept it. I had a friend who always said 'just' for 'gist' as in "I get the gist of it.<<

Hmm. I don't git what you're trying to say. Gist /dZIst/ and just /dZIst/ sound the same to me. How do you pronounce them?
furrykef   Sat May 05, 2007 3:28 pm GMT
The standard pronunciation of "just" in the U.S. is with a schwa. I think I do tend to pronounce it /dZIst/ myself, though.
Sarcastic Northwesterner   Sat May 05, 2007 3:58 pm GMT
>> The standard pronunciation of "just" in the U.S. is with a schwa. I think I do tend to pronounce it /dZIst/ myself, though. <<

I disagree. I always pronounce it as /dZIst/ in this context (just as in only). I pronounce "just" (righteous) as /dZVst/.
Josh Lalonde   Sat May 05, 2007 5:32 pm GMT
<<Hmm. I don't git what you're trying to say. Gist /dZIst/ and just /dZIst/ sound the same to me. How do you pronounce them?>>
<<I disagree. I always pronounce it as /dZIst/ in this context (just as in only). I pronounce "just" (righteous) as /dZVst/.>>

This came up a few weeks ago. In my dialect, and many others, 'just' meaning 'only' is often unstressed and pronounced [dZIs] ([I] is my default reduced vowel), while 'just' meaning 'fair or righteous' is stressed and pronouced [dZVst]. In any case, 'gist' in "I get the gist of it," is stressed, so [I] and [V] can contrast. In my dialect, 'gist' is [dZIst] and stressed 'just' is [dZVst]. Pronouncing stressed 'just' with [I] is fairly common though in different parts of the US.
Lazar   Sat May 05, 2007 5:41 pm GMT
I pronounce unstressed "just" as [dZ@s(t)] or [dZI\s(t)], although it's never quite [dZIs(t)] for me. Stressed "just", whether adjectival (as in "fair or righteous") or adverbial (as in emphatic "Just a minute!"), I pronounce ["dZVst].