Is there such a phenomenon as "undercorrection/hypocorrection?

[Mark A. Mandel]

dInIs writes:
   >>>>>
Note that all so-called set phrases all obey the stress rule -
a-fuedin and a fussin, a fussin and a-fighten, a screamin and a
-hollerin, etc, etc. But a-drinkin and a-dancin are good (and not
set), but

a-fussin and a-arguin (no a-prefixin before vowels)

and

a-walking and a-peraumblulatin (no a-prexin before weakly stressed
syllables)

ainp;t worth a crap.
 <<<<<

A-talkin and a-writin and a-prefixin, ain't we?

And Matthew Gordon writes:
   >>>>>
OK, but if the man was motivated, as Wilson suggested, by trying to
standard up his speech for the judge, why go vernacular? What I was
suggesting was that he was reinterpreting "whose" as a contraction
(who's) and uncontracting in deference to the formality of the situation
or to his addressee. As we all know, contractions are a sign of laziness
so he'd want to avoid them here.
 <<<<<

Irrelevant to your argument, a point on terminology: That's not a
contraction. The first word of "Mommy's home!" is a contraction for "Mommy
is", but the homographous first word of "Mommy's car" is the possessive form
of "Mommy", and not a contraction of anything. Ditto for "who's there?" and
"whose/who's car?".

-- Mark
[This text prepared with Dragon NaturallySpeaking.]