strum up support

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:

> I was curious what the preferred version might be, so I found the
> entry
> at http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/928/strum-up/, where it says
> that "drum up" is considered correct.
>
> I don't think that's enough to make me stop using "strum up,"
> though. Is
> there a specific reason why strum up support is dispreferred? It's
> still
> using a musical instrument and it sounds better since it employs
> alliteration..

one of the things that makes eggcorns so interesting is the fact that
the clear examples *make sense* (to at least some people), so that
people are willing to defend their versions.  but the fact is that
their versions are not the ones that most other people use.  that is,
the reason that X is dispreferred is just that most other people use
something other than X.  there's nothing especially deep going on here.

when you use an eggcorn, various things can happen: the people you're
talking to might share the eggcorn, so there's no problem; they might
silently and unconsciously "correct" it (in effect, "hearing" their
usage instead of yours); they might take you to be being playful or
creative with language; they might balk at it for a moment and then
work out what you're trying to say, perhaps putting your usage down to
a dialect difference, or perhaps judging your usage to be simply
incorrect; or they might grind to an uncomprehending halt
(fortunately, this last possibility seems to be pretty rare).

a larger point: prescriptivists are often unwilling to just say that
some usages are non-standard and others standard; instead they go on
to offer *rationales* for these proscriptions and prescriptions (in
terms of "logic", general principles like Omit Needless Words, and so
on).  that is, they maintain that standard and non-standard usages are
distinguished by their intrinsic worth.  and many people believe that,
so they expect that there will be *reasons* for preferences and
dispreferences in usage (reasons aside from the kind of people who use
particular usages, in what contexts, and for what purposes), and they
aren't happy to be told that things just are as they are.

this expectation can lead to some odd consequences.  many of my
Language Log postings concern usages that are reasonably widespread
but non-standard, and i take care to point that out.  i then get a
certain amount of mail from people who object to my labeling these
usages non-standard -- after all, they're "logical" and regular and
all that good stuff, so why do i say they aren't standard?

case in point: some time ago, i posted on Language Log on some facts
about reflexive pronouns in english.  along the way, i mentioned the
non-standard "themself" as the reflexive for "singular "they""; the
non-standard "theirselves" for the 3rd pl reflexive in general; and
the doubly non-standard "theirself".  letters came in from puzzled
readers, pointing out that the "selves" of "themselves" was illogical
when used for reference to one person, and that the "them" of
"themselves" (and the "him" of "himself") was irregular, given the
pattern of the other reflexive pronouns.  that is, they reasoned
(implicitly) that if the standard language has the virtues of being
logical, regular, etc., "themself", "theirselves", and indeed
"theirself" should be standard.

they were not happy to be told that things are as they are, that the
standard language is shot through with irregularities and oddities,
and that non-standard varieties routinely differ from the standard by
being more "logical", regular, etc.

along these lines, people are not happy to be told that their eggcorns
are mistakes.  after all, they make more sense than the standard
variants.

arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org