Talk:Hypercorrection

message: I just removed the following part:
"The words 'och' (and) and 'att' (to) can both be pronounced  in spoken language, which can lead to speakers mistakenly replacing 'att' with 'och' in some situations: "Det ska bli kul och göra" – 'That will be fun and do'."
While what the sentence says is correct, I removed it because it is not a hypercorrection but just a simple language error.
--Jhertel (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish 

message: As this is a somewhat pedantic and contentious subject with variation between different dialects, I think we should only have examples that are supported with high quality sources, otherwise the article becomes a home for everybody's pet hate, whether it is correct or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantic subject requires high quality sources. 

message: In most Spanish-speaking countries, the V and B have exactly the same sound.  But because people learning Spanish insist on adding a fricative to their Vs, natives studying English absorb the same into their Spanish.  More than that, quite often you'll hear people adding that fricative to their Bs.  For example, Americans, refusing to say /bibir/ say /vivir/, then many Mexicans not only begin saying /vivir/, but /vivlia/ (for biblia). Any linguists want to pitch in a source for that, or simply edit it in to the Spanish section?--Mrcolj (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish V/B 

message: Hypercorrection is a term in Psychology as well as Linguistics. I am looking to add a section about what it means in Psychology.Jh470 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also at the top of the wiki page there is a link that says if you are looking for the psychological use then see Compensation (Psychology). Compensation is not the same as hypercorrection. I think it would be best to take to take out that link. Jh470 (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thank you. I will try to make a new page then. 12.46.79.4 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest to change the title to Hypercorrection (Linguistics) since there is a hypercorrection (psychology). This way both terms are equally weighted. Jh470 (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding hypercorrection section for psychology 

message: Currently, under personal pronouns, the page reads this:
:Jack Lynch, assistant professor of English at Rutgers University, says that correction of "me and you" to "you and I" as subject leads people to "internalize the rule that 'you and I' is somehow more proper, and they end up using it in places where they shouldn't – such as 'he gave it to you and I' when it should be 'he gave it to you and me.'"
:On the other hand, the linguists Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum claim that utterances such as "They invited Sandy and I" are "heard constantly in the conversation of people whose status as speakers of Standard English is clear"; and that "Those who condemn it simply assume that the case of a pronoun in a coordination must be the same as when it stands alone. Actual usage is in conflict with this assumption."
However, in English, the case of a pronoun in a coordination is the same as when it stands alone.  Although some professional speakers might say, "They invited Sandy and I", they are still human.  And to err is human.  Furthermore, if professional speakers sometimes use this form, that only means it is becoming acceptable.  Another example is split infinitives.  Take the following for instance: "Try to not do that."  This may be acceptable, but it is still grammatically incorrect.  The correct sentence is as follows: "Try not to do that."  And as one more note, the English professor is the one that argued against such usage of "They invited Sandy and I."  The linguistics argued for it.  If either one of the two groups would know the correct grammar, it would be the English professor.  Over and out.74.102.216.186 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  On a very technical note, when you say "the case of a pronoun in a coordination is the same as when it stands alone" you are using the term case not entirely the way a professional linguist would. The use of a different case form when the pronoun occurs in coordination is just the matter at hand. What you are saying is that the grammatical role of me in he gave it to me is no different from the grammatical role of John and me in he gave it to John and me which is true. It is also true that English normally uses pronoun cases to mark just these grammatical roles. But what Pullum c.s are claiming is precisely that this is changing: acceptance of different morphology in coordinated position would imply a novel syntax rule, where declension is apparently used to mark for something else than grammatical role. Exactly what for is the intriguing question here. Why does "me" feel better to perfectly competent native speakers? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

text: The use of "and I" where the grammatical case is oblique is a recent phenomenon and it is obviously a case of hypercorrection, i.e. people remember that something was up with "and me" and avoid it even when they do not need to. So the underlying cause is the use of "and me" when the case is nominative and the same speaker would always say "I" in a stand-alone, non-coordinated position. If we compare "Anna and I received heartwarming letters" and "Anna and me received heartwarming letters" is the distinction simply that the latter is grammatically incorrect, or is there a different shade of meaning ("and I": we both received distinct letters on possibly distinct subjects versus "and me": the letters were addressed to Anna and myself as a pair)?  2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Those who condemn it simply assume that the case of a pronoun in a coordination must be the same as when it stands alone." 

message: This is perhaps the best example of inappropriate synthesis and WP:OR I've come across anywhere in Wikipedia. It's a well-written, and quite fascinating article, but entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'm almost tempted to propose deletion. 62.245.143.18 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I just added the following hatnote (and another on a related page): 
"Overcompensation" redirects here. For compensation as psychological tactic, see Compensation (psychology).
The question arises whether overcompensation should point to the other place instead, which actually defines the term, whereas this article only manages one use in passing: 
Some older people, who grew up speaking nothing but their dialect, are unaware that there is a difference between 'g', 'ch' and 'h' altogether and trying to 'mimic' Dutch, they often overcompensate and pronounce every word they would normally pronounce with a 'h'-sound as a 'g'.
For myself, overcompensation has always meant the other thing to begin with. — MaxEnt 20:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcompensation redirect 

message: I was surprised not to find "who" and "whom" among the English examples.  Overuse of "whom" seems to be a very common hypercorrection. JMT32 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who vs. Whom 

message: The article states: "An example [...] is the use of octopi for the plural of octopus in English; this is based on the faulty assumption that octopus is a second declension word of Latin origin when in fact it is third declension and comes from Greek."
I don't doubt that this is correct; however the link for "third declension" goes to a page about Latin declension.  Should this instead be a link to a page about Ancient Greek declension - such as: Ancient_Greek_nouns#Third_declension? Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having heard any response, I went ahead and made this change.  (If this is wrong, however, feel free to change it back.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

text: The normal plural octopuses is always available, of course. Early proto-indoeuropean languages added -s to everything, even the plural declension was initially just the singular declension with -s added. The more baroque systems of Latin and Greek evolved from this. Octopus is Latin, by the way, a loanword from the Greek octopous. Both had nominative plural octopodes in our transliteration.
The plural of rhinoceros is rhinocerotes. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to "third declension" in the "octopi" example 

message: Consider incorporating something about the very common over-usage of "myself" instead of "I" when people are trying to sound more formal. Example: "John and myself will lead this initiative". (Reference)
:I agree.  Why don't you add this to the article yourself? Anyone can be an editor. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspicuously missing "myself" hypercorrection 

message: As the L sound does not exist in Japanese, Japanese people learning and speaking foreign languages may hypercorrect the Ls and say the Rs instead. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  R / L in Japanese 

message: I don't see why we should give benefit of the doubt the all the WP:OR that was in the article. Some of it was even asking (via the use of wikitext comments, ) for other editors to add their personal opinions on the matter. WP:V is very clear in either case, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if a section has been tagged as unreferenced for 3 years, you kind of have the right to delete it. It's a pity though, because many of the deleted statements are probably true or at least partly so. We can all agree that deleting in WP is very easy, while looking for good sources is much more difficult and time-consuming. --Jotamar (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OR 

message: "Those who condemn it simply assume that the case of a pronoun in a coordination must be the same as when it stands alone. Actual usage is in conflict with this assumption."
That is fine, but in dative or accusative position this usage is immediately rooted in hypercorrection, stemming from the perceived error of "you and me" in nominative (subject) position. Since incorrect "you and me" is the older one, the question ought to be what compels people to use "me" in coordinated subject position - which does often sound more natural (unlike dative/accusative "you and I" which is a bit jarring). The underlying mechanism appears to be (i) one of politeness. In "John and me" I de-emphasise myself and make John the most important character, and this holds up even when I rudely mention myself first, as in "Me and John couldn't find any." and / or (ii) a grouping effect: "John and me" signals that it is the pair of us that, as a single entity, serves as the grammatical subject. Thus the nuance of "John and me found that strange" is that we responded together, whereas "John and I found that strange" implies that initially we responded similarly but independently and perhaps compared notes later.
Also possibly relevant are phrases such as "It's only me" and "Who else but lil' ol' me?" - here we clearly have the grammatical role that would normally trigger the nominative case but virtually all native speakers would agree that "I" sounds odd in these phrases and "me" perfectly normal. Interestingly, in the first example the "grammatically correct" I now smacks of hypercorrection, whereas "lil' ol' I" changes a standing idiom, which a native speaker would only do in jest. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D816:867D:55D1:6622 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  you and me 

message: Under the heading Personal Pronouns, the meaning of the second paragraph is unclear.  Does it mean to say that "Sandy and I" or "Sandy and me" (my choice) is correct?
Rick Bellamy (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Under traditional grammar rules, "Sandy and I" is correct as the subject of a verb (or in isolation), while "Sandy and me" is correct as the object of a verb or preposition.  Many people say "me and Sandy" in both subject and object position in their casual spoken language, so when they correct (when attempting more formal speech styles) they overcorrect, replacing "me" with "I" even in object position, where it doesn't belong according to traditional grammar rules.  Pullum is questioning whether such traditional grammar rules even make any sense for English (as opposed to Latin).   Very few people say theoretically correct "It's I", instead of "It's me"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning unclear