Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Come on, ROC! Wth.

 

@thadbrown7: Bon Jovi was played bt innings of Wings game where Sammy Watkins threw 1st pitch. Not a single boo. Sammy was still signing autographs tho

Posted

Champing.

OK, I'll bite. I just had to look this up.

 

http://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/

 

The idiom is usually written chomping at the bit, and some people consider this spelling wrong. But chomp can also mean to bite or chew noisily (though chomped things are often eaten, while champed things are not), so chomp at the bit means roughly the same as champ at the bit.

 

 

I like the English language, and try to use it correctly. I can appreciate your need to correct the poster's usage.

 

Oddly enough, both champing and chomping are correct, just slightly different.

Posted (edited)

OK, I'll bite. I just had to look this up.

 

http://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/

 

The idiom is usually written chomping at the bit, and some people consider this spelling wrong. But chomp can also mean to bite or chew noisily (though chomped things are often eaten, while champed things are not), so chomp at the bit means roughly the same as champ at the bit.

 

 

I like the English language, and try to use it correctly. I can appreciate your need to correct the poster's usage.

 

Oddly enough, both champing and chomping are correct, just slightly different.

 

They are not the same and both are not correct. Champing at the bit is the correct usage. Chomping at the bit only became accepted because people didn't know the difference (like the fact "literally" now has a second meaning in the oed). Champing at the bit is the only correct usage.

 

 

(But your first sentence in this had me laughing. Very puny and well done)

Edited by GreggyT
Posted (edited)

They are not the same and both are not correct. Champing at the bit is the correct usage. Chomping at the bit only became accepted because people didn't know the difference (like the fact "literally" now has a second meaning in the oed). Champing at the bit is the only correct usage.

 

 

(But your first sentence in this had me laughing. Very puny and well done)

 

OED says you're wrong and have been since 1645. That's a long time to be wrong.

 

1645 J. Howell Epistolæ Ho-elianæ i. xi. 22 The Cittadell here,..serves as a shrew'd Curb unto her [sc. the town], which makes her often Chomp upon the Bit.

1937 Salamanca (N.Y.) Republican-Press 4 June 8/4 (caption) Apparently very dejected but perhaps merely ‘chomping at the bit’ because of his suspension,..Dizzy Dean, star St. Louis Cardinal pitcher, is shown as he sat in the stands.

1958 S. Hoig Humor Amer. Cowboy (1970) i. 33 The old man was chomping at the bit to be off, so they hit the trail with the herd.

1992 MacUser 17 Apr. 5/2 Having seen prototype RISC-Mac, I think it's safe to say that you'll all be chomping at the bit.

 

And I think you meant 'punny'

 

Characterized by or favouring puns or punning; consisting of or containing a pun or puns.

 

and not 'puny' which is an adjective applied to something small, insignificant, or junior in rank.

 

I can do pedantry with the best of them. Or worst, depending on which way you're looking.

 

kj

Edited by l< j
Posted

They are not the same and both are not correct. Champing at the bit is the correct usage. Chomping at the bit only became accepted because people didn't know the difference (like the fact "literally" now has a second meaning in the oed). Champing at the bit is the only correct usage.

 

 

(But your first sentence in this had me laughing. Very puny and well done)

Yup. And horses don't really chomp at the bit when they are champing or chomping at the bit, they are champing because of how they chew, so they never really chomp at the bit.

 

They do, however, chomp at the hair.

 

OED says you're wrong and have been since 1645. That's a long time to be wrong.

kj

Actually, that only means other writers and layman have been wrong since 1645. Champing has been around since the 1300s. The first known use of chomp as a bastardization of champ was in 1581.

Posted (edited)

OK, I'll bite. I just had to look this up.

 

http://grammarist.co...ing-at-the-bit/

 

The idiom is usually written chomping at the bit, and some people consider this spelling wrong. But chomp can also mean to bite or chew noisily (though chomped things are often eaten, while champed things are not), so chomp at the bit means roughly the same as champ at the bit.

 

 

I like the English language, and try to use it correctly. I can appreciate your need to correct the poster's usage.

 

Oddly enough, both champing and chomping are correct, just slightly different.

They are not the same and both are not correct. Champing at the bit is the correct usage. Chomping at the bit only became accepted because people didn't know the difference (like the fact "literally" now has a second meaning in the oed). Champing at the bit is the only correct usage.

 

 

(But your first sentence in this had me laughing. Very puny and well done)

OED says you're wrong and have been since 1645. That's a long time to be wrong.

 

 

 

And I think you meant 'punny'

 

 

 

and not 'puny' which is an adjective applied to something small, insignificant, or junior in rank.

 

I can do pedantry with the best of them. Or worst, depending on which way you're looking.

 

kj

Yup. And horses don't really chomp at the bit when they are champing or chomping at the bit, they are champing because of how they chew, so they never really chomp at the bit.

 

They do, however, chomp at the hair.

https://www.facebook...804997802878335

 

 

Actually, that only means other writers and layman have been wrong since 1645. Champing has been around since the 1300s. The first known use of chomp as a bastardization of champ was in 1581.

I'm sorry I thought this was the training camp thread. The regular season can't get here soon enough it has me champing...errr chomping at the bit...wait is that right? :rolleyes: Edited by LOVEMESOMEBILLS
Posted

 

Actually, that only means other writers and layman have been wrong since 1645. Champing has been around since the 1300s. The first known use of chomp as a bastardization of champ was in 1581.

 

That's a long time to be a bastard. While it is true that chomp comes after champ (by less than 100 years, in the OED entries I looked at), as it all occurred before the standardization of English spelling, I am not sure it should be considered a bastardization.

 

kj

Posted

 

 

That's a long time to be a bastard. While it is true that chomp comes after champ (by less than 100 years, in the OED entries I looked at), as it all occurred before the standardization of English spelling, I am not sure it should be considered a bastardization.

 

kj

 

I'm not a grammar nazi, nor do I play one on TV, but right is right and wrong is wrong. When a professional writer tweets out "chomping at the bit", it's irksome and exactly how incorrect words become acceptable.

 

Posted

I'm not a grammar nazi, nor do I play one on TV, but right is right and wrong is wrong. When a professional writer tweets out "chomping at the bit", it's irksome and exactly how incorrect words become acceptable.

Yup. And horses don't really chomp at the bit when they are champing or chomping at the bit, they are champing because of how they chew, so they never really chomp at the bit.

 

They do, however, chomp at the hair.

https://www.facebook...804997802878335

 

 

Actually, that only means other writers and layman have been wrong since 1645. Champing has been around since the 1300s. The first known use of chomp as a bastardization of champ was in 1581.

 

I'm not a grammar nazi, nor do I play one on TV, but right is right and wrong is wrong. When a professional writer tweets out "chomping at the bit", it's irksome and exactly how incorrect words become acceptable.

 

The thread seems to have been hijacked, which I don't like, but I will give in and make it worse. Sorry everybody. I am not a grammar nazi, but I do think I have a solid grasp of the language. According to statistics, better than average (that might be sad for the stats). Why can't language evolve. Everything else does, and does so with gusto. Why does language have to play by the rules of the 1500's. Wrong is wrong and right is right, until things evolve, and then we accept that.

×
×
  • Create New...