Get this thing out of my mouth.
Dear Word Detective: I have always maintained that the phrase for being in a hurry is “…champing at the bit.” I am in the minority, however, since everyone I know says “chomping.” Of course, these are the same people who may cite this clarification as a “mute point” rather than “moot,” but I am always trying to educate them. Can I have your assistance? — Anita.
“To champ at the bit” is a metaphor meaning “to be very eager to get started” on a task or enterprise (“The new owners were champing at the bit to cut employee benefits”). The “bit” in question is the metal bar in a bridle that goes inside the horse’s mouth, and the analogy of “champing at the bit” is to a racehorse at the starting line excitedly chewing on its bit in visible eagerness to begin a race.
While one of those horses will win the race and become the “champion” (at least for a few minutes), the shortened form of that word, “champ,” is unrelated to the bite sort of “champ.” “Champion” is from the Latin “campio,” meaning “combatant,” based on “campus,” or “field,” in this case a battlefield.
But the sort of “champ” that horses do is almost certainly onomatopoeic or “echoic” in origin, meaning that “champ” arose as an imitation of the sound of an animal noisily chewing something. “Champ” is a fairly recent word, dating only to the 16th century, and “champ at the bit” applied figuratively to eager humans is even more recent, first appearing at the end of the 19th century. “Chomp,” incidentally, is simply a popular variant of “champ” (much as “stamp” begat “stomp”), so while “champing at the bit” is the more established form, “chomping at the bit” can’t really be said to be incorrect.
You’re on more solid ground in your rejection of “mute point.” “Moot” was originally a legal term applied to a hypothetical debate (as in “moot court,” where law students practice effective argument), and a “moot point” was originally one well-suited to such lively practice debates. But as hypothetical debates by definition have no real-world consequences, “moot” has gradually come to mean “irrelevant.” “Mute” has nothing to do with either meaning of “moot,” and “mute point” really doesn’t make any sense. It’s a case of people substituting a word they know (“mute”) for an unfamiliar one (“moot”), a process known as “folk etymology.” It’s a very common process in the evolution of language, so brace yourself. Like it or not, if enough people start saying “mute point,” it will eventually become the standard form.
Am I correct in thinking that using “mute point” instead of “moot point” is an example of an “eggcorn”?
Yes, yes you are.
Kaa, Mute point is an example of a malapropism, not an eggcorn.
I know it’s “moot”, but don’t say “mute” doesn’t make sense because it most certainly does. Most people do use the term incorrectly as it was coined many years ago, but then again most people don’t use the term in a legal sense. They use the term to mean that a point is or should be silent or unrecognized…or mute. Makes sense to me at least to some degree. Maybe “mute” will be the alternative in non-legal context.
No, to say it is a moot point has absolutely nothing to do with “mute.” It’s not “silent” or “unrecognized”; it’s hypothetical. There are dictionaries out there if you need a reference.
The person who thinks she is better than everyone else lacks imagination,creativity.Never can be a contruction worker.
Darn! I’m very disappointed that “chomping” can’t be said to be incorrect, as I so wanted to correct a certain person. In fact, I was champing at the bit to correct her!
Go ahead, correct her! I don’t buy into this new practice of changing the English language to accommodate those who butcher it. Shouldn’t people try to achieve higher standards, rather than lowering them to make everything easier?
Well, you’ll be happy to know that you’re holding the same opinions as Jonathan Swift and some other ancient great. You might be less happy to know that many of the words and terms that they objected to as ‘butchering’ are nowcommon usage. Unless you still say, for example, ‘mobile vulgas’ instead of ‘mob’, or have any objection to ‘banter’ or ‘bamboozle’.
Language changes. This is what language does – the only languages that do not change are dead ones. And language has different registers, too, which mean that sa person speaking or writing in a sub-standard way, in a place where standard or ‘higher’ registers are expected will be recognised and judged for it.
As for ‘champing’ and ‘chomping’ specifically, perhaps it’s because I’m not a native speaker, but the distinction seems incredibly petty. Both are onomatopoeic in origin (echoing the sound of eager biting), and both have the exact same meaning. What on earth can make ‘champing at the bit’ more apt or correct than ‘chomping at the bit’, when both verbs are not only almost the same phonetically, but even mean the same thing? Just because it first appeared as ‘champing’? This is silly.
Quick errata:
* ‘some ancient greats’ (instead of ‘great’)
* ‘a person speaking’ (instead of ‘sa person’)
So, all in all, one missing S and one superfluous S – so it all balances out, in a way.
Although chomping at the bit has sadly become an acceptable alternative, I still view it as a bastardization of the languange and continue to champion the cause of the original and more correct champing at the bit.
I’m with you Julez, as a former race horse owner and fan I correct everyone who improperly uses the term…with zeal, I might add!
Irregardless, I fear my points may be mute! For example, recently speaking with someone about these types of things, he said, “I feel as though my head is literally going to explode.” Of course, I ended the conversation quickly in fear of his life and a nasty mess in Starbucks!!
:)
This from someone who uses the word “irregardless”?
Since the prefix ir- means “not” and the suffix -less means “without,” irregardless is a double negative and therefore would be expected to have the meaning “with regard to.”
irregard = not having regard
regardless = without regard
irregardless = without the lack of regard = having regard
Actually, irregardless is a portmanteau of “irrespective and regardless,” a common phrase 100 years ago when irregardless first appeared in the English language.
I’m “chomping” at the bit to highlight Ralphy’s use of “irregardless”, but I don’t want to make a “mute” point.
To say that “Languages that o not change are dead ones” is erroneous. Language is constantly changing. However the change occurs at the level of new words, not incorrect usage. Disirregardless of this fact, Those who do not want to hold language to a higher standard of correctness, need not do so. However, you then give us permission to shamelessly make fun of your badly speech and language skills. Wears my red pen? heh-heh