Talk:Mondegreen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paring the list[edit]

Additions made without citations are rightfully subject to deletion. But rather than subjective judgments of what's a minor example, why noyt consider separating out a list and keeping only, say, three top examples per genre. No one is forced to read such a list who does not wish to do so.μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean -- I think I did keep the top examples -- such judgments necessarily being somewhat subjective -- by keeping those that had the best sources (again subjective, but preferring mainstream print to blogs), and yes, arbitrarily limiting the number: the purpose of the list is illustration, not archive/catalogue. Let's reject the approach of "nobody has to read it" -- that's what produces endless trivia lists like the mention of every great dane in every cartoon, movie and Lady Gaga video at Great Dane. Moving away from mere trivia, the Urban Legend article's consensus was finally against a list of all UL's (even those with articles at Wikipedia) -- you might consider creating a list page, as was suggested there. Additionally, this article has long carried a notice warning about injudicious additions. How about you identify those you think are crucial? Do users really need the Rugrats and Simpsons items in order to grasp the concept, its subtleties and variations? Get some third-party consensus on the worthiness of a given item, and we'll keep the article focussed DavidOaks (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That something be truly crucial is not a WP policy - just your subjective judgment, no more weighty than than the opinion of the original contributing editor. Aa I said, feel free to delete all unreferenced examples. Then we can look at your reasons for deleting referenced ones.μηδείς (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, you're doing mass reverts -- in fact, did it twice -- encompassing other edits as well; this is really bad form, and it's getting close to edit warring. Please be selective, and moreover be mindful of WP:3RR. You've got wikipolicy precisely backwards -- note that the burden of proof is upon those wishing to include challenged material -- you have been asked twice to take this to the talk page and make a case for those items you feel advance understanding of the subject. It is not my job to supply refs or to explain the necessity of Rugrats references to clarify a literary form. Finally, observe that in fact the consensus thus far is for keeping the list trim -- have a look at the hidden comments. DO NOT restore these items without making a case for their importance, and ideally securing some additional support. It's how the process works, ok? DavidOaks (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that you have not distinguished in your edit between referenced and non-referenced examples. As it stands your first edit summary was misleading, and I don't have the time today to do your work for you. Please simply remove only the unreferenced examples you want removed, and I will not revert you. Until then, I remind you of 3RR as well.μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some items from the lists, mostly unreferenced but a few that struck me as trivial, to try getting it down to manageable size. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the reference to the cover of "Twisted" by Joni Mitchell. I could find no source that confirmed it was a misheard 'mondegreen' rather than a flubbed line by Mitchell. Also the original referenced webpage has been removed. It just doesn't seem to be notable. Tumacama (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think an earlier idea to have a separate page "List of Mondegreens" is a good one, as it would allow the main page to be pared down. Arrivisto (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First citation link does not seem to exist any more[edit]

Following the link in the first citation, " "Mondegreens" - Commonly Misheard Song Lyrics" just takes you to the Yahoo! front page, so it seems pretty clear the original page does not exist any more. Perhaps someone can either find an archived copy? Magidin (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More film mondegreens[edit]

I will leave it to more experienced Wikipedians than me to add these additional film mondegreens, if they qualify. (1) In "Mermaids", Winona Ryder's character Charlotte, a Jewish girl who wants to become a Catholic nun: "dominos and biscuits" instead of the latin "dominus vobiscum" ("the Lord be with you"). (2) In an Olympia Dukakis film (perhaps "Moonstruck" or "Cemetery Club"?), at an after-funeral reception, a few children are playing under a dining room table, and one says: "and lead us not into Penn Station" instead of "and lead us not into temptation" from the Lord's prayer. Peterpqa (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mondegreens[edit]

As I suggest above, I have created a new page, List of Mondegreens. I think it is appropriate to use the new page to list good examples, while pruning the main article. Arrivisto (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes, the modified version of a lyric becomes standard, as is the case with "The Twelve Days of Christmas"[edit]

I don't think the song can be said to have a "standard" version. In any case, the original words are still often used. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mondegreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mondegreen or Soramimi?[edit]

The last paragraph in the Non-English Language section is about Bikicsunáj, a Hungarian mishearing of the song "Big in Japan". My best guess is that this is a soramimi, not a mondegreen, as it was based on mishearing a lyric in another language. Comments on this? Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the English term for this phenomenon is mondegreen, regardless of the language being heard or the language it is misinterpreted in. Tayste (edits) 21:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The leads of both Mondegreen and Soramimi distinguish the two, and it seems a useful distinction to keep. The other examples in the Mondegreen#Non-English language section are all mishearings in the original language. Qwfp (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Louie[edit]

As we all know, the song examples section of this article can easily get out of hand. I have rearranged it a bit (putting the "standardized and recorded" variants in a separate subjection) and removed a couple of less important examples.

I suspect the most controversial removal (among American editors of a certain age, at least) will be Louie Louie, which I maintain is not a good example for this article because there's no single mondegreen attached to it. The lyrics were a mumbled mess and people misinterpreted them in many ways, but not with any single "wrapped up in a douche" kind of error. So I say it should be removed to make way for more clear-cut examples.

Others may disagree, which is why I removed it as a separate edit, different than the other edits I made to the subsection. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Mac[edit]

Someone add an example of Seven_Wonders_(song). Explanation in the second paragraph. Slamazzar (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch language example[edit]

Nederlandse Leeuw, thank you for adding the section on Dutch language. I have to say, though, that your example may not technically be a mondegreen; it may be a soramimi, as the verse you mention seems to be in a language from Cameroon (see Soul Makossa). Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mondegreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short Description[edit]

Today, March 5, has seen a short description added to this article, and then changed several times in attempts to improve it (see the article history).

  • First it was: "Confusing a prhase(sic) hesard(sic)".
  • Next: "Confusing a heard phrase with a similar-sounding one".
  • Then: "Confusing an overheard phrase with a similar-sounding one".
  • I have put in my two cents with: "A phrase that a listener hears, replacing the actual, similar-sounding spoken or sung phrase."

Some may argue that the mondegreen phrase (e.g. "'scuse me while I kiss this guy") is not actually heard, but others would argue that what is heard is not the raw sound phenomenon, but a string of words, the result of considerable processing by the human brain (see Steven Connor's discussion, referenced in the Psychology section of the article). "If a song is sung wrong in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a mondegreen?" (cf. If a tree falls in a forest)

I am of course, as a loyal drinker of the Wikipedia kool-aid, quite ready to entertain any improvements on this text. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could ditch the "actual" - that's a pretty long phrase for a short description! - but as the writer of one of the not-quite-right previous examples, it seems fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "actual" is important; see my latest mod. BTW, how is the short description actually used in WP? Paulmlieberman (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's mobile interface uses descriptions to augment searches, and the Wikipedia App also uses them below each article title." from WP:Short description - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Malentendu" is mentioned nowhere on this page, incredibly.

ConradArchguy (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

This paragraph was added but it's not clear what it means by saying that the use of the word has changed - "mondegreen" was coined specifically to meant exactly "a kind of mishearing" of (poem) lyrics that "resegmented" a word a phrase into an entirely different combinations of sounds. I've removed it but perhaps other disagree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term mondegreen has increasingly come to be used loosely to include all kinds of mishearings, especially of song lyrics. The original and rather narrower use of the term entailed a misanalysis of word junctures by a hearer, or what has been called a "junctural metanalysis":[13] i.e., a resegmentation of a word or phrase by a hearer into entirely different combinations of sounds and words than those intended by a speaker. Sometimes these misanalyses and resegmentations can even result in neologisms (new additions to a language's lexicon), such as the word mondegreen itself.'
I agree with David. It's not clear, it misguides the reader, and the sole reference is to a phenomenon, junctural metanalysis, which is vaguely related to, and may contribute to the invention of mondegreens, but is far from the total story of what a mondegreen is. Paulmlieberman (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation appears to be cut and pasted from p352 of Homer's Winged Words: The Evolution of Early Greek Epic Diction in the Light (2009) by John Rees (though the editor did not cite that source). It would be worth checking a print copy, as it does seem potentially interesting, though I agree that quoting the text without context is unclear. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for article improvement[edit]

I've been having a quick look at this with a view to improving it. I don't have time to do much at the moment but thought I'd just jot a few ideas down here in case anyone is able to get to it before I can.

  • The lead should be a summary of (and be consistent with) the main text. Here, the lead reads like an independent mini article, with various statements not repeated in the main text at all. And too much about what a mondegreen isn't.
  • Should start with a proper dictionary definition (eg OED), with citation. The article history shows that many editors confuse mishearing with mis-speaking (malapropism).
  • Could include more from Wright's two articles "The Death of Lady Mondegreen" and "The Quest of Lady Mondegreen".
  • Need a reliable source for the definition of "reverse mondegreen". I can't obviously see anything that supports the purported definition in the article.
  • Check potential sources cited in the OED:
  • 1957 Harper's Mag. Dec. 6/3 When I saw Sylvia Wright's lead paragraph on ompremity (October) I was afraid your penetrating exposer of mondegreens had lighted on it.
  • 1979 W. Safire in N.Y. Times Mag. 27 May 14/2 Thanks to responsive readers, I have a column on sound defects and a whole closetful of mondegreens.
  • 1994 S. Pinker Lang. Instinct vi. 186 The interesting thing about mondegreens is that the mis-hearings are generally less plausible than the intended lyrics.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelMaggs, I will start working on this. I want to use the OED definition, but one cannot access it w/o a subscription. Do you have access?
OED Word of the Day: mondegreen, n. A misunderstood word or phrase resulting from a mishearing, esp. of song lyrics. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paulmlieberman, thanks. Great to hear you're going to work on this! The OED online definition is almost exactly as you've quoted it, ie "A misunderstood or misinterpreted word or phrase resulting from a mishearing, esp. of the lyrics to a song." The entry includes this:
Etymology: the name Lady Mondegreen, a misinterpretation of the phrase laid him on the green in the ballad ‘The Bonny Earl of Murray’; coined by S. Wright (see quot. 1954), who introduces the misinterpreted phrase as follows:
1954 S. Wright in Harper's Mag. Nov. 48/1 When I was a child, my mother used to read aloud to me from Percy's Reliques, and one of my favorite poems began, as I remember: Ye Highlands and ye Lowlands, Oh, where hae ye been? They hae slain the Earl Amurray, And Lady Mondegreen.
It then lists the four sources given above. The URL is https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/251801, and the page states that "This is a new entry (OED Third Edition, September 2002)." Hope that helps, MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I, and most WP readers, can't access that URL, unless we have a library card (I have 3) for a library that has purchased an account (none of mine have). Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, which is why I've set out above all the information that the OED gives. That's all there is. I stated the URL so that you can, if you like, include it in a citation. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Michael, but a citation that most people can't actually access is of little use. I will look for another source.Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a tad confused now, as you started by saying "I want to use the OED definition", but now you say "a citation that most people can't actually access is of little use". No matter, anyway. Everyone has their own preferences about sources to use. My own, for what it's worth, is to prioritise highly reliable authoritative sources that might require a visit to a good library, over less good sources that are selected for availability of free online access. Of course, the ideal is to find a source that is both. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. If OED supplements are available in hard copy, a ref with a page number would be good. I don't even know if they do hard-copy anymore. I much prefer OED, but I suppose Merriam-Webster would be okay. Here's their on-line def: a word or phrase that results from a mishearing of something said or sung "very close veins" is a mondegreen for "varicose veins" Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples in songs[edit]

I just noticed that the bulk of the In Songs section was removed by an anonymous user in Oct. 2019. Given that most readers' experiences with mondegreens is in songs, I think this material is needed. I have restored it, and updated and added to the citations in the section. I think this is a good balance.Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Japanese eggs sample[edit]

I have removed this from the "Examples" section:

Japanese
The 2019 song Ryūgakusei (留学生) (Exchange Student) by pop-rock band Monkey Majik and singer Taiiku Okazaki is primarily sung in English, but also features Japanese lyrics, both sung and displayed as subtitles in the music video; these lyrics are very similar phonetically to the English lyrics. In this way, the song is both a traditional love ballad in English and the lament of a discouraged exchange student in Japanese. For example, the lines "You gotta stay / Hey, I need you here babe / I messed up, should've known last time I met ya" become "Ryūgakusei (留学生) / Heya nijyū heibei (部屋20平米) / Miso shiru nomitaiwa meccha (味噌汁飲みたいわめっちゃ)"[1] (meaning "Exchange student / My room is 20 square meters / I want to drink miso soup very much").

This song was purposefully written with different meanings in different languages, so it is not an example of a mondegreen, which is someone mishearing. --Atkinson (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "MONKEY MAJIK × 岡崎体育 / 留学生".

Modern (?) Hebrew[edit]

@Californiarockss, FishAndCrisps, and DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: What is the right heading for the section on Hebrew mondegreens? A few months ago, an editor changed it from "Hebrew" to "Israeli Hebrew". Another editor changed it back to "Hebrew", with the comment "Israeli Hebrew" as opposed to what?". I changed it to "Modern Hebrew", with the comment "Modern Hebrew as opposed to Biblical Hebrew". Another editor changed it back to "Hebrew", with the comment "This seems inappropriate. Hebrew has old and current versions but so do other languages. We are not specifying "modern X" for anything else, so why is Hebrew to be treated differently? I don't get it. It's not Latin vs Italian ...)".

The mondegreen is a modern author quoting the modern song "Hava Nagila". I presume that we all agree that this is in the modern Hebrew language, which is distinct enough from other varieties of Hebrew to have its own grammar article; the only question is how to label it in the section heading. Wikipedia's article about the modern Hebrew language is Modern Hebrew, just as we have an article on Modern Greek and Modern Greek literature, though apparently some scholars prefer the name "Israeli Hebrew"; our article on Israeli literature covers not just Hebrew-language writing, but also other languages. It seems to me that we should follow the name of the language we already use for the article about it. --Macrakis (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the civilized approach in opening it here, and I am sorry about my slow response. And it's going to be a bit brief too – apologies. Work tomorrow: might come back here sometime. But brevity or not, my first reaction is that it is an unnecessary and rather weird piece of disambiguation. Looking at the context, the development of the idea, the examples ... anything about it, in fact ... there is absolutely zero chance of confusion. How could someone reading it think that that section, in an article mostly about modern English and amongst other sections about modern Dutch or modern German, could be about biblical Hebrew? It's telling the reader something absolutely unnecessary; indeed I fear that it might be a bit patronizing to the reader, or discriminatory against Hebrew. It's probably not a good analogy but when writing about music you do not usually need to specify that the trumpet you are mentioning is made of metal, or has valves ... sure, you might sometimes need to because of the context, but you are never (/hardly ever?) going to find an article about Wynton Marsalis that makes sure it specifies that he plays a metal trumpet with valves because it's just the standard: those facts are true but it would be foolish to specify them unless you are explicitly pointing out that he doesn't play the natural trumpet or a wooden one. In normal conversation if you say Hebrew it is utterly obvious what you mean, and most of the time it is the common or garden current one, as here: you need to specify it when contrasting it with the other which is not happening here. Please let's not make a weird special case out of it: it makes me very very uncomfortable. Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's either unnecessary or weird. Hebrew, like Greek, has a long history, and authors can choose from a variety of registers. Compare the Palindrome article, where a certain Greek palindrome is attributed to "Byzantine Greeks" but another one, although it was written in 1802, was written in Ancient Greek. The article does say, "English writers generally only cited Latin and Greek palindromic sentences in the early 19th century", but the context there makes it clear that it's Latin and ancient Greek. There is a Hebrew palindrome given, too, written in 1924, but it's not clear whether it's in Biblical or in Modern Hebrew. It seems worth distinguishing. --Macrakis (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To go off the other comment, there's also an article, for example, on Quebec French, but there's been no need to clarify that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FishAndCrisps (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it is unnecessary and weird because it is disambiguating something that needs no disambiguation. If there were examples of ancient and modern Hebrew Mondegreens in the article then sure, we would need to label them. But there are not. Nor are there examples of Mondegreens in Modern English and Middle English, so that's good because we don't need to label them either. You are proposing an absolutely irrelevant differentiation between an ancient language and a current one in an article about a term that we say was coined in 1954. The article even mentions James Gleick claims that the mondegreen is a distinctly modern phenomenon. Without the improved communication and language standardization brought about by radio, he believes there would have been no way to recognize and discuss this shared experience. which seems to make Biblical Hebrew mondegreens a little unlikely. But the very moment you find a nicely documented mondegreen in Hebrew in the Torah/Old Testament please bring it along and I will gladly support your move to explain, apparently, that Hebrew in this article doesn't refer to a language from 2000 years ago. Otherwise I think it is wildly unnecessary and looks borderline discriminatory. There is no good reason for it at all. The context makes it totally clear. 1954 remember. And that is me done with this, I fear. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DBaK (BTW, I love your username): I completely agree with you, and appreciate the humor in your response. However, I will point out that, though the term Mondegreen was only invented in 1954, the phenomenon existed before that. Note the Twelve Days of Christmas example in the section Standardized and recorded mondegreens. The mishearing of "colly" as "calling" happened before 1909--also probably before radio (sorry James Gleik!). Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Standard reference works on Hebrew (e.g., articles in the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, A Reference Grammar of Modern Hebrew, ...) are careful to distinguish Ancient/Biblical Hebrew and Modern/Israeli Hebrew. This is similar to the situation with Modern Greek and Classical Greek or Modern Chinese and Classical Chinese. In the case of Hebrew and Greek, the ancient languages are so widely studied that -- perversely, perhaps -- the bare names "Hebrew" and "Greek" generally refer to the ancient, not the modern, language.
I don't understand why this is controversial. It doesn't seem like a big deal either way to me, just a matter of using the standard name for clarity. It may or may not be necessary, but I certainly don't understand why it is "wildly" unnecessary and "borderline discriminatory". What is that about? --Macrakis (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I feel that I have set out my stall clearly enough and you have yours, and I do not intend to continue making and debating the same point as I can see no benefit to anyone or anything. I am sure that neither of us will change it in the article without a very clear consensus. As I mentioned before, I am done with this. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made a strong accusation, that using "Modern Hebrew" is "borderline discriminatory". If you don't want to debate this, fine, but at least retract that uncivil accusation which presumes bad faith. --Macrakis (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ronnies Morris dancers[edit]

The clip available on the BBC site is cut off; the original concludes with an intentional-mondegreen-laden song. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm A Dreamer Montreal =[edit]

Stewart Parker's 1975 play, televised in 1979 by ITV to critical acclaim by TV's Clive James and based on a joke by Groucho Marx. Misheard lyric of “I'm A Dreamer, Aren’t We All”. Worth a mention? Mr Larrington (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry Air[edit]

Long ago, I learned that lovely song known popularly as "Danny Boy," was more properly known by the rather rude name "The London Derriere." I couldn't quite accept that. Happily, I later learned that I'd interpreted the spoken name incorrectly. WHPratt (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did we get over 55,000 pageviews June 25, 2022?[edit]

If you look at the top of this Talk page, you'll notice that the pageviews for Mondegreen exploded in early February, 2022, peaking at 34,666 views on Feb. 9. It's still getting more pageviews than usual. Does anybody know why? I tried news.google.com, and google.com with a one month time period, but...no joy. I'm just so curious!!! Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found it!!! The Feb. 6 LA Times crossword had Mondegreens as the theme: https://crosswordcorner.blogspot.com/2022/02/sunday-february-6-2022-peter-koetters.html Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25 saw 56,209 pageviews. Again: why? Any guesses? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Example[edit]

How about adding a section on ‘When I met you in the summer?’ and other misheard song lyrics that are becoming popular in memes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40A:8400:10E0:4418:A6E1:6412:BF7D (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Kelly[edit]

Kelly was famous, in his Pogo comics series, for inventing intentional mondegreens on the printed page. His best-known examples are "Deck us all with Boston Charlie" for "Deck the Halls with boughs of holly," and "Wade on a pond, a swan he rover" for "Way down upon the Swannee River." I don't know how to fix up the page to include these types of things. 2601:5CC:C900:345:1104:9C8E:B782:B57 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture?[edit]

Here in Australia we have/ had an extremely popular music quiz show....ABC TV's 'Spicks and Specks' had an occasional but recurring segment called 'Mondegreens' where the contestants tried to guess the correct lyrics, given a Mondegreen. 49.182.73.161 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"France is bacon" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect France is bacon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#France is bacon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louie, louie[edit]

The drummer drops one of his sticks at approximately fifty-four seconds into the song, and does use an "F" expletive. 98.16.9.174 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New example[edit]

the song Me & Michael by MGMT was originally Me and My Girl. does this count as a standardized and/or recorded mondegreen?

Steve Miller - The Joker[edit]

Steve Miller's use of an unknown word, eternalizing it as "pompatus" in the lyrics of his popular song "The Joker" left a generation of listeners clueless. Often it got understood as "puppeteers". Compare wp article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompatus to Miller's info by himself: https://wzlx.iheart.com/featured/kenny-young/content/2019-10-15-steve-miller-reveals-what-the-pompatus-of-love-really-means/ 2003:C0:DF40:A800:1CF8:EDDB:7335:35D (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phish[edit]

Phish is naming their 2024 festival Mondegreen 65.24.225.7 (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mondegreen&oldid=1210856382"