Poll of the Day > Public Service Announcement: The phrase "On Accident" is wrong...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...and you should feel bad for using it.

OK, I suppose there is a valid application for that phrase - specifically if you happen to be describing a situation where you are standing on top of a three car pileup. But other than that narrow application, nothing about the phrase flows or makes any grammatical sense whatsoever.

It's not difficult to see where this idea comes from: if you do something intentionally, you do it "on purpose", so if you are doing something unintentionally then doesn't that mean you do it "on accident"? No. No it does not. The correct phrase in that application is "by accident." Actually, if you want to be a real etymological purist, the true correct phrase is "accidentally". "By accident" is acceptable, because it is a contraction of the phrase "by way of an accident". But you don't do something "on accident" for the same reason you don't do something "by purpose".

The first time I heard someone use the phrase "on accident", I assumed that English must have been their second language and that this was a charming but quite obviously incorrect piece of phraseology, but it has started to spread over the last five years. This cancer must be stopped in its tracks!

Use the word "on" correctly, dammit!
---

ok
---

darkknight109 posted...

...and you should feel bad for using it.

OK, I suppose there is a valid application for that phrase - specifically if you happen to be describing a situation where you are standing on top of a three car pileup. But other than that narrow application, nothing about the phrase flows or makes any grammatical sense whatsoever.

It's not difficult to see where this idea comes from: if you do something intentionally, you do it "on purpose", so if you are doing something unintentionally then doesn't that mean you do it "on accident"? No. No it does not. The correct phrase in that application is "by accident." Actually, if you want to be a real etymological purist, the true correct phrase is "accidentally". "By accident" is acceptable, because it is a contraction of the phrase "by way of an accident". But you don't do something "on accident" for the same reason you don't do something "by purpose".

The first time I heard someone use the phrase "on accident", I assumed that English must have been their second language and that this was a charming but quite obviously incorrect piece of phraseology, but it has started to spread over the last five years. This cancer must be stopped in its tracks!

Use the word "on" correctly, dammit!

And if I don't use it "correctly"? What will you do?
---

I dunno.

We're these unbelievably complicated brains drifting through a void, trying in vain to connect with one another by blindly flinging words out into the darkness.

Every choice of phrasing and spelling and tone and timing carries countless signals and contexts and subtexts and more, and every listener interprets those signals in their own way. Language isn't a formal system. Language is glorious chaos.

You can never know for sure what any words will mean to anyone. All you can do is try to get better at guessing how your words affect people, so you can have a chance of finding the ones that will make them feel something like what you want them to feel. Everything else is pointless.

I assume you're giving me tips on how you interpret words because you want me to feel less alone. If so, then thank you. That means a lot.

But if you're just running my sentences past some mental checklist so you can show off how well you know it, then I guess you're just flinging words at me on accident.

Also I could care less.

Shamelessly adapted from xkcd.com/1576


---

Why are you hating on idiolects, man?
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

And if I don't use it "correctly"? What will you do?

Automatically assume you are not worth hanging out with and leave a beehive under your front porch.

Energy Surge posted...

Shamelessly adapted from xkcd.com/1576

If we're trading nerdy pop culture references, I see your Randall Munroe and raise you one Weird Al Yankovic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

dainkinkaide posted...

Why are you hating on idiolects, man?

I have never seen that word before today and I have decided I like it. Kudos to you.
---

Is this going to be your gimmick?

EightySeven posted...

Is this going to be your gimmick?

Given the age of my account, it's a bit late for me to adopt a "gimmick".
---

darkknight109 posted...

Given the age of my account, it's a bit late for me to adopt a "gimmick".

I'm not sure where you go that idea, but it's wrong.

Energy Surge posted...

I dunno.

We're these unbelievably complicated brains drifting through a void, trying in vain to connect with one another by blindly flinging words out into the darkness.

Every choice of phrasing and spelling and tone and timing carries countless signals and contexts and subtexts and more, and every listener interprets those signals in their own way. Language isn't a formal system. Language is glorious chaos.

You can never know for sure what any words will mean to anyone. All you can do is try to get better at guessing how your words affect people, so you can have a chance of finding the ones that will make them feel something like what you want them to feel. Everything else is pointless.

I assume you're giving me tips on how you interpret words because you want me to feel less alone. If so, then thank you. That means a lot.

But if you're just running my sentences past some mental checklist so you can show off how well you know it, then I guess you're just flinging words at me on accident.

Also I could care less.

Shamelessly adapted from xkcd.com/1576

how much less?
---

By accident is indeed the correct term.
---

darkknight109 posted...

you don't do something "on accident" for the same reason you don't do something "by purpose"

which is what? a lot of prepositions seem almost arbitrarily chosen. this is especially apparent when learning new languages. maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any specific reason (besides convention) why it should be "on" purpose rather than "by" purpose. or why "on purpose" is different from "with purpose". etc.
---

Energy Surge posted...

Shamelessly adapted from xkcd.com/1576

jfc I remember when xkcd at least tried.
I think. It sounds like something that's true, but I don't remember any specific examples. Hrmm...
---

It's short for "On the purpose of accident"

Your move.
---

EightySeven posted...

I'm not sure where you go that idea, but it's wrong.

Perhaps. Are you saying you want this to be my gimmick then?

Sahuagin posted...

which is what?

That it's grammatically incorrect.

Sahuagin posted...

a lot of prepositions seem almost arbitrarily chosen. this is especially apparent when learning new languages. maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any specific reason (besides convention) why it should be "on" purpose rather than "by" purpose. or why "on purpose" is different from "with purpose". etc.

Mostly because those prepositions have different definitions and applications. Consider that "I'm at my house", "I'm by my house", "I'm in my house", and "I'm on my house" all have very different meanings.

"On purpose" vs. "With purpose" isn't the greatest example, because both of those are grammatically sound (their definitions are very slightly different, but are so close that you would only notice in a very narrow band of applications). It's more like "I'm waiting in line at the supermarket" vs. "I'm waiting at line at the supermarket" - the second one is wrong (and just *sounds* wrong). Or, if you want to use the same set of prepositions as our subject discussion, "I'm travelling by car to the store" vs. "I'm travelling on car to the store".

-Komaiko54- posted...

It's short for "On the purpose of accident"

Your move.

That's a bunch of words strung together which make no grammatical or logical sense.

Checkmate, atheists.
---

Is that right, or are you trolling? If that's true I'll actually say it that way.
---

Yellow posted...

Is that right, or are you trolling? If that's true I'll actually say it that way.

Yes, it is true. I have no idea where "on accident" came from, but it's something that appears to have taken root mostly in young people in the US; older people, as well as everyone from non-US English-speaking countries uses by accident (and, as previously described, it's grammatically incorrect).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Yellow posted...

Is that right, or are you trolling? If that's true I'll actually say it that way.

Yes, it is true. I have no idea where "on accident" came from, but it's something that appears to have taken root mostly in young people in the US; older people, as well as everyone from non-US English-speaking countries uses by accident (and, as previously described, it's grammatically incorrect).

I think you mean they use it on accident
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Yellow posted...

Is that right, or are you trolling? If that's true I'll actually say it that way.

Yes, it is true. I have no idea where "on accident" came from, but it's something that appears to have taken root mostly in young people in the US; older people, as well as everyone from non-US English-speaking countries uses by accident (and, as previously described, it's grammatically incorrect).

I think you mean they use it on accident

did you do that by purpose?
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Yellow posted...

Is that right, or are you trolling? If that's true I'll actually say it that way.

Yes, it is true. I have no idea where "on accident" came from, but it's something that appears to have taken root mostly in young people in the US; older people, as well as everyone from non-US English-speaking countries uses by accident (and, as previously described, it's grammatically incorrect).

I think you mean they use it on accident

I will find you, Foxx.
---

darkknight109 posted...

That it's grammatically incorrect.

grammatically? pretty sure grammatically means syntactically, and it's definitely not syntactically incorrect, it's at most semantically incorrect. but my point is that it seems to me that the semantics of prepositions are often arbitrary.

darkknight109 posted...

"On purpose" vs. "With purpose" isn't the greatest example, because both of those are grammatically sound (their definitions are very slightly different, but are so close that you would only notice in a very narrow band of applications). It's more like "I'm waiting in line at the supermarket" vs. "I'm waiting at line at the supermarket" - the second one is wrong (and just *sounds* wrong). Or, if you want to use the same set of prepositions as our subject discussion, "I'm travelling by car to the store" vs. "I'm travelling on car to the store".

yeah, you're confusing grammar with semantics. "in line" makes semantic sense, because you're literally "in" (a part of/within) the line. "on purpose" does not make any particular semantic sense to me. it's just convention; a commonly used phrase. the phrase could just as easily have been "by purpose".
---

Well.....I've never said the phrase "on accident". Ever. So I'm ok...
---

Sahuagin posted...

grammatically? pretty sure grammatically means syntactically

Not always. Syntax is a field of grammar, but not the only one. Which brings me to...

Sahuagin posted...

yeah, you're confusing grammar with semantics

Semantics is also a field of grammar, so no, I'm not.

Sahuagin posted...

"on purpose" does not make any particular semantic sense to me.

Debating the grammar of prepositions is almost never an easy task, because they're some of the smallest "grammatical units" we have and it's difficult to break them down further. That said, I'll take my best stab at it.

"By", as a preposition, implies a route or direction. You are going "by" something (which can imply either passing something or using something in progressing from one point to another [physically or simply sequentially]). In that sense, "by accident" makes grammatical sense because the progression from cause to effect happened by way of an accident; the accident is the "vehicle" which drove the progression of events. "On" is a lot trickier to describe, because it has dozens of different applications, but the one that applies to "on purpose" is an implication of relation and progression from. A semantically similar application would be "The project is on schedule" - in this case, the project is conforming to the constraints of and progressing according to the schedule. Similarly, when an action is done "on purpose", the action is conforming to the constraints of and progressing according to the "purpose" for which it was done - in other words, it was a planned and deliberate action.

But that grammatical application doesn't work for "on accident", because an accident - by definition - does not have constraints. It is a spontaneous event.

Sahuagin posted...

the phrase could just as easily have been "by purpose".

I think "by purpose" is actually less wrong than "on accident", but not purely for convention's sake. "By way of purpose" - which would be the expanded phrase - is clunky, but is at least grammatically valid (I think - I'm rather tired at the moment and my brain is waffling on whether there's something wrong with that phrase or not).
---

I couldn't care less how people us the phrase.
---

Still better than "could of."
---

I loving these lesson. Thanks to sheding some lights Mr. TC

#notgoodatthis #ripenglish
---

I'm posting this by purpose.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm posting this on accident.

Fixed it for ya!!! Gotta make sure we're bein all proper here on PotD!!!
---

As a pedant, thanks doc.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Semantics is also a field of grammar, so no, I'm not.

most places I look say that grammar is syntax, which is also what it means in computer languages. one dictionary definition says that it sometimes can include semantics. but conflating the two just leads to confusion and makes it a useless term.

darkknight109 posted...

"By", as a preposition, implies a route or direction. You are going "by" something (which can imply either passing something or using something in progressing from one point to another [physically or simply sequentially]). In that sense, "by accident" makes grammatical sense because the progression from cause to effect happened by way of an accident; the accident is the "vehicle" which drove the progression of events. "On" is a lot trickier to describe, because it has dozens of different applications, but the one that applies to "on purpose" is an implication of relation and progression from. A semantically similar application would be "The project is on schedule" - in this case, the project is conforming to the constraints of and progressing according to the schedule. Similarly, when an action is done "on purpose", the action is conforming to the constraints of and progressing according to the "purpose" for which it was done - in other words, it was a planned and deliberate action.

so, "by" is "progressing from", and "on" is "progressing according to"? you're just making that up to suit you.

the actual definitions are something like "by" meaning "the means of achieving something". "by accident" and "by purpose" both make at least some semantic sense to me with that definition.

"on" has a lot of meanings, but one that seems to fit is something like "having <thing> as a focus". in which case "on accident" does not make sense to me and "on purpose" does, because you were not focused on doing something accidentally before it happened, but that is the case with doing something on purpose.
---

Sahuagin posted...

most places I look say that grammar is syntax, which is also what it means in computer languages. one dictionary definition says that it sometimes can include semantics. but conflating the two just leads to confusion and makes it a useless term.

"The term (grammar) refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes phonology, morphology, and syntax, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics. For linguists, grammar refers to cognitive information underlying language use.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

Sahuagin posted...

so, "by" is "progressing from", and "on" is "progressing according to"? you're just making that up to suit you.

Or, y'know, going by the dictionary definitions.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/by?s=t

by
2.
over the surface of, through the medium of, along, or using as a route:
He came by the highway. She arrived by air.
3.
on, as a means of conveyance:
They arrived by ship.
4.
to and beyond the vicinity of; past:
He went by the church.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/on?s=t

on
19.
(used to indicate progress toward or completion of an objective):
We completed the project on budget.

Really, I shouldn't have to post dictionary quotations - I'm not exactly using obscure definitions here.

Sahuagin posted...

the actual definitions are something like "by" meaning "the means of achieving something". "by accident" and "by purpose" both make at least some semantic sense to me with that definition.

"By accident" isn't actually grammatically sound unless taken as a contraction (of "By way of an accident"), for the same reason you couldn't say "The ball was caught by boy" - you need some interceding words there. I'm still undecided on whether "by purpose" could similarly be taken as a contraction of a grammatically sound sentence, although I'm leaning towards yes.

Sahuagin posted...

"on" has a lot of meanings, but one that seems to fit is something like "having <thing> as a focus". in which case "on accident" does not make sense to me and "on purpose" does, because you were not focused on doing something accidentally before it happened, but that is the case with doing something on purpose.

So if you agree with me on this, why did you argue this in the first place?
---

darkknight109 posted...

often complemented by ... semantics

exactly...

darkknight109 posted...

Or, y'know, going by the dictionary definitions.

ok? what are you even showing me? do those match what you said? they don't match what I quoted.

darkknight109 posted...

"By accident" isn't actually grammatically sound unless taken as a contraction (of "By way of an accident"), for the same reason you couldn't say "The ball was caught by boy" - you need some interceding words there.

just "a" or "the".

darkknight109 posted...

So if you agree with me on this, why did you argue this in the first place?

I'm saying prepositions seem arbitrary, and this is not as clear an issue as you make it out. if it was a syntactic error, then it would be clearly wrong. but it's a semantic error, and since it's a preposition, which are often nearly meaningless words anyway, it seems more about convention to me, and less about an actual incorrect usage of terms.

wiktionary lists it (not a great source)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/on_accident

discussions about whether it's a valid phrase do not mention that it is obviously necessarily incorrect, but rather compare usage rates.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/215/is-it-correct-to-say-on-accident-instead-of-by-accident
---

prepositions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfExXGMX2JM
---

Sahuagin posted...

exactly...

Thank you for agreeing with me, then.

Sahuagin posted...

ok? what are you even showing me? do those match what you said? they don't match what I quoted.

Yes, they do. Go back and look again, including the examples I gave.

Sahuagin posted...

just "a" or "the".

Yes. And? Those are words.

Sahuagin posted...

I'm saying prepositions seem arbitrary, and this is not as clear an issue as you make it out.

If prepositions were arbitrary, the examples I gave earlier - "I'm at my house", "I'm by my house", "I'm in my house", "I'm on my house" - would all mean the same thing.

Sahuagin posted...

and since it's a preposition, which are often nearly meaningless words anyway

You just spent several posts arguing me about the definitions of these "meaningless" words.

You can look up any preposition in a dictionary if you are unclear as to its meaning. They are not meaningless.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Thank you for agreeing with me, then.

the point is that "grammar" does not necessarily include the concept of semantics. even if it did, you're just confusing the issue by using it that way.

darkknight109 posted...

If prepositions were arbitrary, the examples I gave earlier - "I'm at my house", "I'm by my house", "I'm in my house", "I'm on my house" - would all mean the same thing.

I didn't say it was purely arbitrary.

darkknight109 posted...

You can look up any preposition in a dictionary if you are unclear as to its meaning. They are not meaningless.

their meaning stems from their usage, not the other way around. "on" has something like 50 definitions specifically because of the nearly arbitrary way that it has been used.

everything you're saying boils down to pretending that semantics are as clear cut as syntax, and it's not even close. you're using the nebulous term "grammar" to hide the fact that you're conflating the two, and then pretending as if semantic errors are as obviously incorrect as syntactic ones.

you may very well be right that "on accident" is just incorrect, but I haven't seen that demonstrated here.
---

This thread shows why I avoid talking about politics, religion, and grammar with people I don't know.
---

Sahuagin posted...

the point is that "grammar" does not necessarily include the concept of semantics. even if it did, you're just confusing the issue by using it that way.

Yet you still managed to figure out what I was talking about, so I don't see much grounds for complaining.

Sahuagin posted...

I didn't say it was purely arbitrary.

Then you're acknowledging they have some meaning.

Sahuagin posted...

their meaning stems from their usage, not the other way around

Which could be said of pretty much every other word in the English language.

Sahuagin posted...

"on" has something like 50 definitions specifically because of the nearly arbitrary way that it has been used.

...or "on" has 50 odd definitions because it has 50 different ways to be used. That's the problem with trying to describe the definitions of some of language's most basic units.

Sahuagin posted...

you may very well be right that "on accident" is just incorrect, but I haven't seen that demonstrated here.

In your last post you already said that "on accident" is incorrect. If you're already at that point, I have nothing more I need to prove.
---

darkknight109 posted...

you already said that "on accident" is incorrect

no I didn't, I said that using *one particular definition* of "on" didn't *seem* to make sense *to me*. as in, maybe it makes sense and I don't see it, maybe it makes sense to someone else, and maybe there's another meaning which could be used that would work better.
---