[pluc]

Merriam-Webster also says 'irregardless' is a word so maybe don't let them dumb down a language because they say it's okay

[ntrz]

As far as all the sources I can find say, 'hone in' originated as an error for 'home in', but has become widespread enough to be considered an acceptable variant. If one of them is being let in erroneously by the nasty descriptivists at Merriam-Webster, it'd be 'hone in'. But either one gets the meaning across, so I don't see the issue.

[singlow]

But in this case `home` is the correct verb. As a verb it has the same meaning as in the phrases homing pigeon or homing missile. Home-in is the older (by citation) and more common phrase, with hone-in probably being used due to mishearing home-in, although they could have both arisen independently.

[AlbertCory]

Hear, hear.

So is Merriam-Webster now going to say "here, here" is equivalent and acceptable?

Legalizing a hearing mistake is not the same thing as adjusting to usage changes.

[rhacker]

I suspect "hone in" is from "honing a craft" so hone in is like improving something. I would rather "home in" being for things like getting closer to being correct and "hone in" being for getting better at something.

[pessimizer]

"Hone" is from honing a blade, which is what you do to keep its edge. To "home in" on something is the process of locating where something is positioned (its "home.") That something could be "the answer" or a submarine. A homing signal is a signal you broadcast to assist others with homing in on your location.

"Honing" is more metaphorically akin to polishing. To hone a skill means to practice at it.

[colanderman]

"Hone in" is the "irregardless" in this case.

[sethammons]

> let them dumb down a language

If you've not seen it, I highly encourage this 6 minute take by Stephen Fry on Language:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

And besides, while you may be honing a blade or skill, my Homing Pigeon is homing in on home.

[LadyCailin]

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, first of all, and second of all, you are not the arbiter of the language either.

[pessimizer]

Everybody is.

[unsupp0rted]

“Irregardless” is a word. You just used it, so do millions of others, and when they use it I know exactly how to understand it.

[IncRnd]

The word appears in dictionaries, which document usage, but the word is nonsensical. "Irregardless" is used to mean "regardless", which is a far better choice of word.

  irregardless (adj.)
  an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the opposite of what it is
  used to express; probably a blend of irrespective and regardless, and
  perhaps inspired by the colloquial use of the double negative as an
  emphatic. [1]

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/irregardless

[unsupp0rted]

English would be a lot more compact if we removed all the nonsensical and previously-nonsensical words.

Start with the auto-antonyms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

* Cleave can mean "to cling" or "to split apart".

* Clip can mean "attach" or "cut off".

* Dust can mean "to remove dust” (cleaning a house) or "to add dust" (e.g. to dust a cake with powdered sugar).

* Fast can mean "without moving; fixed in place", (holding fast, also as in "steadfast"), or "moving quickly".

* Ravel can mean "to separate" (e.g. threads in cloth) or "entangle".[11] Sanction can mean "approve" or "penalize".

* Table can mean "to discuss a topic at a meeting" (British English) or "to postpone discussion of a topic" (American English).

[LgWoodenBadger]

Similar to bone and debone, ravel and unravel, and countless others I'm sure.

[ncmncm]

Stan Kelly-Bootle used to call these self-antonyms.

[UncleSlacky]

Literally!

[pfdietz]

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

[macintux]

Unlike “inflammable” which is virtually guaranteed to confuse.

[UncleSlacky]

"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!" - Dr Nick Riviera