A mondegreen (/ˈmɒndɪˌɡriːn/ ⓘ) is a mishearing or misinterpretation of a phrase in a way that gives it a new meaning.[1] Mondegreens are most often created by a person listening to a poem or a song; the listener, being unable to hear a lyric clearly, substitutes words that sound similar and make some kind of sense.[2][3] The American writer Sylvia Wright coined the term in 1954, recalling a childhood memory of her mother reading the Scottish ballad “The Bonnie Earl o’ Moray”, and mishearing the words “laid him on the green” as “Lady Mondegreen”.
A malapropism (/ˈmæləprɒpɪzəm/; also called a malaprop, acyrologia, or Dogberryism) is the incorrect use of a word in place of a word with a similar sound, either unintentionally or for comedic effect, resulting in a nonsensical, often humorous utterance. An example is the statement attributed to baseball player Yogi Berra, regarding switch hitters, “He hits from both sides of the plate. He’s amphibious”,[1] with the accidental use of amphibious rather than the intended ambidextrous. Malapropisms often occur as errors in natural speech and are sometimes the subject of media attention, especially when made by politicians or other prominent individuals.
Though this is not for idiomatic phrases, there’s also misnomer, for when something is named in a misleading or inappropriate manner.
Though, different dictionaries seem to give different scope to what can and cannot be considered a misnomer, and others place different emphasis on precisely how the name is wrong qualifies it as a misnomer.
Cambridge lists ‘dry cleaning’ as an example, a process that involves liquid and is thus antithetical.
The focus is on something being named such that the obvious, plain reading of it implies the precise opposite.
Merriam Webster lists that its a misnomer to call a farmer a peasant, which is not antithetical but more along the lines of being rude, out of date.
Their conception of it is fairly broad: any name that is inaccurate for basically any reason, or even just a word that has offensive connotations due to inaccuracy.
Dictionary.com uses the examples of Chinese Checkers, a funny bone, and hay fever.
They focus the definition on the factual/historical inaccuracy of the term:
Chinese Checkers did not originate in China, a funny bone is actually a nerve, not a bone, and hay fever is not caused by hay, nor is it a fever.
I would tend to disagree with the Cambridge example, because liquids can be dry. “Dry” liquids are anhydrous, meaning they’ve been treated to remove any water.
Source: Am chemist and I teach O-Chem, which frequently uses dry solvents, like anhydrous acetone.
See also as related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism
Though this is not for idiomatic phrases, there’s also misnomer, for when something is named in a misleading or inappropriate manner.
Though, different dictionaries seem to give different scope to what can and cannot be considered a misnomer, and others place different emphasis on precisely how the name is wrong qualifies it as a misnomer.
Cambridge lists ‘dry cleaning’ as an example, a process that involves liquid and is thus antithetical.
The focus is on something being named such that the obvious, plain reading of it implies the precise opposite.
Merriam Webster lists that its a misnomer to call a farmer a peasant, which is not antithetical but more along the lines of being rude, out of date.
Their conception of it is fairly broad: any name that is inaccurate for basically any reason, or even just a word that has offensive connotations due to inaccuracy.
Dictionary.com uses the examples of Chinese Checkers, a funny bone, and hay fever.
They focus the definition on the factual/historical inaccuracy of the term:
Chinese Checkers did not originate in China, a funny bone is actually a nerve, not a bone, and hay fever is not caused by hay, nor is it a fever.
Ehhh…man, I dunno about that example, Cambridge. Like, wouldn’t sweeping involve cleaning something? Vacuuming?
That’s not “Dry cleaning”
No, but if they’re going to assert that cleaning involves liquid, they would be counterexamples to such an assertion.
“dry cleaning” is a specific term for a method of laundering clothes that DOES require a liquid, but not soaking the clothes in water.
Those things you mentioned are not counter examples, because they have nothing to do with “dry cleaning”.
That’s like if I point out that peanuts aren’t actually nuts, and you respond with “but walnuts are nuts!”
Yeah, walnuts are nuts, but that doesn’t have anything to do with peanuts and whether or not they are nuts.
They are focusing on the dry part of the term. Using a liquid during the process goes against the dry part.
I would tend to disagree with the Cambridge example, because liquids can be dry. “Dry” liquids are anhydrous, meaning they’ve been treated to remove any water.
Source: Am chemist and I teach O-Chem, which frequently uses dry solvents, like anhydrous acetone.
But PERC, the chemical used in “dry cleaning” is NOT a dry liquid, so the existence of dry liquids is also not relevant to their example.
I can’t figure out if the confusion is caused by unfamiliarity with the term dry cleaning, or just a feeble grasp of logic.
Perchloroethylene (aka tetrachloroethene) is a completely non-polar compound, so, yes, it is a dry liquid.
Bone apple tea!