# Incorrect grammar: "on accident." Need references. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 14, 2001, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417 "2001-11-14T23:42:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tedrlord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@tedrlord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tedrlord)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/1 "2001-11-14T23:42:28Z")
Hello all you smart people, I have a friend that is quite the grammar nazi. He gets very upset at any abuse of the language. I suppose I can be the same way, though not quite to his extent. Anyway, one quirk I’ve found is that he insists on using the phrase “on accident.” He says that it can be considered correct, but to me he sounds like a pre-teen in remedial English. I’ve searched around somewhat, but can’t seem to find much information on the subject. Are there any more knowledgeable grammarians out there who may be able to give me some information, and perhaps some references I can use to prove my point? Thank you. Brendan ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/2 "2001-11-14T23:58:18Z")
Look in the dictionary. I’ve looked in the six sitting on my shelf and they all give the right answer. ---
**Author:** ![tedrlord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@tedrlord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tedrlord)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/3 "2001-11-15T00:08:04Z")
They do include the correct form, but I was looking specifically for information that the “on accident” form is an incorrect one. My friend seems to be under the impression that it is a perfectly acceptable alternative, and that “by accident” is only used formally. It’s odd, but he’s quite stubborn about it. Brendan ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/4 "2001-11-15T00:11:27Z")
If “on accident” is a phrase that native English speakers use and understand, then it’s correct. End of story. -fh ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/5 "2001-11-15T00:16:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hazel-rah \* > \*\*If “on accident” is a phrase that native English speakers use and understand, then it’s correct. End of story. > > -fh \*\* This statement is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/6 "2001-11-15T00:18:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colibri \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by hazel-rah \* > > \*\*If “on accident” is a phrase that native English speakers use and understand, then it’s correct. End of story. > > > > -fh \*\* > > This statement is incorrect. Oh, no! You’ve just made Spock’s brain explode! Unless you meant to say _that_. ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/7 "2001-11-15T00:36:07Z")
OK, it’s NOT in the dictionary as a grammatically correct alternative, therefore he’s wrong. Try showing him some expressions which can take by or on or whatever. Hazel-rah? What hat are you wearing when you say that if it used and understood by native English speakers, it is right? I’m looking in prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries and ‘on’ is not given as a grammatically correct alternative. If we are going to say that the understanding is all that matters (not that you did) then grammar may as well fly out the window. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/8 "2001-11-15T00:40:39Z")
Yes, it may, mayn’t it? It depends on what you mean by “correct”. Do you mean conforming to the consciously laid-out rules of formal English grammar (prescriptive)? Then the proper resource is a grammar book. Do you mean conforming to the rules of English as spoken (descriptive)? Then the proper resource is a sociolinguistic survey. Another answer may be that it is correct in the friend’s lect of English, but not in **tedrlord** ’s. ---
**Author:** ![Rmat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rmat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rmat)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/9 "2001-11-15T00:43:28Z")
Without for a minute suggesting that “on accident” is correct, I’ll take a stab at how it perhaps came into use. It’s the “opposite” of “on purpose”–another dubious expression, but one perfectly understandable in these here parts. ---
**Author:** ![tedrlord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@tedrlord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tedrlord)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/10 "2001-11-15T00:48:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hazel-rah \* > \*\*If “on accident” is a phrase that native English speakers use and understand, then it’s correct. End of story. > > -fh \*\* That can be said, but often people are judged based on their use of the language. If a person regularly uses “ain’t” in speech, it is likely that he may be taken less seriously in, say, a philosophical debate. It is a good idea to take these rules seriously because other people often do, and these people may be in positions of authority, or it may otherwise be important to impress them. On the internet, for example, the most noticeable thing about a person at first is their writing style. You can generally differentiate a teenager from a 40-year-old based on how they write, and you can infer whether the writer is well-educated. When you’re trying to communicate, this will colour someone’s opinion of you. My friend places quite a lot of importance on grammar, and his continued use of this form of the phrase may end up making him look bad to his fellow literature-types. That, along with the fact that I’m curious about the etymology of his version makes me want to find more information. ---
**Author:** ![tedrlord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@tedrlord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tedrlord)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/11 "2001-11-15T00:50:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rmat \* > \*\*Without for a minute suggesting that “on accident” is correct, I’ll take a stab at how it perhaps came into use. It’s the “opposite” of “on purpose”–another dubious expression, but one perfectly understandable in these here parts. \*\* That’s a pretty good guess. I hadn’t thought of that. Brendan ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/12 "2001-11-15T01:05:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > \*\*Yes, it may, mayn’t it? > > It depends on what you mean by “correct”. Do you mean conforming to the consciously laid-out rules of formal English grammar (prescriptive)? Then the proper resource is a grammar book. Do you mean conforming to the rules of English as spoken (descriptive)? Then the proper resource is a sociolinguistic survey. > > \*\* If you’re responding to me matt :), I’m using both descriptive and prescriptive dictionaries here. None of my grammar books or my style guides say a damned thing about ‘on accident’. So yeah I mean by ‘correct’, that I can’t find a source which says ‘on accident’ is OK. Grammatically speaking at this point in time, it probably isn’t correct which is not to say it won’t be correct in the future. As a linguistic-type person, matt, would you accept it as correct? As an editor-grammar-type person, I wouldn’t but I would accept it in direct speech if the author insisted on it as a stylistic device. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/13 "2001-11-15T01:18:13Z")
[http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/opinion\_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS\_364\_755711,00.html](http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/opinion_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS_364_755711,00.html) Grammar Gremlin By Don Ferguson "A teacher told me several yeas ago that she often heard her students use the expression “on accident,” and she wondered where it came from. I had never heard it at that time, thought it wasn’t widespread and had no answer for her. Now I’ve heard it used and by none other than a television news reporter who was telling about a soup can filled with gems and jewels that had been donated to a food bank by mistake by someone who thought it was a can of soup. “It must have been done on accident,” the reporter said. The correct form, of course, is “by accident.” A Pittsburgh grammar expert said a teacher recently reported that students in her eighth-grade language arts class insist on using “on accident.” The teacher said that, when she tells them it is wrong, they ask why, and she doesn’t have a good answer for them. The expert said, “Just tell them that there is no reason, that it’s just the way it is, that standard English calls for ‘by accident.’” © 2001 by Don K. Ferguson His e-mail address is [gramgrem@esper.com](mailto:gramgrem@esper.com). [http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs3/grammarlogs416.htm](http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs3/grammarlogs416.htm) QUESTION Recently, I have heard people at work using the phrases “on yesterday”, “on tomorrow” or “on today” in their spoken language and written in memos. (i.e. I spoke to you about this on yesterday). Something just doesn’t sound right here. I am certainly used to hearing “on Thursday”, as in “I spoke to you about this on Thursday.” However, I have never before heard the preposition “on” used before the words yesterday, today or tomorrow. Somehow, those words don’t call for a prepositional phrase. What, if anything, is grammatically incorrect about the prepositional phrases “on yesterday”, “on today”, and “on tomorrow”? Why don’t the words yesterday, today or tomorrow need the preposition “on” before them… or for that matter “last week” (i.e. “I spoke to you about this last week” not “on last week”.)? SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE New Orleans, Louisiana Wed, Jan 31, 2001 GRAMMAR’S RESPONSE That’s a new one on me! Is it a regional expression, do you think? Odd how these things crop up from time to time. My kids used to say “standing on line” and “it happened on accident” before we threatened them with starvation for doing so. You’re right: the “on” is completely useless in that construction. It doesn’t sound so bad in “We’ll do this on the day after tomorrow,” even though it’s unnecessary even there. But if people are saying it and writing it — using the “on” in that construction, there’s not much you can do about it except hope that it remains within a very limited geographical area (sort of like a bad strain of the flu). Getting too excited about such things can drive you insane. ---
**Author:** ![tedrlord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@tedrlord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tedrlord)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/14 "2001-11-15T01:56:06Z")
Thanks astro, that’s good information. I’ll show it to my friend. Brendan ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/15 "2001-11-15T01:59:48Z")
**matt\_mcl** ’s answer was more diplomatic, but I stand by my original statement. And as **primaflora** notes, it depends on which hat you’re wearing. If the OP had posed the question in the context of his writing a paper for English class or writing a resume, I wouldn’t even have replied. But as long as there is the chance that the correctness of spoken English is being conflated with adhering to a style guide, I’m going to take the hard line. The social implications of using “on accident” are debatable, and it’s valid to have the opinion that “on accident” is bad. But this is GQ, and the grammaticality of the phrase is simply not debatable. I have heard people use the phrase in conversation my entire life. Nobody got confused and had to ask what it meant. **astro** ’s references indicate that its use is not limited to the neighborhood I grew up in. Is it perfectly grammatical English. Is there a difference in meaning between “on accident” and “by accident?” To me it’s akin to saying “I’m going down to Houston for Thanksgiving” or saying “I’m going up to Houston for Thanksgiving.” What about “about 50 miles” or “around 50 miles?” Why are they both correct? Why isn’t one preferable? -fh ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/16 "2001-11-15T02:02:16Z")
Er, at the end of the second paragraph I transposed _is_ and _it_. That should read: It is perfectly grammatical English. ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/17 "2001-11-15T02:19:08Z")
I took a hard-line stance on it because, come to think of it, it’s actually not a regionalism I’ve ever encountered. I think as a grammar-type-person I’d put it in the category of a term like the North Qld habit of putting ‘but’ on the end of every sentence. I wouldn’t correct a person when I was talking with them but I’d correct it when used in an essay or in formal written language. For me it is an unidiomatic expression. Ok, finally found a reference in _Which word when_ by Heacock. He’s willing to accept either ‘on line’ or ‘in line’ as they mean the same thing. It’s not the precise same thing but the logic is similar: “Some sticklers like ot think ‘on’ can only mean ‘in contact with the surface of’, as in ‘on the table’ but it can be used in many other senses as well”. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/18 "2001-11-15T06:37:57Z")
Uh, that way lies madness, Prima. Prepositions practically never have any good reason for being used in anything other than completely literal contexts. (In English, we buy something for $20; in Spanish, by $20; in Esperanto, against $20, etc.) So a logical argument about the meaning of “on” won’t really get us anywhere. I would argue that the question of use of “on accident” would revolve around whether it could truthfully be said to be a regional variant somewhere to which the guy in question could claim usage. If not, he’s screwing up. There’s no question but that “by accident” is the standard form, of course. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/19 "2001-11-15T13:29:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hazel-rah \* > \*\*If “on accident” is a phrase that native English speakers use and understand, then it’s correct. End of story. > > -fh \*\* Not so in general, because English-speakers can make an error in speech, and still be understood. However, in this particular case, it seems to be a regional usage and therefore correct in certain dialects. I came across this usage for the first time in my life this year. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417/20 "2001-11-15T13:54:49Z")
it may not be a real linguistic survey, but i always find it interesting to see what forms pages on the web use. In an altavista search on “by accident” and “on accident,” we get: “On accident” 15,120, or 6.3% “By accident” 225,069, or 93.7% It’s not terribly scientific, but it can give you a rough idea of how English is being used (at least on the web.) A lot of the “on accident” references are actually in sentences like “claims on accident insurance” and things like that, so you probably have less than 5% of people using “on accident” in the usage you’ve described. I’ve heard it used in Chicago, and I occasionally use it myself when speaking quickly without thinking. Anyhow it’s not even close to being a preferred form and it certainly is incorrect in all stylistic guides I’ve ever read. I would never chastise anyone for using it, but I would definitely strike it out in written text. And I agree with **Rnat** ’s analysis of why some of us say “on accident.” I think that’s absolutely correct. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incorrect-grammar-on-accident-need-references/93417.md?page=2)