[Mods - I have no idea where to put this, but since the phrase commonly arises in sports, I’ll try here.]
So which is it? A team is floundering, and the ex-jock color guy says “Well, they need to get ___________”. Ex-jock color guys being pretty much morons, we can’t rely on them to get it right.
I think it should be “on track”, because I have the image of a derailed train (which is going nowhere in the near future) needing to get back on the track.
“Untracked” makes absolutely no sense to me.
Bonus: If I’m right, can we get out the torches and pitchforks for the guys who clearly say “untracked”?
Then again, when I was younger, I always heard the expression “play it by ear” as “play it by year”. It took a long time before I realized I was getting that wrong, as they sound so similiar when said!
It’s “on track,” and I’m intrigued by your pitchfork idea. Those cliches and phrasings are bad enough on their own. It really bugs me when people mangle them.
It’s been going on for a long time too. This Language Log link has a cite from 1927, and the more modern “get untracked” variant from 1940. It truly is taking longer than we thought…
I’ve never heard anything but “on track” used in this context, but perhaps I’m just mentally making the corrections when I hear someone say “untracked.”
“On track” is definitely correct. It seems to me that “untracked” would be the opposite, as in going off the tracks. As in “the Bears’ plan was to go with the passing game, but that came untracked after the Packers intercepted them twice and sacked the QB 3 times this half.”
Great article. I had no idea that the (mis)usage had been around so long. I’m wondering if an earlier usage might have been that a wagon would get in ruts so deep (“tracked”), that one couldn’t get out when one wanted to, so to get “untracked” would be a good thing.