Talk:chomp at the bit

"chomp" at the bit is not the US substitute for the UK "champ." In both countries, "champ" is actually the correct usage, and "chomp" is a widely made mistake -- so wide that it is becoming more accepted.
 * So accepted that it has all but replaced the original, yes. When a word is the commonly used one, that is what we include.  Wiktionary describes the language as spoken, and not as some people would like it to be. --EncycloPetey 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has not all but replaced the original. In informal speech, perhaps is is more common (but still not a replacement) for champs, but in formal writing, champs is still more prevalent. -- JHunterJ 11:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. One cannot dictate what is "correct" or "incorrect" based solely on classical usage of the word/terminology. As an uncommon word or phrase falls into common usage, it becomes more widely accepted by grammarians; although they still may not consider it to be "correct," they will usually acknowledge it as a "nonstandard" or "dialectal" term, rather than flat-out "incorrect." Prime examples of this are "snuck," which has become the standard way of saying "sneaked" in certain areas, and "ain't," which many dictionaries refused to include until more recent times. Truthfully, I myself have never once heard the term "champ at the bit," and in every U.S. pop-culture song, book, movie etc. where I've heard the term used, it's always been "chomp at the bit". I therefore feel the need to remove your assertion that "chomp" is incorrect on the grounds that the difference between "champ" and "chomp" is only dialectal, and thus, irrelevant. 71.92.243.111 08:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

--Chomp is incorrect because horses champ- they grind their teeth when they are nervous or excited and that is called champing. The bit sits in the gap behind their incisors and in front of their premolars. They can't bite it or chomp it unless it is fitted in the wrong place. If they did chomp it they would damage a tooth. The problem is so many people have got this wrong that now apologetic grammarians think "chomp at the bit" is acceptable. But that is like saying subliminable is an accepted word because a US President used it.--
 * A language is what the people who speak it understand it to be, not what you or I may think makes sense. Look at the word "pea": the singular used to be pease and the plural was peasen, but the sound at the end was just like the plural "s", so people reinterpreted it to be a singular pea and a plural peas. Now if you go to the store and ask for peasen, people won't understand you. By logic based on the history of the word, it should be correct, but it's wrong (my spellchecker wants to correct it to "peahen".
 * I don't know if "chomping at the bit" has completely made the transition yet from error to correct, but but that's not something you or I or old usage or logic has any control over. The sooner you accept that, the better you'll be at communicating in the real world. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But this is a dictionary, a place people go when they want to know how to use words and what will make them sound stupid. If we apply your views then 'your' and you're are interchangeable because lots of people use them so.