Homing in on Inaccuracy

The AP Stylebook doesn’t have an entry for either hone or home, which may explain this headline:

Granted, the difference between “honing in” and “homing in” has slipped in recent years, just as the line between “stanch” and “staunch” has blurred. I disagree with the elision of either, though; a soldier is a staunch patriot, but no one should be “staunching” a wound. The gantlet/gauntlet distinction is more often upheld. You throw down a gauntlet (a glove), but you run a gantlet. Politicians and other talking heads regularly use “gauntlet” for both, but that sloppiness doesn’t usually extend to the written word. Some people may regard the honing/homing and stanch/staunch debate as a stuffy relic — after all, the dictionary allows that “stanch” may be a synonym for “staunch” and vice versa — but I think it’s a distinction worth preserving. I’m not a rigid traditionalist; you won’t see me pushing for “boy friend” instead of “boyfriend” (frankly, the two seem quite different — a boy who’s a friend vs. a boy you date) or sticking an apostrophe before “Net” to indicate the shortening from “Internet” (really, who the heck calls it the Net anyway?).

The grammar police at About.com has this to say:

Traditionally, a missile homes in (not hones in) on a target. Hone means “to sharpen.” The verb home means “to move toward a goal” or “to be guided to a target.” But some usage guides (see notes below) now recognize hone in on as an acceptable alternative to home in on.

Some usage guides — not all. Naturally, a member of the Bush family was one of the first to mangle the distinction. Merriam-Webster explains, and ultimately comes down on the side of the “homers”:

An issue looming on the usage horizon is the propriety of the phrase hone in on. George Bush’s use of this phrase in the 1980 presidential campaign (he talked of ‘honing in on the issues’) caught the critical eye of political columnist Mary McCrory, and her comments on it were noted, approved, and expanded by William Safire. Safire observed that hone in on is a confused variant of home in on, and there seems to be little doubt that he was right. . . . Our first example of home in on is from 1951, in a context having to do with aviation. Our earliest record of its figurative use is from 1956. We did not encounter hone in on until George Bush used it in 1980. . . .

Recent evidence suggests that hone in on is becoming increasingly common. We have found it twice in the past few years in the pages of a popular magazine. . . .

It may be that eventually hone in on will become so common that dictionaries will begin to enter it as a standard phrase; and usage commentators

will then routinely rail against it as an ignorant corruption of the language. That is a development we can all look forward to, but it’s time is not yet. In the meantime, we recommend that you use home in on instead.

Garner’s Modern American Usage, also cited on About.com, is more succinct:

home in, not hone in, is the correct phrase. In the 19th century, the metaphor referred to what homing pigeons do; by the early 20th century, it referred also to what aircraft and missiles do.

The takeaway? The copy editors at the AP have egg on their faces again. Further evidence? The headline has since disappeared. The updated article, “William gets trophy, kisses after Calif. polo game,” only confirms that, yes, royals are extremely boring. A wife kisses her husband, and this is news? The usage error may have been the most exciting thing about this story.