Talk:case and point

RFV — kept

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

case and point

This is erroneous, surely? Even if it is an acceptable variant, surely "case in point" is the original form and this is the variant, rather than vice versa. — Paul G

I am relieved to be able to report that: 1., "case in point" occurs 10 times more often than "case and point" on bgc and, 2., of the first 10 occurrences of "case and point", all were actually "case, and point". case and point just seems to be a contributor's error not reflective of widespread error in published work. I would certainly make case in point the main entry. I can't see "case and point" as an "alternative spelling". Based on my preliminary research, I doubt that it would make even the grade as a common misspelling or misconstruction, but it might. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I've been bold and deleted "case and point" as an alternative form of case in point (which suggested that the former was a legitimate variant) and reduced case and point to a cross-reference that says that "case and point" is erroneous. I don't thinnk we can class it as a misspelling because it is more of a misunderstanding or a mishearing. — Paul G 07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made this a misconstruction, which is in accord with the discussion above. I hope that I don't have to cite it, but it can be cited. It is mentioned in books on common errors in English. Even law reports contain the error. Newspapers, especially letters, have numerous instances. It is a little tedious to separate spurious collocations, but I would no it if required. Would refs to the books of errors be better? DCDuring TALK 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cited, for the fun of it. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RFV passed. 72.177.113.91 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the final cite a joke? - [The]DaveRoss 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)