I was reading something online, and I came across the phrase zapped of energy. I stopped to consider if this were a novel use of zap. I concluded it was an eggcorn for which the author intended sapped of energy. A quick Google search indicates that this eggcorn is widespread: "sapped of energy" 268,000 (Google books, 6,250); "zapped of energy" 124,000 (Google books, 132). "His strength" fares better: "sapped his strength" 323,000 (Google books, 52,200); "zapped his strength" 81,600 (Google books, 59).
At least the edited world is not quite as mad as the internet. And I am willing to concede that a good Sci-Fi writer might use the phrase "zapped his strength" in an intentional and delightful way. Hm. Now there's a thought. Maybe I'll write a story inspired simply by an eggcorn.
I think the problem here is the preposition "of." Neither "zapped of energy" nor "sapped of energy" sounds quite right to me. I'll admit I have heard and probably read either or both but when I look at them close, I don't think the "of" belongs. Your phrase "zapped his strength" sounds perfect and "strength" can be substituted with "energy" and it still sounds perfect. It probably has something to do with how "of" makes the two words relate, and I am not well versed in those rules.
Oh, I disagree about one part, Dick; I think "sapped of energy" is just fine. In the first case, "sapped his energy", "sap" is a transitive noun with "his energy" being the object. In the second, "sapped of energy", "sapped" is passive and "energy" is the subject.
"Eggcorn", a new word for me. It's not clear to me how it's different from a mondegreen, however; the only difference is that eggcorns are spoken and mondegreens sung, which isn't enough of a distinction in my opinion to justify a second word.
Bob Bridges said:
"Eggcorn", a new word for me. It's not clear to me how it's different from a mondegreen, however; the only difference is that eggcorns are spoken and mondegreens sung, which isn't enough of a distinction in my opinion to justify a second word.
You made me curious enough to do a little research and even after reading some explanations it was a little hard to understand. The difference is that mondegreens are misunderstandings that don't usually make sense when repeated and when they do make some sense their sense is not the same as the original meaning. Eggcorns are when a phrase's meaning is understood but a word is misheard and replaced with another word. The new phrase has the original meaning and is usually understood, even if the new hearer recognizes the mistake.
examples:
mairzy doats – This is an intentional mondegreen in the song but the imaginary source is a mishearing of the phrase "mares eat oats." This is a mondegreen that makes no sense at all. Also, this imaginary source is not from a song or poem as are most mondegreens and it makes it easy to imagine many childhood mishearings as this type of mondegreen.
They have slain the Earl of Murray and Lady Mondegreen – This is source of the term mondegreen and it makes perfect sense, but not the sense of the original, "they have slain the Earl of Murray and laid him on the green."
coming down the pipe and duck tape – These are eggcorns being mishearings of "coming down the pike" and "duct tape." These are eggcorns because when they are used, the speaker and the listener know the meaning, which is the same as the original.
I hope this helps anyone who cares about this difference. I didn't fully understand it myself until I just read it today.
That's not quite the definition of an eggcorn. The important distinction is that the "wrong" phrase can be explained in a way that makes sense to the person saying it. Like the way I assumed that a "filet" was so-called because it was a layer of meat that the cook had to "flay" from the butchered carcass (I overlooked the fact that the original pronunciation sounds like "fill it", which has little or no connection to slashing someone's back with a whip).
The term "eggcorn" itself fits this concept: the thing that falls from the oak tree is the "egg" or "corn" (in the sense of "seed") that contains what will eventually grow into another tree.
Another example might be the recently-discussed (on the radio show) "mute point" and the comic variant "moo point". Each of those can be explained in a perfectly reasonable way by the person using it; it's just that it explains an expression that's wrong.
(I still stand by my own explanation for the two-syllable pronunciation of "forte" meaning "strong suit". Whatever you do best, that's what you do loudest!)