At the risk of sounding like a cranky grammarian, the headline should read, "Palo Alto Police HOME in on...".

Hone means to sharpen. Home in means to get closer to a target.

I love the Weekly, but still...

Hi Eric. I'm the editor of the Palo Alto Weekly. One issue we deal with as writers and editors is the evolution of language. Recently, the usage of the phrase "hone in" to indicate the placement of focus or attention has been added to the traditional definition of the phrase.

While cranky grammarians ;-) and others may wish to use "home in" rather than "hone in" in this article's context, I believe "hone in" is both acceptable and appropriate.

See the definitions below:


From the American Heritage Dictionary
Web Link

To focus the attention or make progress achieving an objective: The lawyer honed in on the gist of the plaintiff's testimony.

From Merriam-Webster
Web Link

To move toward or focus attention on an objective [looking back for the ball honing in — George Plimpton] [a missile honing in on its target — Bob Greene] [hones in on the plights and victories of the common man — Lisa Russell]

I've never read "Home in on". Definitely, "hone in on" is correct, but better to use the word "focused".

Hone is where the pedantic's heart is.

If I ever face an armed robber, I will attempt to thwart him by engaging in a discussion of his grammar.

We have crime in Palo Alto and you all are quibbling over grammar?!!

I live three blocks from the home invasion. 1 block from an attempted sexual assault. Two blocks from two different muggings. I don't walk around at night.

I'm all in favor of surveillance. Whatever it takes.

Instead of $10.9 million city-wide for surveillance system, hire Investigators. Hre me Sherlock Holmes and My partner Mr. John Watson and let us do our job.

"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."
-The Hound of the Baskervilles. Chapter 3: "The Problem"

There is nothing new under the sun. It has all been done before.'
A Study in Scarlet.

Jocelyn:

From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

Though it seems to have established itself in American English (and mention in a British usage book suggests it is used in British English too), your use of it especially in writing is likely to be called a mistake. Home in or in figurative use zero in does nicely.

First attested: 1965. In other words, this usage started as a sound alike diction error, and has gradually become more common.

Just between you and I, maybe we should pour over the dictionary a bit more, so that all these errors don't become more widespread. Its a sad day when newspapers not only make these errors, but encourage them.

I know, I know. As Colbert says, no letters please, irregardless of your feelings.

Crime is a serious business. But I'd rather be part of neighborhood watch than chastise people for being concerned about diction errors. I assume that's where most of you are when you're not posting your views on grammar and usage.

Ironic that in the above comment we have "pour over the dictionary" instead of the correct "pore over the dictionary." What exactly should we pour on it -- water, or perhaps maple syrup?

I agree with the original posting by Eric, however: "Hone in on" is jarring and it remains incorrect, even if the error is becoming that much more common. These sound-alike errors are rife and will continue to spread as publishers now almost universally seem to feel they can do without experienced copy editors. (Yes, that's the hand of the "free market," but I've never understood it fully, since these useful, unassuming individuals are typically at the bottom of the salary scale.)

None of the above is particularly to knock the Palo Alto Weekly, which still does better than most. (Just compare the Chronicle/SF Gate, if you will.)

The city meeting about robberies should have been televised.

I think we're missing out on the issue here, folks.

The home invasions must stop.

Or is it hone invasions?

Wait...which Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson? If you say "Sherlock"'s Cumberbatch and Freeman, then I'm all in.

Thank you to the PA Police for "honing" or "homing", and to the PA Weekly for attending the meeting and sharing the info with us all.

Ironic that Jonathan A caught the error "pour" for "pore" but not "just between you and I"--"Its" instead of "It's"--and "irregardless." One out of four could make one a journeyman hitter in MLB, but wouldn't qualify anyone for a job as a copy editor.

Colbert's comment referred to the practice of pretending to make egregious errors. Ironic, eh?

All for 24/7 surveillance of our city and neighborhoods. We want safety first. Anyone with something to hide, please go someplace else.

well, the police have ''something to hide''as someone here told of how they are a secretive organization. should papd go somewhere else? just asking.

Eric is not a "cranky grammarian". He is someone who knows how to speak english correctly.

What's wrong with speaking english correctly? Lordy it's become such a mess these days.

"Hone in" is one of the horrors of our failing educational system and too many non-native speakers flooding our community. It's wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Hone in? What could "sharpen in" possibly mean? "Home in" comes from homing pigeons and arrows (and points) "striking home". It is a very about movement. As are the verbs "circle" ("circle in") and "dive" ("dive in"). These verbs of motion are combined with the preposition "in" for a reason, FFS! The verb sharpen is not about movement and so should not be combined with the preposition "in". It is so simple!

Look, just because a misuse of english is widely practiced does not mean it's 'ok' to force others to experience it. Picking one's nose is probably widely practiced but would you defend its practice in public in front of others?

English is such a fine nuanced beautiful language, the language of the world's greatest poets (Shakespeare, Byron, Shelly, Coleridge, Dickinson) precisely because its words are put together in such a way as to produce subtle meanings.

Throw together any two words you want to, any way you want to, and you wreck all that beauty and nuance.

People have been suggesting comprehensive video surveillance in Palo Alto for years.

There is absolutely no way it is an invasion of privacy, except the privacy of criminals. It would be used as an aid to the police after a crime is committed. Surely that is obvious.

England has massive CCTV, which was installed because of the Irish terror campaign in the last century. The Boston marathon bomber was captured before he could kill more people through the use of CCTV.

Criminals go to places where the benefit to risk ratio for criminal activity is the greatest. Installing CCTV in Palo Alto will significantly raise their risk. It will prevent crime, because the criminals will know that they have a greater chance of being caught.

Full speed ahead with CCTV throughout the city!

I am getting pretty tired of looking over my shoulder walking down the street, even in the day time here in Palo Alto, which is where I grew up. Sure puts my day at attention instead of being the happy, relaxed person that I used to be.

Are the same people who are commenting about grammar also on the Planning Commission or City Council. Way to keep your eye on the ball.................

I don't have experience with video surveillance cameras but have some issues.
First, they are UGLY.
Second, while I like my current neighbors, what if I didn't and they pointed a video camera at my backyard from their property? (I heard this example on the radio recently). One might well be uneasy to have a camera filming one's property, pointed by someone one didn't like/endorse. If people have video cameras on their properties, can we know where the camera points or sweeps? It is entirely possible that some nut can use the excuse of a camera to "follow" someone on his or her own property...my initial concern is the backyard, but also one can film who goes to someone else's front door. Do you really want full recording of such things?
I guess I do not oppose labeled city cameras in key spots in public in this city, though they are unattractive and hint of a police state, but how do we limit/control these cameras so we don't end up with a sea of them? Possibly, if there were a way to MOVE the camera(s) to current crime hot spots and actively monitor them in order to make a major attempt to quell crime and solve crime, that could be worth something.
Overall, I think there are other defensive measures we should take before resorting to cameras on every light pole. For starters, lock your doors and windows and please don't leave valuables in your cars.

someone said a police state isn't a cop breaking down your door anytime, but rather the countless laws and ordinances that virtually ''handcuff'' the people with constant rules to follow or you get ''arrested''. that's a ''police state''....''pay your taxes!!''...we need new aircrafts...

What a shame that those posting views on grammatical phrases should overshadow the recent and climbing crime statistics in Palo Alto. Lets hope the City of Palo Alto Police Department will be more proficient in reducing crime and use their department resources more efficiently rather than using their time to chase down bicycle riding teenagers running stop signs. It would seem that the Palo Alto Police have many excuses for the climbing crime statistics but no solutions. Perhaps the lack of educated and properly trained senior and middle management personnel, the increasing reduced moral problem, and the exodus of qualified police officers are issues our Police Chief and City Manager might want to review and address in their effort to providing a safer community.

I am wondering how people could ignore the plea for community help and support ........ Law enforcement is not the only one responsible for keeping our neighborhoods safe........... This is OUR community and we have a responsibility to each other and the town we all claim to be so proud of to live in....And you wonder why kids in this community don't feel supported????