Write for Us
idiominsider.com is an editorial site about the real origins of English idioms and phrases. We date first attestations, quote the earliest sources in their original spelling, and reach an honest verdict on every claim: Attested, Partly true, Unproven, Folk etymology, or Origin unknown. If you care as much about the evidence as the story, we would like to hear from you.
This page is a genuine invitation to write for us. If you are a writer, teacher, linguist, lexicographer, translator, or a serious etymology enthusiast, and you want to publish careful, sourced work on language, you are exactly who we are looking for. What follows explains what we publish, the standards we hold every piece to, how to pitch, and what you can expect in return.
Who is idiominsider.com looking for?
We publish contributors who treat etymology as a small act of scholarship rather than a content quota. You do not need academic credentials, and you do not need to be a professional writer. You do need curiosity, patience with primary sources, and the honesty to write “origin unknown” when the evidence runs out. Our best contributors share a single trait: they would rather publish a modest, well-sourced conclusion than a confident, made-up one.
Typical contributors include English and ESL teachers who explain idioms daily, historical linguists and philology students, dictionary and corpus enthusiasts, translators who live between languages, and readers who fell down an etymology rabbit hole and came back with citations. If that sounds like you, keep reading.
What does idiominsider.com publish?
We commission and accept several formats. Match your pitch to one of these so we can picture the finished piece.
- Idiom entries. A focused profile of a single idiom or phrase: meaning, earliest datable attestation, how the sense shifted over time, and a clear verdict. 700 to 1,200 words.
- Origin essays. A longer, narrative treatment of a phrase or a family of phrases, tracing the trail through printed sources, letters, plays, newspapers, or court records. 1,200 to 2,500 words.
- Myth files. A forensic look at a popular but shaky origin story, the “acronym origin” or “nautical origin” type especially. We show where the myth came from, why it spread, and what the record actually supports. 900 to 1,600 words.
- Guides. Practical, teachable explainers, such as how to date a phrase using Google Books and the OED, how to read the EEBO or corpus results, or how idioms cross between British and American English. 1,000 to 2,000 words.
What are the house standards?
Every piece on idiominsider.com follows the same rules. These are not style preferences; they are the reason readers trust us.
- Date the first attestation, and cite it. Give the earliest reliable printed appearance you can find, with the year, the work, and enough detail that a reader could locate it. “Medieval” or “centuries old” is not a date.
- Quote in original spelling. When you cite an early source, preserve the original orthography and punctuation. Add a gloss in brackets if the reader needs one, but do not silently modernise the quotation.
- Say “origin unknown” when it is true. A large share of idioms have no securely documented origin. Writing that honestly is a feature of our work, not a failure of your research.
- No fabrication. Do not invent dates, quotations, sailors, kings, or “old sayings.” If a claim rests only on repetition across the internet, treat it as unproven and say so.
- Separate evidence from folklore. Popular origin stories are welcome as subject matter, but they must be clearly labelled as folk etymology or unproven, never presented as fact.
Which topics do we welcome?
We are open to any English idiom or phrase with a story worth checking. Some angles we especially like:
- Phrases with a contested origin. Example: tracing “the whole nine yards” through its earliest print citations and showing why the tidy explanations fail.
- Idioms with a documented turning point. Example: a phrase popularised by a specific play, novel, advertisement, or news event, with the date pinned down.
- Trade and craft language that entered everyday speech. Example: printing, weaving, farming, or legal terms that survive as idioms long after the trade changed.
- Cross-linguistic borrowings and calques. Example: an English idiom that is a loan translation from French, Latin, Yiddish, or another language, with the borrowing dated.
- Regional and diverging usage. Example: how the same phrase carries different senses in British, American, Irish, Australian, or Indian English.
- Myth-busting. Example: the acronym origins (“posh,” “tip,” “golf”) that corpus evidence flatly contradicts.
Which topics does idiominsider.com decline?
To keep the site coherent and trustworthy, we turn down some subjects even when they are well written.
- Motivational or “meaning of this quote” listicles with no etymological substance.
- Single-language slang round-ups with no sourcing or datable history.
- Pieces built to promote a product, course, app, or service.
- Origin stories that depend entirely on other unsourced websites repeating each other.
- Broad “50 idioms you should know” collections; we prefer depth on a few over a shallow sweep of many.
What are the style requirements?
Write clearly for an intelligent general reader who is not a specialist. Explain technical terms the first time you use them. Beyond that, we ask for a few concrete things.
- Word counts. Follow the ranges listed for each format above. Quality decides publication, not padding.
- Sourcing. Cite specific, checkable sources: the Oxford English Dictionary, Green’s Dictionary of Slang, historical newspaper archives, Google Books, EEBO, and reputable corpora. Name the source and the date inline; a short reference list at the end is welcome.
- The verdict system. Every claim-based piece must end with one of our five verdicts and a one-line justification. Use them precisely.
- British or US spelling. Either is fine. Be consistent within a single piece, and keep original spelling intact inside quotations regardless of your house choice.
How do the verdicts work?
The verdict is the backbone of a piece. It tells the reader, in one word, how much weight the evidence carries.
| Verdict | Use it when |
|---|---|
| Attested | There is a datable, reliable early source and a clear documented path. |
| Partly true | Part of the popular story checks out, but a key detail is wrong or unproven. |
| Unproven | A plausible claim exists, but the evidence is too thin to confirm. |
| Folk etymology | A widely repeated origin that the record contradicts. |
| Origin unknown | No securely documented origin can be established from the evidence. |
What does idiominsider.com NOT accept?
We want to be blunt about this, because it is the heart of how we work.
- We do not sell links, and we do not accept paid or sponsored placements. There is no rate card. Please do not ask for one.
- No sponsored posts, advertorials, or “guest posts” that exist to place a link. If the purpose of the piece is the link, it is not for us.
- No AI-generated filler. We do not publish machine-spun articles or unsourced folk etymology dressed up as research. We can tell, and so can readers.
- No plagiarism. Work must be original and not published elsewhere. Quoting sources is expected; copying another writer’s prose or structure is not.
- No unsourced claims. If you cannot point to the evidence, we cannot publish the claim.
To be completely clear: contributor links on idiominsider.com are editorial, added at our discretion where they genuinely help the reader, and never guaranteed or sold. If that is a dealbreaker for you, we are not the right home for your work.
How do you pitch idiominsider.com?
Send a short pitch to [email protected] before writing the full piece. A good pitch is quick for you to write and quick for us to assess.
- The idiom or phrase, and the format you have in mind (entry, essay, myth file, or guide).
- Two or three sentences on the angle and, crucially, the earliest source you have already found.
- Your provisional verdict and why.
- A one-line note on who you are and any relevant background. Links to previous writing are welcome but not required.
If you already have a finished draft, you may send it, but a short pitch first usually saves everyone time. Please paste the pitch into the email body rather than attaching a document.
What is our review process and timeline?
An editor reads every pitch. We usually reply within 7 to 10 working days. If we commission the piece, we will agree on a format, angle, and rough deadline. Drafts are edited for accuracy first and style second: expect us to ask for a citation, a date, or a sharper verdict. Nothing goes live until the sourcing holds up. If we pass, we try to say why, briefly, so the next pitch lands better.
What do contributors get?
- A byline on the published piece.
- An author page on the site collecting your work, with a short bio.
- An editorial link to your site or profile where it is genuinely relevant, at our discretion. This is a courtesy, not a payment, and never a sold placement.
- Careful editing from people who take the subject as seriously as you do, and a permanent home for work you can be proud of.
We are a small editorial operation, and we currently work with contributors on a non-paid, credited basis. If that ever changes, we will say so plainly on this page. Thank you for considering idiominsider.com; we read every pitch that reaches [email protected].