Grammatical errors bother me, as do errors in usage. However, if I'm going to call an author out on it, I'm going to be sure I'm in the right. The fact is that "hone in" is proper usage and has been for decades. I looked it up to be sure and found that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this to say:
Quote:
|
The few commentators who have noticed hone in consider it to be a mistake for home in. It may have arisen from home in by the weakening of the \m\ sound to \n\ or may perhaps simply be due to the influence of hone. 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.
|
I then turned to the grand arbiter of proper English: the Oxford English Dictionary:
Quote:
hone, v.4 orig. U.S.
Brit. /həʊn/, U.S. /hoʊn/
[Apparently an alteration of home v. (see sense 5 s.v.), originally by confusion with hone v.3]
intr.to hone in. To head directly for something; to turn one's attention intently towards something. Usu. with on. Cf. home v. 5.
***1965 G. Plimpton Paper Lion (1967) 51 Then he'd fly on past or off at an angle, his hands splayed out wide, looking back for the ball honing in to intercept his line of flight. ***1967 N.Y. Times 5 Nov. iii. 10/1 A few who know the wearer well recognize that something is different without honing in on the hairpiece. ***1983 E. Figes Light vii. 53 A wasp had begun to circle round the bowl‥, gradually honing in on the ripe glistening fruit. ***1995 For Him Mag. Sept. 78/3 He hasn't spotted me. I hone in, but he slips out of range just in time. We cat and mouse for what seems like an eternity. ***2002 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 19 Dec. 35/3 Balanchine's classes were famous for honing in on the basics.
|
So it did evolve from "home in," but I think at the point that it's put into dictionaries, we can safely assume that it is not an error and is acceptable.