Or you might say, a lie.
Or just dressed : “well-turned-out”, although I think that’s a phrase used as a whole, I’m not sure if one can be “poorly-turned-out” as idiomatically.
This is a point that gets SDMB argued every six months or so. There are varying degrees of uniqueness: a response can be unique within a group (“Susan had a unique answer to our little riddle”) , while not completely without precedent.
So I’ve got no problem with “completely unique”,“absolutely unique” or “totally unique”. “Very unique” is more troublesome, but not invariably ridiculous. F’rinstance:
“Susan, Mikey, and Sam all had interesting, original solutions to the problem, while Michelle offered the very unique answer that the hippo could be caught using 200 remote controlled helicopters.” While all four answers were unique within the group, Michelle’s answer would probably be unique within the entire state… while still not necessarily being unique throughout the history of the world.
This is only true if you stubbornly ignore the obvious and intended meaning of the phrase and substitute an unintended alternate interpretation. Of course the phrase is talking about simultaneous conditions, rather than sequential conditions; about the execution of choice.
If the phrase were “You can’t eat your cake and have it yet,” then the objection to the change in order would have some weight, but it’s not - the phrase is talking about exclusive and negating conditions. As your quoted cite says:
This holds true no matter what order the exclusive conditions are presented in. Buddy is parroting Harlan Ellison nearly verbatim, adding that doing so will drive people “batty.” This is mainly down to a personality defect of Harlan Ellison.
I have the feeling that the OP was about something a bit different from most of the responses. I think the point is that English is full of phrases that we accept as having a certain meaning, but when you deconstruct them, it’s not at all clear why they should have that meaning. In many cases, the reason is that they started out as slang or jargon, and ended up in general use. One example (maybe not the best) is “taken aback”. Everyone knows what that means now (taken by surprise), but many may not know that it’s a nautical term literally meaning to have the wind suddenly and unexpectedly shift so that you’re heading into it.
Now then, can someone out there tell me whether we’re moving on now or then?
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:74, topic:601080”]
Sure it does. It’s hyperbole. It’s like telling someone he’s lower than a snake’s belly in quicksand. He’s so contemptible he’s simply not worth the effort.
[/QUOTE]
But that only works in the third person, " X finds Y beneath contempt". If you refer to someone as being beneath your contempt, then they can’t be beneath your contempt because you referred to them.
Then you would say Susan’s idea was “original” and Mikey’s was “original” but Sam’s was very original in that he might have given more thought and specifics.
I know it is common usage, but “very unique” just doesn’t make sense to me. For me, unique means a one-of-a-kind, never before seen occurrence.
But you are right and this debate will never end, so let’s just drop it.
My other pet peeve that doesn’t make sense is “hamburger meat”…as opposed to hamburger gravel? Hamburger paint? Hamburger carpet?
If I go to the grocery store and buy hamburger, I think it is a given that it is “meat” as well. Thus I go buy a pound of “hamburger”.
But that only works in the third person, " X finds Y beneath contempt". If you refer to someone as being beneath your contempt, then they can’t be beneath your contempt because you referred to them.
[/QUOTE]
Quite true. That’s why I called it hyperbole.
There are a lot of those silly ones that fall apart under analysis, but the intended meaning is still clear, e.g., “I’m not speaking to you!”
There are lots of these. Tuna fish, kitty cat…
In many places, “Hamburger” denotes the whole sandwich only, and the synechdoche of referring to ground beef as “hamburger” sounds odd.
“Hamburger meat” sounds less strange, because it serves to modify the more general purpose word “meat” in the same way that you would speak of “hamburger buns.”
" good money after bad "
" hand over fist "
And the one that makes no sense to us Scots
" It’s better to give than to recieve "
on what planet ?
" a friend in need is a friend indeed "
No. he’s a bloody pest
Well, there is the gallows humor pre-battle prayer during the gunpowder era: “Lord, for the gifts we are about to receive, let us be truly grateful.”
I think you may have misunderstood that one…
Mine. Giving is WAY WAY juicier than receiving.
The Bee’s knees!!!
Etymology unknown, very likely a completely nonsensical phrase.
You misunderstood. It means: “A friend [when you need one] is a friend, indeed.”
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:96, topic:601080”]
You misunderstood. It means: “A friend [when you need one] is a friend, indeed.”
[/QUOTE]
I took it a different way – “If still consider a needy person your friend, they must REALLY be a friend.”
Chimps *are *apes (along with gorillas, bonobos and orangutangs).
“turn out” seems to have a whole lot of different meanings.
Besides those already mentioned, it means attendance or to attend
“How was the turn out at the ballgame?”
“I expected a whole lot of people to turn out for his funeral.”
It means evicted (this one seems a bit old fashioned to me, though)
“He’d been living with his parents, but they turned him out of the house last week.”
And I always took it to mean that someone who wants something from you will pretend to be your best friend.
As a straight male, if I end up in prision I think it would be much better to give than to receive.