# Dammit, "prodigal" does not mean "straying" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 12, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326 "2005-09-12T20:57:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/21 "2005-09-14T07:16:20Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Why was the steward who cooked his boss’s books in favor of the boss’s debtors when he knew he was about to get canned an exemplary character who Jesus thought we should imitate? Does this tie into the “Prodigal Son” phrase? I assume it does, but can’t wrap my head around it. Can someone dumb it down until I get sober? I know there’s a link between the two, but since it’s not slapping me in the face I’m not getting it right now. Not a challenge to **kd** , just need some clarity. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/22 "2005-09-14T12:00:23Z")
> [@Stan Doubt](#): > > Ah yes, but this beg’s the question, at this point in time, **witch** is the right useage? Exspecially, when the uncorrect useage becomes predominate? 😃 (bolding mine) Which witch? OTOH, I always found the misuse of “sour grapes” as a metaphor for finding out something is bad very annoying. Sour grapes [does not mean that](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:Sour+Grapes), it is basically the fox convincing itself that the grapes he can’t attain are **probably** sour. It is that they are out of reach that spurs this, not that he gets them and they taste bad. Another one that people get wrong is the term “the proof is in the pudding.” Nonsense! As George Carlin says, “No, the raisins are in the pudding, The proof **OF** the pudding is in **the eating** (of the pudding).” Language can change, sure, but Literary definitions don’t, and in the case of the second nit, the change makes no sense. (Some people don’t like to admit they have been saying it wrong, so they pull the “meaning changes” bullshit as a way to internally avoid being wrong) IMO, YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/23 "2005-09-14T12:04:57Z")
Oh yes, and “the exception proves the rule” means “the exception subjects the rule to a test”. About one in fifty people seem to know this. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/24 "2005-09-14T12:10:39Z")
And “the lion’s share” is [ALL of it!](http://yankeeweb.com/library/storytime/fables/fables_37.html) Not just most of whatever “it” is. Gah! Doesn’t anyone remember the fable? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/25 "2005-09-14T12:21:25Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > And “the lion’s share” is [ALL of it!](http://yankeeweb.com/library/storytime/fables/fables_37.html) Not just most of whatever “it” is. Gah! Doesn’t anyone remember the fable? You just made a dent in my Shield of Ignorance. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/26 "2005-09-14T12:25:44Z")
I love these types of threads and learn a lot from them. I would like to understand the application of “who” and “whom” but never have been able to pick up an easy rule of application. I think I have the “I” and “me” down pretty well and have had for some time now. The “whom” thing seems to elude me. Feel free to critque this post for grammerical and structural errors . ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/27 "2005-09-14T12:26:46Z")
A coupla comments: **Malacandra** : > [@](#): > > Oh yes, and “the exception proves the rule” means “the exception subjects the rule to a test”. About one in fifty people seem to know this. It’s actually more complex than that. The Master Speaks: [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3\_201.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html) **EddyTeddyFreddy** : > [@](#): > > And “the lion’s share” is ALL of it! Not just most of whatever “it” is. Gah! Doesn’t anyone remember the fable? Yes, I know the fable, and if the quotation is derived from the fable, what you say is true (I’ve heard this argument many, many times). The thing is, it’s not at all clear to me that the satying _is_ derived from Aesop’s fable. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/28 "2005-09-14T12:42:18Z")
And ‘lose’ and ‘loose’ are two entirely different words dammit. Hounds are not let lose and you do not loose your keys. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/29 "2005-09-14T13:31:48Z")
Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/30 "2005-09-14T14:53:34Z")
**Nic2004** wrote: > [@](#): > > I love these types of threads and learn a lot from them. I would like to understand the application of “who” and “whom” but never have been able to pick up an easy rule of application. I think I have the “I” and “me” down pretty well and have had for some time now. The “whom” thing seems to elude me. It’s the same distinction. “Who” is the form of the subject and “whom” is the rule for the object. Just think, if you were to substitute “he” or “him,” which would you choose? If “he,” use “who” and of “him” use “whom.” E.g.: > [@](#): > > To (who/whom) shall I give my new little book, all prettied up with pumice? Wouldn’t it be strange to say: To he shall I give my new little book, all prettied up with pumice. Instead, you would say: To him shall I give my new little book, all prettied up with pumice. “Whom” is the same grammatical case as “him.” ---
**Author:** ![Foaming\_Cleanser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Foaming\_Cleanser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foaming_Cleanser)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/31 "2005-09-14T15:35:24Z")
> [@](#): > > I love these types of threads and learn a lot from them. “These types of threads” would be better as “This type of thread” or, “Threads such as this” because this thread is and can be only one thread. Discussing in another thread this one and others like it would allow “These types of threads.” > [@](#): > > I would like to understand the application of “who” and “whom” but never have been able to pick up an easy rule of application. “I would like” means you would like to do so at some indefinite time, and it opens the door to the possibility that you feel the opposite of your stated intent. “I want to” or “I wish I could” likely is the intent, but because you said “I would like,” no one could swear to it. Politicians use it for that reason. If it’s in a former employee’s letter of recommendation, the letter should be burned. M’Lord, Sam Slick wrote in his letter that he — and I quote — would like to evict the widow. However, he said this because liking it would have made evicting her much easier on his conscience. Far from proving he is a rapacious reprobate, “I would like to evict her” proves Mr. Slick _hated_ to do so. He is not grinning in those photos, M’Lord. He is evicting her through gritted teeth, and the upward sweep of his handlebar mustache aids in the misperception that he is smiling. M’Lord, you have no choice but to find Mr. Slick not guilty of the charge of villainy in the first degree. And the defence, M’Lord, rests. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/32 "2005-09-14T17:43:34Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > And to anyone who plans to come into this thread to tell me that language is always evolving, and that maybe the meaning of the word is changing through popular usage, well maybe so, but you know what? Fuck right off. Guess I’d better do that then. Because language IS evolving. The purpose of language is _communication_ (fancy that!), and if most people understand a word as meaning X, then that’s what it means. And the dictionaries will change to reflect contemporary usage, rather than the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/33 "2005-09-14T17:55:22Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Guess I’d better do that then. Because language IS evolving. The purpose of language is _communication_ (fancy that!), and if most people understand a word as meaning X, then that’s what it means. And the dictionaries will change to reflect contemporary usage, rather than the other way around. Fuck right off! Hey, I warned you. 🙂 Yes, you are certainly correct that when it comes to language, ignorance can become institutionalized. But we’re here to fight ignorance, not to cave in to it. Find me a dictionary which says “prodigal” means “straying,” even as an alternative meaning. Betcha can’t do it, which means that the usage hasn’t caught hold yet. And I’m here to see that it doesn’t! (Now where’d my servant Sancho go?) ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/34 "2005-09-14T18:12:53Z")
> [@Johnny Angel](#): > > Wouldn’t it be strange to say: > To he shall I give my new little book, all prettied up with pumice. > > Instead, you would say: > To him shall I give my new little book, all prettied up with pumice. Actually, I’d be suspicious of anyone using the word pumice, period. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/35 "2005-09-14T18:38:10Z")
I, too, appreciate grammar-correction threads such as these for the opportunities they present me: 1. To improve my own grammar. 2. To offer the following complaint: I am not doctor, therefore I cannot cancel your “prescription” to our publication, you illiterate oaf. I’d be happy to cancel your _sub_scription, but only if you learn basic English. Since you refuse to do so, I’ll cancel it anyway, but damned if I’m happy about it! 3. Hi, Opal! ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/36 "2005-09-14T19:37:45Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Actually, I’d be suspicious of anyone using the word pumice, period. It’s a perfectly cromulent word, and pumice is cool stuff. It’s a rock, but it floats! ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/37 "2005-09-14T19:46:29Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > Drinking the Kool-Aid isn’t what you do to get converted. > > It’s what you do after you’re ALREADY converted, and it kills you. > Anyone who says, “If you drank the Kool-Aid and now believe this,” listen up… > \* > You do not believe ANYTHING after drinking the Kool-Aid. Because you are dead. You have ceased to be. You are an ex-cult-member.\* Jimminy Christmas! For the umpteenth millionthest time, it wasn’t fucking _Kool Aid!_ it was … uh … Flavr Aid, I think. Irregardless, you should of had your facts strait b4 u poasted. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/38 "2005-09-14T19:58:21Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > But first the CSR will make you sacrifice a goat. Only after you drink the Kool-Aid. ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/39 "2005-09-14T20:37:01Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > “No, the raisins are in the pudding, The proof **OF** the pudding is in **the eating** (of the pudding).” In a simlar vein, and particularly useful for places like the Dope: The phrase “Ignorance is bliss” does not grant one carte blanche to be an idiot. The full expression: “ **Where** ignorance is bliss, **'tis folly to be wise** ” is much more nuanced. . . ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326/40 "2005-09-14T21:49:01Z")
> [@Johnny Angel](#): > > **Nic2004** wrote: > > It’s the same distinction. “Who” is the form of the subject and “whom” is the rule for the object. Just think, if you were to substitute “he” or “him,” which would you choose? If “he,” use “who” and of “him” use “whom.” E.g.: > > Wouldn’t it be strange to say: > To he shall I give my new little book, all prettied up with pumice. > > Instead, you would say: > To him shall I give my new little book, all prettied up with pumice. > > “Whom” is the same grammatical case as “him.” Thank you very much. That will no doubt be a great help in the future. I believe I can apply that rule nicely. **Foaming Cleanser** these are also good points. I originally had “This type of thread” but it didn’t fit with the plural of the many threads I had in mind. Thanks to all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dammit-prodigal-does-not-mean-straying/321326.md?page=3)