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
(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, 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
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:
And “the lion’s share” is ALL of it! 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.
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
.
A coupla comments:
Malacandra:
It’s actually more complex than that. The Master Speaks:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html
EddyTeddyFreddy:
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.
And ‘lose’ and ‘loose’ are two entirely different words dammit. Hounds are not let lose and you do not loose your keys. :mad:
Mares eat oats
and does eat oats
and little lambs eat ivy.
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.”
“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” 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.
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?)
Actually, I’d be suspicious of anyone using the word pumice, period.
I, too, appreciate grammar-correction threads such as these for the opportunities they present me:
To improve my own grammar.
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 subscription, 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!
Hi, Opal!
It’s a perfectly cromulent word, and pumice is cool stuff. It’s a rock, but it floats!
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.
Only after you drink the Kool-Aid.
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. . .
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.