evenly misquoted expressions...

[Boris_B]

lissener said,

And am I the only one who finds the widely used fake work “guesstimate” completely mystifying? It means exactly the same thing as the perfectly good word it’s slowly replacing.

I kind of thought the point was that it doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as either of the words it is replacing. Guesses are not reliable enough, but an estimate can be too strong. Tell someone that you guess something is true and they’ll get all upset about how you have no idea what you’re talking about. On the other hand, tell them that you have estimated something and a lot of people will try to hold you to it. Guesstimate is for the gray area in between the two - an attempt at an accurate assessment combined with a frank admission of uncertainty.

Still, I avoid words like guesstimate because it usually wastes time as the conversation is diverted into debates about whether neologisms are acceptable. Even so, I am often struggle for words to get my meaning across.

Customer: What is price on Accessory B with the special on Product A?
Me: Well, since the 10% discount doesn’t apply to accessories, I guess your price would be about $55.
Customer: You quess?! Find me someone who knows what they’re talking about.

Customer: What is price on Accessory B with the special on Product A?
Me: Well, the 10% discount doesn’t apply to the accessory, so I estimate the total price to be $54.95.
(Interlude: after applying sales tax in a slightly different way than I had used in my estimate, the total is found to be $55.02.)
Customer: No, I can’t pay that. You quoted me a different price. Find me someone who knows what they’re talking about.

Hmm.

Anyway, I got into a discussion of homogenous vs. homogeneous the other day. I had thought homogenous meant only “having similar structure, due to descent from a common evolutionary stock”, but it apparently also means “homogeneous”. Funny. Anyway, I think this is due to the term “homogenized” being applied to milk - it means “made homogeneous” but it is pronounced more like “homogenous”, so the latter term was expropriated. Just my theory.

[missbunny]

The Ryan, the OP was asking for expressions that are evenly misquoted - that is, quoted correctly half the time and incorrectly the other half, not whether one is just as valid or just as useless as the other.

I for one would rather have someone who is using random quotations from the Bible to “back up” whatever wacky beliefs they might have to at least get the line they are using as evidence correctly. I have heard people say, “Well, you know what the Bible says - money is the root of all evil,” and use the fact that “the Bible says so” to mean that it must absolutely positively be true. Well, the Bible doesn’t say so, and what the Bible does say doesn’t mean nearly the same thing.

Anyway, here’s another misquote that people get wrong all the time. (That means not only do they get it wrong, but they say that that’s what the original speaker said, okay?):

A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose vs. Rose is rose is rose.

[Shaky_Jake]

Are there two scrambled sayings along the same lines?
I’m familiar with the mangled “a rose is a rose is a rose”, but I thought it originated in:
“What’s in a name?
That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
from Romeo and Juliet

From whence comes “rose is rose is rose”? Perhaps revealing the extent of my cultural ignorance, but I’m not familiar with that quote.

The Ryan:
You asked…"why is the original any more valid than the more common version? If someone honestly believes that money is the root of all evil, is there anything wrong with that person expressing that belief?

There is no problem with anyone stating their belief on anything. It’s just that they are using the quotation out of context - and make no mistake, they are using the quote, not just stating their own original idea. In using the quote, they are employing a (admittedly fallacious) Appeal to Authority, and it has nothing to do with belief in the Bible. I’m an atheist, but I occasionally employ pithy sayings from the Bible when they fit the point I’m trying to make. They’re familiar, they have a certain cultural cache, and may have more than an element of truth in them (aside: a friend once said "be quick to see where religious people are right, instead of focusing on where they’re wrong - you’ll get farther). Another example would be someone saying “Give me liberty - don’t give me death.” Nothing wrong with them expressing that sentiment, but they shouldn’t use a bastardization of a familiar quotation to make it, as the original is far from what they are trying to say.

Shaky Jake

[pepperlandgirl]

From whence comes “rose is rose is rose”?

I’m gonna have to go with Gertrude Stein on this one. Though I don’t know the context of the quote.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Shaky Jake *
**The Ryan:
You asked…"why is the original any more valid than the more common version? If someone honestly believes that money is the root of all evil, is there anything wrong with that person expressing that belief?

There is no problem with anyone stating their belief on anything. It’s just that they are using the quotation out of context - and make no mistake, they are using the quote, not just stating their own original idea. In using the quote, they are employing a (admittedly fallacious) Appeal to Authority, and it has nothing to do with belief in the Bible. I’m an atheist, but I occasionally employ pithy sayings from the Bible when they fit the point I’m trying to make. They’re familiar, they have a certain cultural cache, and may have more than an element of truth in them (aside: a friend once said "be quick to see where religious people are right, instead of focusing on where they’re wrong - you’ll get farther). Another example would be someone saying “Give me liberty - don’t give me death.” Nothing wrong with them expressing that sentiment, but they shouldn’t use a bastardization of a familiar quotation to make it, as the original is far from what they are trying to say.

Shaky Jake **

The Ryan is correct. People are not appealing to the authority of whoever made up the quote when they repeat this saying. They are expressing what has become a common folk wisdom that “money is the root of all evil”. This expression is the correct one.

[IzzyR]

I would add to the preceding the expression “every man has his price” (which was originally “all these men have their price”, referring to certain specific men). Every man etc. is now the correct version.

On a similar note, the word etcetra is so frequently mispronounced ekcetra (by educated people) that I wonder if that pronunciation has some legitimacy to it as well. (OTOH, it is never written that way.)

[zut]

*Originally posted by yabob *
At least [“John Hancock”] hasn’t been morphed into “John Thomas”.

Too late; it has. At least in one small part of the world. Coupla years ago my wife was standing in line at the store. A guy in front of her was paying by check, and evidently had forgotten to sign it. The cashier took one look and slid the check back across the counter, with the immortal words,

“I need your John Thomas right here.”

Emphasizing the “right here” with a quick pat-pat-pat on the counter. Oh, the opportunities that present themselves…

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by yabob *
**

For example, in A Hard Day’s Night, Paul’s Grandfather says “Can I have your John Henry?” Of course, it wouldn’t make too much sense of the Brits said John Hancock, would it?

“John Henry” doesn’t make much sense, either, unless you want a spike driven. And “John Henry” is distinctly an American Icon, though not an American revolutionary. I wonder why the Brits would morph it in this fashion.

At least it hasn’t been morphed into “John Thomas”.
**

I suspect it’s regional Rhyming slang of the period but I’ve never heard it in use.

I am so confused on this now but I think it’s:

“They’ve burnt their boats on that issue” and not
“They’ve burnt their bridges on that issue”

I think the confusion stems from crossing bridges - but…

[Enright3]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**“What we have here is…failure to communicate”= right
“What we have here is A failure to communicate”= wrong

A small nit pick, but it does change the meaning a bit. **

According to IMDB, both of those are wrong. When I quote that line I’m quoting from the move Cool Hand Luke…

*What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don’t like it any more than you men.
*

[Rock-n-Rolga]

Hey Shaky Jake:

I’m in the Triad area, but I grew up Down East. Howzabout you?

By the way, the girl who says all the wrong but amusing things is coming on a road trip with another friend and me today. I should have goodness plenty more examples for you all after we get back!

And after sending the message yesterday, I remembered the time that this same girl was talking to my dad, telling him about a sold-out club show we tried to see:
GIRL: Well, we went pacifically to see the band from Sweden…
MY DAD, SMIRKINGLY: …But you couldn’t get ‘Indian’?
“WHOOSH” SOUND AS JOKE GOES OVER GIRL’S HEAD
GIRL: Uhhh…well, someone let us in the back door.

[Gravity]

*Originally posted by pluto *
[B My wife’s grandmother used to pronounce vegetables as “vej-uh-TAY-bulls”, not only getting all four syllables in, but moving the accent as well. It was just one of the many ways she had of getting attention. **

Now that sounds to me like an accent thing. My grandmother (and many others of her generation in Vermont) also pronounces with four syllables. More like vej-eh-Ta-BULLS, though. They also say ‘ruff’ for roof, ba-day-da for potato and ‘un-ying’ for Onion.

K.

[yabob]

zut, responding on “John Hancock” -> “John Thomas” actually happening:

“I need your John Thomas right here.”

Emphasizing the “right here” with a quick pat-pat-pat on the counter. Oh, the opportunities that present themselves…

*** chuckle ***

Doesn’t really surprise me, though. “John Thomas” is chiefly British. It’s a natural substitution for someone who is vaguely aware of having heard the name without being aware of the meaning.

[toadspittle]

> bobbed wire

I’ve also seen “bobwire”. As if some guy named Bob created it (or it’s meant to stop guys named Bob from grazing on your ranchland…). IIRC, Stephen King used “bobwire” throughout “The Stand”–and by different people too, not just from Stu from East Texas, etc.
As for Protein being pronounced pro-te-in, I think it may also be a regional thing. Brits, perhaps? I had a chemistry teacher in high school who was educated in the British West Indies who pronounced/spelled the American “A-lum-in-um” as “Al-u-min-i-um.” Can’t remember if she said “pro-te-in” or not.

[Shaky_Jake]

*Originally posted by Rock-n-Rolga *

I’m in the Triad area, but I grew up Down East. Howzabout you?

Nah, I’m a Yankee, been Triangular for 5 or 6 years. Always looking for folks to invite/coerce/guilt into coming to see my buddy’s band. He plays out that way sometimes, I’ll keep you posted! And it’s not that far a drive to come see him here, and I know you’re now dying to.

What’s the difference between a Yankee and a Damn Yankee?
Them Damn Yankee’s the ones drivin’ the U-Haul.

Shaky Jake

[lissener]

*Originally posted by Luckie *
Myron Van Horowitzski: my favorite mixed metaphor is “we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it”.

Hey! That was mine! And yes it’s my favorite too; lends a kind of tragic inevitability to my life.

re: “guesstimate” as a legitimate neologism: I disagree. It’s too close in meaning to “estimate” to justify its cringey cutesyness. As for the tortured example Boris concocts, that was obviously no more than an exercise in misusing both words. Try “It’ll be around $54.95. If that’s not firm enough for you, watch me pull a calculator out of my hat. What’s that you say, you won’t pay the extra 7 cents because my estimate was off!?!? Why then we’ll have your first born!” Do you really think that whole fictional conversation would be made clearer by use of the word guesstimate?

quoth IzzyR:
On a similar note, the word etcetra is so frequently mispronounced ekcetra (by educated people) that I wonder if that pronunciation has some legitimacy to it as well. (OTOH, it is never written that way.)

It’s a spreading scourge, this extra-X thing: ex-cape, ex-presso, and (the worst, IMHO, because actual human beings are being named with the mispronunciation–I’ve even starting seeing it with the spelling adjusted accordingly) Ex-avier.

Regarding rose is rose is rose: I can’t find a cite, but I’m pretty sure I saw the origin of this years ago when I worked in a book store. I seem to recall that Ms. Stein wrote a children’s book for a niece (or something) who was named Rose. I have an image of the cover of the book, or maybe just an illustration inside, with a crude drawing of a little girl encircled by the infinitely repeating: rose is rose is rose . . .

The confusion, I assume, originated when later misquoters assumed she was talking about a flower, and not a little girl named Rose.

And . . .

Enright3, responding to Ditwd:
**According to IMDB, both of those are wrong. When I quote that line I’m quoting from the move Cool Hand Luke…

What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don’t like it any more than you men.
**

They may all be right, IIRC. Despite the single quote from IMDB, Strother Martin uses this expression as something of a mantra throughout the movie, and I doubt he makes a serious effort not to stray from a stone-carved formula when he does so. After all, he’s not quoting anyone.

It’s been about twenty years (reunion this fall!), but in highschool I was the projectionist for weekend movies (boarding school) and so I once saw Cool Hand Luke seven times in one weekend. My strongest memory of that quote is the long, drawled a in have, as in “Whut we haaave heeere . . .”

So though I don’t doubt, Enright3, that he said it as quoted in IMDB, I have very little doubt that he also said it as frequently quoted.

[Joe_Cool]

I continually hear one misquotation more than almost any other.
The strange thing is that the original form of the saying is the incorrect one: “Metallica Rocks!” where the correct version is obviously “Metallica are a bunch of sellout fags.”

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**I continually hear one misquotation more than almost any other.
The strange thing is that the original form of the saying is the incorrect one: “Metallica Rocks!” where the correct version is obviously “Metallica are a bunch of sellout fags.”

**

I just realized I may have accidentally slighted the SDMB’s homosexual community by the unintentional association with Metallica. I didn’t mean to imply any connection, or even anything about metallica’s sexual choices.

Only that they’re a bunch of fags.

[panamajack]

If you’re going to quibble over etc. and its pronunciation, it may as well be pointed out that the ultimately correct version should be ‘et cetera’ (not one word, but two).

This one goes in the category of “quotes that have changed from the original but there’s no need to claim one is better than the other” : “all hell broke loose” was originally “all hell broke loose”. In this unusual case, the difference is purely grammatical. In Milton, “all hell broke loose” is the subject of the sentence. Sometime in between, it became a synonym for the event of pandemonium rather than its inhabitants.

As for ‘burning bridges’ : I think London_Calling’s reference to burning boats is due to the reports that Cortez burned his boats on the beach before heading inland to conquer the Aztecs. The phrase that seems to be more common is “burning all their bridges behind them.” Don’t know the origin of that.

Joe_Cool, do something about that accidental typing hand of yours. It could get you into trouble.

[notquitekarpov]

My personal horror surrounds the use of “momentarily”. We have a yank working in our office here in London and I had the following exchange:

ME: (requests he performs task)

HIM: “Yes, I’ll do that momentarily.”

ME: (winding him up) “Er, what’s the use of that? We need it done permanently!”

HIM: “Eh?”

etc.

How can you have ended up with momentarily meaning “in a moment” rather than “for a moment”?

BTW it not a phrase only a song title but I had a mate once who honestly believed the title of the early Blondie hit to be “Beneath the knees” as in “Beneath the knees, I’m so in love with you…” !

[lissener]

*Originally posted by panamajack *
. . . “all hell broke loose” was originally “all hell broke loose”. In this unusual case, the difference is purely grammatical. In Milton, “all hell broke loose” is the subject of the sentence. Sometime in between, it became a synonym for the event of pandemonium rather than its inhabitants. . . .

Put me down for a resounding hunh? on this one.