Isn’t this a prosaic expression that’s physically false?
Obviously, the best method to grease a bolt of lightning would be to send a massive jolt through a block of lard. What kind of conductor is lard? Do fat guys electrocute easier than thin guys? Could I wire my ceiling fan with a string of sausages? And if I swim the English Channel coated in grease, should I schedule my feat for clear weather because of this hazzard?
[ul]
[/ul]
*[sup]
Click on smilie[/sup]
Referring to lightning and speed was not uncommon in the 1500’s.
The “greased” part appears in the 1800’s. I think.
kniz, regardless of the headline (“A startup makes greased lightning”), they’re disrupting the lightning, not greasing it.
Lightning is fast, so of course greasing it “should” make it faster.
It’s not prosaic, it’s poetic. Haven’t you ever heard of a similie?
Not every phrase is supposed to be a physically accurate description, and it’s ridiculous to expect it from any random image.
Indeed, most similies and metaphors are not intended to describe, but rather to paint a picture. “Lightning” is fast. “Greased lighning” is faster. Complaining that it’s “physically false” is completely missing the point.
I was not responsible for the headline. The OP mentioned “greased lightning” and I gave you “greased lightning”. Truth is I did it at a time that this thread was sinking like a rock. 