English used to have a strong distinction between “will” and “shall.” The former (“will”) conveyed intention, while the latter (“shall”) merely indicated futurity. So if you wanted to say that you intended to do something, you would say, “I will do it,” while if you wanted to say only that you were going to do something, you would say, “I shall do it.” This distinction has largely fallen out of the language, but when it was written, “I shall not want” meant, “in the future I shall be free from desire.” In context it means, “The Lord will provide for me, so that I won’t want for anything.”
I’m with the dictionary definition: I may be the only person that the dictionary agrees with…
Not necessarily still alive, simply that by putting down what you have to go chase what you do not have, you may lose the thing you already have. All it takes is someone else stealing your bird, or even a dog or cat finding it.
I’m not sure those are direct opposites. I suppose there is some equivalence in the essense of risk in both cases. I think the difference is that in the second, the risk has some direct utility in acquiring the gain, whereas in the first the risk is unnecessary or not required. I mean, yes, you have to empty your hands to go try to chase the two in the bush, but setting the bird down doesn’t in itself help capture more birds.
I guess both statements are related to the concept of relative worth versus risk assessment. What you already have should be valued more than what could be, but what could be could be a big enough risk to offset even that larger value. Hmm.
This actually started out as “I couldn’t care less” (we said it all the time when I was a teenager in the Bay Area of California, in 1968, and even earlier when I lived up in Oregon. We were definitely mouthy brats, back then. Now I’m a mouthy 59 year old.
But I’m with you. This is one modification of English that just bugs the snot out of me.
Now, blow! 
That’s because it’s properly “I couldn’t care less.” Most people just get it wrong.
“Liar, liar, pants on fire!”
Does anyone know the origin of this? If it was “… your nose is growing!” it would at least have a clear story reference.
Some girl I knew ~30 years ago would instead say “liar, liar, pass on fire” claiming it meant someone caught in a lie should be forced to walk on hot coals or something of that sort (hmmm… maybe in Hell?). Whether that’s the original and somehow it got corrupted to pants on fire, or if she was just a nut (totally possible with that family) I couldn’t tell you.
Speaking of fire “where there’s smoke there’s fire”. No, in fact, if there’s fire, there’s often less smoke than when the fire is put out. For instance, flaming candle rarely produces smoke, but when you blow it out, hey there’s the smoke!
Ouch! Should I ask if it was worth the pain? (Although it took me a minute to understand because my first thought was, “they were halving sausage in place of cake?”)
There are numerous web pages claiming that it’s a paraphrase of two lines of a poem called “The Liar” by William Blake. Here, for example.
I don’t think Blake ever wrote such a poem. It looks to me like someone, as a joke, wrote a poem that’s sort of in the style of Blake, and that a bunch of people took it as real. I also think the “pants on fire” saying precedes the fake-Blake poem.
I suspect that “pants on fire” was created on a playground decades ago, and it stuck because it sounds good, not because it makes sense.
“Mom’s the word”
Am I being whooshed? The expression is, “mum’s the word.” “Mum” meaning “mute,” not “mother.”
Maybe only eat part of it.
“To boot” meaning something good.
I learned this when I was 11 and wrote a poem about Duran Duran. (Hey, I was 11.) I said the lyrics were “nothing to boot”, meaning nothing to stomp on or whatever. My teacher explained that the phrase “to boot” means that it’s “also good”. That made no sense whatsoever to me. Still doesn’t.
“To boot” is a phrase that means “in addition” or “as well”. From the phrase finder
I can see why that is confusing.
Well, it didn’t hurt, but it was one of those experiences which get filed under “although interesting in a sick kind of way, shall not recommend to others”. At least frankfurters are soft… 
Taking candy from a baby does not seem that easy to me. At minimum, you’ll probably get a good crying fit (as easy as giving candy to a baby would seem to make more sense). Can anyone shed some light on this?
Babies aren’t particularly strong. The point isn’t that the baby won’t make a fuss, the point is that you get the candy and can mock the baby, or leave at your discretion. With the candy. I think it might be a reference as taking candy from a kid kind of bullying thing. One kid tries to take candy from another kid, it’s much easier the greater the size difference and the amount of intimidation or force imbalance you have.
I, personally, don’t think I want candy that’s been drooled all over by a baby. YMMV.
Are you kidding? From what I understand, one good, hard shake and they’re outa commission. If I want baby’s candy, it’s mine.
Ah, the motto of the Tates Compass Company: “He Who Has a Tates Is Lost”.