Redboss, yes, it should be “cut and dried” – as in hay. I suppose the tobacco analogy would make sense too, but I believe (without a scrap of evidence on hand to back me up) that the haymaking origin is more likely.
Oh, well, I just actually bothered to check my reference library, and found this in “The Dictionary of Cliches” by James Rogers (Facts on File Publications, 1985):
Cut and Dried Routine: prepared beforehand. Sometimes it is said as “cut and dry,” which is what one does with lumber, herbs, tobacco and flowers. The practice with herbs seems to have been the origin of the saying, which appears as early as 1710 in a letter to the Rev. Henry Sacheverell: “Your Sermon was ready Cut and Dry’d.” The transferred meaning arises because cut and dried items, however useful they may be, have lost their freshness.
Okay, so I was wrong. :o Although I still think haymaking feeds into the sense (said she stubbornly).
Hmmmmmm… as I reread that 1710 quotation, it seems to me that describing the sermon as “ready Cut and Dry’d” DOES support the haymaking origin after all. Since hay isn’t immediately useful (ready) till it’s been cut and dried. Of course, taken out of context, it’s kinda hard to be quite sure of what was meant.
It’s miss’-chi-vus (only three syllables), not miss-chee’-vee-us.
It’s jew-el-ry, not jew-le-ry.
Jesus did not die on a unit of war horses. It’s Cal-va-ry, not Cav-al-ry.
People who sell houses are real-tors (two syllables), not ree-la-tors (three).
I’ve heard some very smart people use all these. I don’t correct them, but it jars me every time I hear these misproununciations.
Yes, “would have” et al are correct. When people write would of, they are writing what they hear, which is incorrect in this instance. What they should actually write is would’ve, which is the contraction of would have. Would’ve is, however, pronounced “would of” so people ignorantly write it that way.
I’m actually board with this topic
I’m going to contribute to this thread as soon as I get myself a cold ice tea and take of my watch. I don’t like wearing jewlery while typing, most of us atheletes don’t. In any case, my tenatiousness won’t permit me to stop let this go.
When I say ‘She’ll look at you weird’, that’s incorrect, no? But then, ‘She’ll look at you weirdly’ sounds awful. Should I just take the cowards route and say, ‘She will look at you as though you are a thing that is weird’.
I ask because I had a half hour bus trip debating this with my friend, who is a grammar fanatic. I’m sure the bus was entertained.
Also, pluralising things with apostrophes. Help. Is it -
One grammar nazi, two grammar nazis. (nazies?).
The grammar nazi’s pen; the grammar nazi’s pens, the grammar nazis’ pens.
Your apostrophes are perfect in your example. However, where you have “cowards,” you should have “coward’s,” and that sentance should end in a question mark.
It should be “She’ll look at you weirdly,” but if that sounds off-kilter to you, try “She’ll look at you oddly.”
One grammar Nazi; two grammar Nazis. Yeh, I’d cap it, even used generically rather than referring to a genuine party member.
The grammar Nazi’s pen; the grammar Nazis’ pens.
One flurry; two flurries. BUT proper nouns that end in -y keep the -y when pluralized. Thus: one treasury, two treasuries; but the U.S. Treasury; U.S. Treasurys (meaning bonds).
Also, Smith’s house (the house of Mr. Smith) but the Smiths’ house (the house of the Smith family).
I cannot believe that no one–NO ONE–has brought up “affect” and “effect.” Sheesh, whata bunch of Kreetuns.
And pretty much everybody I know gives me a weird look when I start talking grammar–except my SO who just sneers. It’s just not cool to expect people to use the language correctly.
Then there are the reading errors. I saw “got my ass caned” and had to go take a cold shower.
Mighty_Girl, could one ask what your birth language is? How is your spoken English? I’m trying to learn Chinese–50 years too late–and I’d like to think that I have some hope…
