Entry tags:
Singin' "hey diddle diddle" with your kitty in the middle
Over on her own journal,
quisalan's been asking people for phrases they use which no one else knows. I know I've become infamous for these, so I'm not going to demonstrate again that I live on another planet from everyone else.
However,
cryx suggested the rather marvellous "That won't get the baby ironed", an amalgam of "That won't get the baby bathed" and "That won't get the shirts ironed". Which reminded me that running two proverbs together has produced some of my favourite phrases ever.
I first became aware of this as a concept during an episode of, er, My Word, I think - something featuring Frank Muir, anyway. One of those involved was talking about his mother-in-law's habit of confusing proverbs, and gave the following examples:
That gets right up my goat (= That gets my goat + That gets right up my nose)
The ball's on the other foot now (= The ball's in your court + The boot's on the other foot now)
I immediately adopted them as my own.
Another one I encountered quite recently is the winceworthy statement of intention to get on with something, provided for me by JdB:
I must get my teeth to the grindstone (= I must get my teeth into it + nose to the grindstone). Though why putting any part of your face to the grindstone is supposed to be beneficial is a bit of a mystery.
The best bit about these is that (to me, anyway) their meaning is immediately apparent, even though they're not standard phrases. Whether this is from the context in which they're used, from the tone of voice, or from the ability of the hearer to untangle the two phrases is open to debate.
A fine set of candidates for this combination approach is the vast range of phrases which are used to indicate that someone has asked a stupid question, to which the answer is so obviously "yes" that it wasn't worth the asking.
The first one I remember knowing was "Do ducks swim?", used as follows:
A: Would you like a cup of tea?
B: Do ducks swim ?
Does a bear shit in the woods ?
Is the Pope a Catholic ?
Does Judith Charmers have a passport ?
Does the Trojan horse have a wooden willy ?
Great phrases all, but clearly inferior to, for example, asking whether ducks are Catholic or whether the Pope shits in the woods. My dad seems to have settled on "Is the Pope a duck ?" for his question of choice.
If anyone has any more variants, I'd be delighted to add them to the mix'n'match line-up.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
However,
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I first became aware of this as a concept during an episode of, er, My Word, I think - something featuring Frank Muir, anyway. One of those involved was talking about his mother-in-law's habit of confusing proverbs, and gave the following examples:
That gets right up my goat (= That gets my goat + That gets right up my nose)
The ball's on the other foot now (= The ball's in your court + The boot's on the other foot now)
I immediately adopted them as my own.
Another one I encountered quite recently is the winceworthy statement of intention to get on with something, provided for me by JdB:
I must get my teeth to the grindstone (= I must get my teeth into it + nose to the grindstone). Though why putting any part of your face to the grindstone is supposed to be beneficial is a bit of a mystery.
The best bit about these is that (to me, anyway) their meaning is immediately apparent, even though they're not standard phrases. Whether this is from the context in which they're used, from the tone of voice, or from the ability of the hearer to untangle the two phrases is open to debate.
A fine set of candidates for this combination approach is the vast range of phrases which are used to indicate that someone has asked a stupid question, to which the answer is so obviously "yes" that it wasn't worth the asking.
The first one I remember knowing was "Do ducks swim?", used as follows:
A: Would you like a cup of tea?
B: Do ducks swim ?
Does a bear shit in the woods ?
Is the Pope a Catholic ?
Does Judith Charmers have a passport ?
Does the Trojan horse have a wooden willy ?
Great phrases all, but clearly inferior to, for example, asking whether ducks are Catholic or whether the Pope shits in the woods. My dad seems to have settled on "Is the Pope a duck ?" for his question of choice.
If anyone has any more variants, I'd be delighted to add them to the mix'n'match line-up.
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
The OED, he say...
The critical part is that you do it to other people.
I'd guess it's an analogy to leaning really close in to the grindstone while sharpening blades.
no subject
no subject
**comes out in hives**
no subject
A friend of mine at secondary school was occasionally given to pointing out that "a rolling stone mixes no metaphors" - one of a few dozen based around the same basic theme (the rest you can reinvent for yourself).
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
And then there's my recent invention: damn the horses your eyes rode in on.
no subject
That one produced a definite giggle over here :)
no subject
eg when chums tell me about getting back with an old flame
Don't go back to a dud firework
or when someones digging up or stirring trouble
Those that play with wasps nests get stung
no subject
That's good. In conversation with someone who I will not name in order to protect the guilty, this practice has also been officially determined to be like a dog returning to its vomit.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
That could lead to a new game... hmm...
"Too many cooks in the hand saves nine where angels fear to tread !"
Interpretation left as an exercise for the reader, but the intention is clearly just to confuse the listener whilst imparting no useful information.
(no subject)
A triple one I came up with last night (I am childishly fond of these things too)
Re: A triple one I came up with last night (I am childishly fond of these things too)
Re: A triple one I came up with last night (I am childishly fond of these things too)
Re: A triple one I came up with last night (I am childishly fond of these things too)
Re: A triple one I came up with last night (I am childishly fond of these things too)
no subject
no subject
Another archaeological term was 'To Tratmanise a collection' (i.e. to completely wreck to the point of uselessness an originally well recorded archaeological collection, based on the life work of Prof. E.K. Tratman of Bristol University). I also tentatively introduced the use of 'run it up a flag-pole and see who salutes it' to management at Tao (origin: The abominable Gus in Drop the Dead Donkey) - did it persist?
no subject
I've no idea if it persists here, I don't talk to management.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
quick lyric quiz...
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
If you're not too focussed, that can read as "to traumatise a collection". But I see that doesn't exactly alter the meaning.
I'm not saying I don't trust you, but I wouldn't like to see you playing with subatomic particles.
no subject
(p.s.: I got very confused by you namechecking my housemate: are there no parts of my life that have the decency not to segue into each other anymore? although given that
no subject
no subject
'That's a whole new kettle of worms.'
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Character1 (aged about 14): She was furious, being hoist in her own juice like that. Is that right ? It sounds a bit strange.
Character2 (grown up): I rather think you mean stewed with her own petard. But we'll let it pass.