commonly used phrases that confuse you

Post Reply New Topic

Your list seemed to be Malapropisms. I.e they were confused phrases, not confusing phrases.

In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, they were Malapropanisms.

Yes they would be malapropisms, people do like to making a mess of language of comedic effect, if you have ever seen the character or show, you would understand the context of what I was getting at. You take the fun out of life

Once bitten twice shy. Getting bitten doesn't make one shy, it makes one scared or fearful! I like the Danish version much better: Burned child fears fire (Somewhat rough translation)

A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. I don't want a bird in my hand, why would I want a bird in my hand?

Back in the day. Which day? When was this? Don't hold me in suspence here.

I will be boring and explain that (or try to). If you have caught one bird (to eat!) it is better than nothing and still having to go after the ones still in the bush (or in other words it is better to be happy and content for what you have than not having anything).


"Time waits for no man" - of course it doesn't as time is not "real"

Trailer park trash talk topic

Spudnik, I like your Rickyisms. Worst case Ontario! That is a keeper!

I have not watched the Boys for a while.

Very malappropriate!

Lau, I like the word malapropanism. Very malapropunny!

I found that somewhere.

The phrase that confuses me is The exception that proves the rule. W T F?

"Break a Leg"

Well I have since learned a few possible origins of the phrase, but it's still kind of silly since it's self contradictory. It's used to wish an actor good luck, yet breaking one's leg is one of the worst things that can happen on stage. I've encountered it a lot since I've been spotlighting the school plays for the past 3 years (apparently better then anyone has ever done it at our school).

That has a rather nice explanation, on Wikipedia, I believe.
In fact, it is almost invariably misunderstood and misused.
The rule is question does NOT have any exception.
The aphorism is intended to mean that examining exceptional cases (i.e. ones that are unusual, boundary cases) proves (in the older sense of "tests", as in the "proof house", which is where armour, swords, etc are tested) the rule (theory).

I.e. in order to check that your rule (model) is a good one, you should try it with all the nastiest cases. Just checking variants of simple cases doesn't hack it.

Technically it should be "I couldn't care less" or " I could care more". "I could care less" bothers me, too.

I used to find, "It was in the last place I looked.", confusing as I tried to figure out why a person would keep looking after they found the item they were looking for .

I find most of these phrases more irritating than confusing.

And the Wikipedia explanation doesn't agree with me. Ho hum. It gives the example of "Parking not permitted on Sundays". This is an exception. It "proves" the rule "Parking is permitted on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays,.... and Saturdays".

I.e. although only the exception is stated, the implication is that there is SOME rule about when you ARE allowed to park.

The exception proves the rule.
The exception proves that there IS a rule.

It took me a while to see what you meant...

It should, of course, say "I looked in every possible place, and I had chosen the sequence of places such that the place where it was happened to be the last on my list".

As you point out, just saying "It was in the last place I looked" could mean you found it in the first place you looked.

brainchild

There's just something unsettling about it. Maybe it's because it brings to mind the image of a brain giving birth, or a child with a huge brain and a tiny body.

The danish version "Crack and break" is even stranger imo.

That seems cruel - to crack and break - wishing multiple injuries, although it is better in someways to break a bone completely than just crack it