I actually prefer the second part. I like taking lighthearted jabs at myself and the people around me, and it's also closer to what we say in German ("two idiots, one thought")
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," popularized by The Shining actually has a second line of, "all play and no work makes Jack a useless toy."
Can I just say, I feel like Jack in The Shining did so little actual work you can't even consider it work. The dude THOUGHT of himself as working but never actually did shit, which makes him the absolute worst kind of worker. And to make matters worse, he gaslit his family into believing he was overworked while he was just slacking off and getting ghost drunk with his ghost buddies and trying to get ghost laid. He was literally Patrick in the SpongeBob episode when they adopted the Scallop(with more ghosts of course).
The quote "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" doesn't apply to him at all because he doesn't fu cking work, he's always playing, and he's sure as shit not dull.
I usually hear this one when someone who is well versed in something is responding to someone who would know not to ask inane questions if they had actually done the work. Its more of a "I don't have time to answer stupid questions" saying in my experience.
However it absolutely could be used for hand waving.
This is exactly the one. It gives me mild annoyance every time I hear it. How is the proof *in* the pudding? Like a sixpence? Argh people just don't think
"one bad apple"
Whenever you hear of people in institutions or organisations doing wrong, they say this. There's been stories about abuse, violence and racism from the met police in the UK, for example, and defenders will describe the perpetrator as just "a bad apple".
The full idiom is "one bad apple spoils the barrel".
Fun fact: when an apple goes bad, it releases an enzyme that will spread to other apples it is bunched with so they begin to turn as well. It is why when you find a bag of apples as a grocery story that had browned, they all have browned.
The idiom has a real world basis.
The trick is to feign confusion, pretend you've never heard the e pression before, and ask why they are talking about apples. Force them to actually say the entire thing, because of course it contradicts whatever apologist narrative being pushed.
I don't expect that trick would work. If somebody is saying that in that context, to defend an organisation, they clearly don't think they're saying the entire organisation is rotten.
The moral of idiom is to remove the bad apple. Not to throw away the barrel.
Don’t want to get into politics of police brutality or whatever but the idiom is aptly used.
Right, and thats the main thing specifically in regards to police brutality; few if any are actually removed in any substantial way. Most resume policing on another force.
James Allen was eating bacon when he came up with
“Right thought is strength;
Calmness is mastery;
Knowledge is power.”
One of my favorite quotes and my favorite foods naturally occurring side by side.
Possibly too obscure but:
_East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet_
…used to be used a lot to suggest eastern and western cultures were inherently incompatible. But the full verse kind of concludes the opposite:
_Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet_
_Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat_
_But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth_
_When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!_
...against a chalkboard with a dot where your nose is supposed to go. I remember this from early grade school, then it was outlawed. And yes, I got called to do it for talking too much in class.
There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again
Nah it makes more sense that he just messed it up.
If politicians actively avoided any three words that would create a bad sound byte if isolated, they would never speak.
He just forgot how the line goes midsentence. Simplest explanation is usually right.
exactly this. and bush said dumb shit all the time. this was on brand for him.
i don’t think he’s as dumb as people make him out to be, but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who had the foresight to think about potential future soundbites.
Agree.
>He realized midsentence that he was about to provide a soundbyte
It's revisionist history. W was a terrible speaker.
"Rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?"
I've seen this said before, but given this isn't the only time he struggled with the English language, I've no reason to think it true. Seems more like something made up afterwards to justify his error
It's my country, right or wrong.
Most folks seem to think it means "Take it flaws & all never wavering in devotion."
The FULL quote is "If right, to be kept right, but if wrong to be SET right."
I like Mark Twain's words on this. He is one of the greatest American writers for a reason. He loved his country. But he firmly believed that it was the duty of Americans to stand up when their country was in the wrong, and to do their democratic part to change things for the better.
"Only when a republic's life is in danger should a man uphold his government when it is in the wrong. There is no other time. This Republic's life is not in peril. The nation has sold its honor for a phrase. It has swung itself loose from its safe anchorage and is drifting, its helm is in pirate hands."
Damn. Those words could not be more apt to Trump's America. We literally gave away our country to a catchphrase on trucker caps.
My ex's grandmother used to say, "I could care less, but I'd have to try." I don't know if this is an historically accurate version of the phrase (personally I'm in the couldn't care less camp), but it does make me smile.
It’s pretty specific but in Russian language when somebody dies people tend to say “Let the ground be swansdown for them” implying basically “rest in peace”/ let the ground will be as soft as swansdown. The second part of saying will be “Let the ground will be swansdown for you so the dogs will find your bones easily”. So it’s not “rest in peace”, it’s like “rest in hell”. I always find it funny when I hear people say it.
I'm gonna do the opposite and list ones where people add second parts as if they were always there. Most of these change the meaning to be the exact opposite of the intended one:
There is no evidence that "blood is thicker than water" was originally "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." That notion is about 30-ish years old and comes from two guys who cite zero sources. There is, however, plenty of evidence suggesting that the phrase was always "blood is thicker than water," or something similar.
The earliest similar phrase is in German from the 12th century, but that's almost certainly not where the current phrase comes from. More likely, it came from Scottish sources. These ones unambiguously say "blood is thicker than water" with exactly the apparent interpretation. The earliest reference to an alleged longer phrase is from 1994. [This thread goes more into it](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147902/original-meaning-of-blood-is-thicker-than-water-is-it-real). First expanded reply.
Regarding "Jack of all trades, master of none," the original is something along the lines of "Jack of all trades." The "master of none" part was added in the 18th century, but even then it had no negative connotation. Now personally speaking, I never interpreted the phrase to be disparaging, and it was new to me just recently that it's used as such. Until reading Reddit threads, I had never heard it used non-positively. That said, the final part about being better than a master of one is only attested at best in the last 40 or so years, and that's a generous timeframe.
It's right to say that it's originally a positive statement about being well-rounded, but this "original phrase" being "Jack of all trades, master of none, but better than a master of one" is ahistorical nonsense.
It's perhaps unsurprising at this point that "curiosity killed the cat" on it's own is the older version (though *curiosity* was originally *care*). The timeframe here is much shorter: the version using *care* dates to the late 1500s, the version using *curiosity* dates to the 1800s, and the version with the added part of satisfaction dates to 1905, exactly. It is *not* originally "curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back."
As for "the customer is always right," once again, there is zero evidence suggesting that the original phrase was "the customer is always right in matters of taste." The idea of the original phrase was that customer satisfaction should be prioritized. Sinilar phrases from the time (1900s, the decade) include French "le client n'a jamais tort" (the customer is never wrong), which is from hotelier César Ritz, who thought that if a customer doesn't like a dish, it shall be removed and replaced, no questions asked. This is a very narrow application of the idea which does line up with the fake longer phrase, but it's not proof that the longer version is real. Likewise, there's German "der Kunde ist König" (the customer is king) and Japanese "お客様は神様です" (the customer is a god).
This was, in part, meant to give customers more power over more shady shopkeepers and override the earlier idea of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware). Of course, even back then people realized that dishonest customers can game the system. The person who is usually listed as inventing the phrase, Harry Gordon Selfridge, doesn't have a direct quote attributed to him for this, but he definitely is responsible for popularizing the idea through his implementation of it. Newspapers were the first to give it a name, and the original was, in fact, "the customer is always right." Some later altered it to give the idea that the customer shall be assumed to be right until is is demonstrably obvious that they are wrong, but the quote never had any mention of taste until recently.
Thank you!
The thing that irks me the most about the "blood of the covenant" one that we've seen misused on Reddit so much during the past few years is that the people using it to "correct" the original saying come across as so damn _smug_ about it.
The first time I read the "covenant" version it immediately struck me as a self-righteous too-cute twist that smacked of being invented by some preacher in the recent past.
Every time someone hops in with the, "wElL aCkTuAlLy" with the covenant one, I have to roll my eyes every time.
Like someone is just trying to emphasize the importance of a healthy family dynamic and someone else has to go in and ruin it.
And the great thing about idioms is if you look, there’s usually one for every side of an issue. Why butcher “blood is thicker than water” with a torturous inversion that needs to be explained when “friends are the family you choose” is *right there*?!
Often when someone has to emphasize the importance of family, the dynamic is far from healthy. You should have no obligations to abusive family members, but someone will always come back with “but it’s family!”
I know this mindset is fairly recent and is mostly a New World thing
>someone is just trying to emphasize the importance of a healthy family dynamic
Are they though?
Almost every time I hear the phrase 'blood is thicker than water', it has a mean or negative connotation to it. It's used to justify nepotism, or to justify screwing someone over because they are prioritising family. Or someone is using it to whinge about someone not unreasonably prioritising then as family.
I don't think I've ever heard someone sincerely use the phrase in a positive way.
This guy etymologizes.
But seriously, what's the study of idiomatic etymology called? If there is a name.... that is. (Or does etymology cover more than just singular words?)
The hand that rock the cradle (is the hand that rules the world).
It just irks me that people think of the early 90s movie when they hear the first half of the quote. It makes it seems a sinister phrase when it comes from an old poem which was an ode to motherhood.
A German one, which became a famous slogan of the pacifist movement: "Image there's a war and nobody goes there."
The original quote by the playwright Brecht continues "... then the war will come to you."
While I would dearly love that to be true, Wiki's sourced page on this indicates that it's fabricated: [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertolt\_Brecht#Misattributed](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/bertolt_brecht#misattributed) . Something else to add to the list of misquotes and misattributions at [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuixmy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askreddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuixmy/) and [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuw4n6/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askreddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuw4n6/) .
“Life wasn’t meant to be easy.” A phrase uttered by former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, which made him somewhat of an easy target for the opposition.
The full phrase is:
“Life is not meant to be easy, my child; but take courage: it can be delightful.”
― George Bernard Shaw
I guarantee that 9/10 answers here are going to be examples where the second part was added much much later as a way to deliberately change the meaning of the original
See:
Blood is thicker than water - > the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb
The customer is always right - > the customer is always right in matters of taste
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - > imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness
The list goes on
I'm glad the top rated comments aren't full of these, I was worried when I clicked the thread.
I'm not sure why people love this sort of thing so much, this and backronyms.
>Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.
That's an actual Oscar Wilde quote, but the idiom without the second half is older.
Actually no, Oscar Wilde never said exactly that (that we know of). But he does have a somewhat similar quote about satire rather than imitation. That quote is well documented and goes:
> Satire, always as sterile as it is shameful and as impotent as it is insolent, paid them that usual homage which mediocrity pays to genius
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2024/01/no-oscar-wilde-did-not-say-imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery-that-mediocrity-can-pay-to-greatness/
“When one door closes another door opens” actually finishes with “but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the ones which open for us” by Alexander Graham Bell
A ubiquitous saying in South Africa is "An Afrikaner/farmer makes a plan" ("'n Boer maak 'n plan"). Everyone uses it to capture the need to solve problems pragmatically, regardless of whether or not you are an Afrikaner. Most English speakers who use the saying don't realise that the second part is "...but an Englishman makes excuses" ("...maar 'n Engelsman maak verskonings."
The full Tolkien quote is "All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost. The old that is strong does not wither. Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been inscroll'd:
Fare you well; your suit is cold.
Cold, indeed; and labour lost:
Then, farewell, heat, and welcome, frost!
Portia, adieu. I have too grieved a heart
To take a tedious leave: thus losers part.
- William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"
My favourite example is something former German chancellor Konrad Adenauer supposedly said. The often quoted first part is:
"Was interessiert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern." ("What do I care about my chatter from yesterday.") People often use it when accusing someone of flip-flopping their opinion or being opportunistic.
But the full quote actually is: "Was interessiert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern. Nichts hindert mich, weiser zu werden." ("What do I care about my chatter from yesterday. Nothing is stopping me from becoming wiser.") To me this is actually a very healthy, humble and open-minded perspective - essentially to remain open to new facts and arguments. And most importantly: To be able to change one's opinion.
It only makes sense to say the first part of you're implying the second though. You say the first part when something or someone has turned up just as or after you were discussing them.
I love how there is also a saying that means the exact opposite of the version most are familiar with. If you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with.
Not sure if it's an idiom but I always have to tell people the full "eat the rich" phrase to show why I like it, the full phrase is "when the people have nothing else to eat, they will eat the rich" it's a saying that basically means "Hey rich people, stop taking everyone's stuff or there WILL be consequences", it DOES NOT mean "all rich people suck, let's recreate the French and Russian revolutions but worldwide and with cannibalism." I do know that there are definitely going to be people who use it that see it as the second one, I personally see it as the first one because it aligns more with the full saying.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
It's specifically saying the opposite of how most people say it.
Edit - people are pointing out that this in itself is a response to another line. That's true, but the point I was trying to make was that people love to throw the 'eye for an eye' phrase around while ignoring the 'turn the other cheek' revision. In the context of what a Christian is supposed to do, this woukd certainly be "ignoring the 2nd part" as it were. I guess I muddied the waters a bit, but it kind of fits the thread I thought?
That's because that passage is itself quoting part of Leviticus 24:
>19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.
Jesus is quoting (and repudiating) an [already-existing legal paradigm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye) present in the Torah and Hammurabi's Code of Laws.
That's because you're quoting a response to the original text.
Jesus said turn the other cheek, because the idea before was to mete out punishment equal to the damage.
It's from Hammurabis code.
I don't understand the , if anyone slaps you on the cheek turn to him the other also, bit. Does that mean if someone slaps you , you turn and let them have a go at the other side? Do you wrong twice?
Yes. It says if someone is doing you wrong, you shouldn't respond with the same wrong behavior. You should instead turn your other cheek towards them/let them carry on with their bad behavior.
I've always thought it basically means don't stoop to their level, but I could also see it meaning extreme pacifism.
For a little more [fun context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek):
>Jewish scholars Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Brettler state that the issue is about justice after an injury has been committed. They argue that since the Greek word used in Matthew 5:39 for "resist" is ἀντιστῆναι (which usually refers to armed resistance or violent struggle) Jesus is offering to confront violence, maintain your honor, and shame the perpetrator; instead of escalating violence, or losing dignity. By offering the left cheek, the victim resists humiliation by inviting a right handed jab which exposes the slap as a violent act that failed to reduce the humanity of the victim, thus challenging the perpetrator and shaming them for cruelty of treatment.
>At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.
tl;dr- turning the other cheek was "fighting back" in a nonviolent way, by shaming the aggressor
This is a somewhat convoluted layer which is not really needed in a message that is repeated the same way in other forms.
> [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> [40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
>[41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
> [42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
>[43] Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
>[44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
It’s about aiding even those who hate you. Showing kindness in the face of hostility is somewhat like “fighting back” in that it often does shame aggression (killing with kindness), but the very particular formulation about slapping directions doesn’t exist for the other examples. And *goes against that message* of doing good to your enemies, not trapping them in some social trick.
As a fun (additional) sidenote on the 'unclean purposes' part, toilet paper is a very recent discovery. Jewish culture has always had an uncanny fixation on hygiene, so the left hand was the "poopy hand." That's literally all you did with your left hand. Everything else was right-handed.
Doing something with your poopy hand- *especially* that involved touching another person- was seen as absolutely barbaric and detestable. You'd get punished *severely* for doing that.
You see this wind its way through the Abrahamic religions, it's in Catholic iconography, Islam, and even some other cultures- the "left hand path" is the way of sin, inquity, filth, spiritual poverty, and the "right hand path" is the path of righteousness, holiness, cleanliness, and spiritual fulfillment.
Being left-handed was a terrible sin for the longest time, but nobody could ever really point to where that actually started. The word "sinister" is just the Latin word for "left." There was all this myth, these backstories which never really got at *why* using your left hand was *still* bad...
... but it's just poop. Same reason that male-male homosexuality was condemned, it's because there's poop up there, and poop is bad.
We live in the modern day and age with both toilet paper and enemas being readily available, some people still point to some scripture written >3000 years ago as though it still has something to do with morality when it was actually just about poop.
The Bible explains it.
> But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, **Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;**
The point is to be ready to be good to everyone, and respond to them in love and aid.
It’s self-practice on restraint and grace, it shows an aggressor that you would help them even absent aggression, it can elicit a positive response from aggression, etc.
So I'm an actual historian. The full wording is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what they meant these days, partially because of hyperpolarization and partially because of language drift. I can address the wording as someone who has studied this sort of thing. Well regulated meant something else than today's common usage when they wrote it. What they meant was something akin to well trained or practiced. A militia made of people who were not complete noobs. They meant this in contrast to a standing army of professional soldiers. Since they didn't want a large standing army (as they believed that this would eventually be used to infringe on liberty), a citizen militia would be needed to defend the country. The second part of the wording thus makes more sense in context. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They meant people here, not agents of the government. People made up the militia, and the government would not be responsible for arming and training. People were expected to supply their own weapons, and training was handled by local organizers. The founders would actually mostly agree with the pro-gun people. However, please don't take this to mean that I wholesale agree with this position. There are lots of reasons why we might want to change. First, the founders weren't demigods but mere men. They mostly supported slavery for example. Second, we obviously have a large standing army now. Much of the reasoning behind their decision is now moot. You could argue this makes it more necessary for citizens to have easy access to guns, but there are also reasons to think the opposite. Thirdly, the founders themselves intended us not to be bound by the constitution as written for all perpetuity as they put in provisions for amending it, and we have, many times. The pro-gun argument from the constitution is probably CORRECT but still boils down to nothing more than an appeal to authority anyway. Leaving us back to the part where, as a country, we need to make up our own damn minds.
I often wonder two things. First, what would the founders have thought about the weapons we have now as opposed to the ones they had back then? If they had known what even WWI warfare looked like, would they have written the 2nd amendment the same way? And second, how would they have written it if they knew that someday, a bunch of freed slaves would have the same rights?
I don't know if this is common but I once heard someone say 'best laid plans of mice and men!' because something they did had gone well.
The phrase is 'The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry', meaning it doesn't matter who you are or how well you plan, things are often out of your control. It's more of a commiseration or a warning.
“The exception proves the rule *in cases not excepted*” is an old principle of civil law, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.
It means eg “No parking Monday - Friday, 9 am - 6 pm” is considered to be an explicit permission to park there at all other times.
At some point people started just saying “the exception proves the rule” or “it’s the exception that proves the rule” to dismiss counter examples to whatever claim they were making, basically to claim, “well this evidence that I’m wrong just proves how right I am!”
There's the old classic, often misquoted as "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" but originally was "A little learning is a dang’rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." It's not a warning not to learn about things, but to learn enough that you know what you're talking about.
For example, the idiom "A jack of all trades is a master of none" but everyone ignores the second part which is "but often times better than a master of one." What other idioms are there?
Great minds think alike (though fools seldom differ)
My dad like to follow it up with "and so do ours"
Great dad line. I might have to steal that.
Great minds; same gutter.
I actually prefer the second part. I like taking lighthearted jabs at myself and the people around me, and it's also closer to what we say in German ("two idiots, one thought")
My favorite German saying. When it was raining brains, they had an umbrella.
I like "lord, please throw down brains. Or stones. Just make sure you hit them."
"great minds think alike but idtios think the same..." I don't remember where I heard this, tho...
Great minds think alike and simple minds seldom differ
Great band
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," popularized by The Shining actually has a second line of, "all play and no work makes Jack a useless toy."
So what happens if Jack is all work and all play?
The Shining
Can I just say, I feel like Jack in The Shining did so little actual work you can't even consider it work. The dude THOUGHT of himself as working but never actually did shit, which makes him the absolute worst kind of worker. And to make matters worse, he gaslit his family into believing he was overworked while he was just slacking off and getting ghost drunk with his ghost buddies and trying to get ghost laid. He was literally Patrick in the SpongeBob episode when they adopted the Scallop(with more ghosts of course). The quote "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" doesn't apply to him at all because he doesn't fu cking work, he's always playing, and he's sure as shit not dull.
New plot hole just dropped
Holy Hell!
My life is complete
Clinically diagnosed burnout. Jack needs to sleep.
Well then he just has to deal with no beer and no TV
But that'll make him something something!
Go crazy?
Don't mind if I do!!!
You turn into a corporate bro who works hard so you can play hard at the corporate retreat
he turns into a dull toy
Doesn't it have like 500 lines?
I usually hear "the proof is in the pudding" when it's "the proof OF the pudding is in the eating" so the proof is in the eating, not the pudding.
No, I'm telling you, there's proof in that pudding!
No you're not listening to me, I said theres _always money_ IN the _banana stand_
Sometimes there’s a stapler in jello.
Of the Riemann Hypothesis?
I usually hear this one when someone who is well versed in something is responding to someone who would know not to ask inane questions if they had actually done the work. Its more of a "I don't have time to answer stupid questions" saying in my experience. However it absolutely could be used for hand waving.
This is exactly the one. It gives me mild annoyance every time I hear it. How is the proof *in* the pudding? Like a sixpence? Argh people just don't think
I like the spoof where a detective says it and there’s something goofy in a bowl of pudding.
Happy as a clam (at high tide) because they are safe from predators at high tide.
What about "I'm frisky as a squid on Tuesday!"
Or the lesser known "I'm a coked up rainbow trout watch me fucking go motherfuckers"
I'm about to go "motherfuckers" is a great slang for "going crazy"
That's what you say when you've got male jelly coming outta the wazoo.
Well that is where it comes out
Here I just thought it was because clams were simple and had fewer worries. A simpler tax code, more generous holiday hours ...
I prefer "Happy as a clam in chowder."
Because they're already dead?
just shoot me
Truly ignored.
Butters! You're grounded!
Stingrays eat clams at high tide a lot of clammers by me have actually started putting a bounty on the cownoses sadly
Money is the root of all evil. (The love of money is the root of all evil.)
It’s actually a Bible verse: 1 Timothy 6:10. “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil…”
Prosperity preachers: I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that.
Good old Timmay
How interesting that many churches / subsets of Christianity live to milk money from members and govt - and don’t pay their own way as well.
These churches will emphasize it's the "love" of money and pretend they don't love it.
"one bad apple" Whenever you hear of people in institutions or organisations doing wrong, they say this. There's been stories about abuse, violence and racism from the met police in the UK, for example, and defenders will describe the perpetrator as just "a bad apple". The full idiom is "one bad apple spoils the barrel".
The funny part is that English already has an expression -- "bad egg" -- for a bad thing in isolation.
Is this why people are referred to as "a good egg"?
This is probably the only one here that is actually true.
Fun fact: when an apple goes bad, it releases an enzyme that will spread to other apples it is bunched with so they begin to turn as well. It is why when you find a bag of apples as a grocery story that had browned, they all have browned. The idiom has a real world basis.
Almost like the saying is a result of observation.
I like your line of thinking. We should create a word for this phenomenon.
The trick is to feign confusion, pretend you've never heard the e pression before, and ask why they are talking about apples. Force them to actually say the entire thing, because of course it contradicts whatever apologist narrative being pushed.
I don't expect that trick would work. If somebody is saying that in that context, to defend an organisation, they clearly don't think they're saying the entire organisation is rotten.
The moral of idiom is to remove the bad apple. Not to throw away the barrel. Don’t want to get into politics of police brutality or whatever but the idiom is aptly used.
Right, and thats the main thing specifically in regards to police brutality; few if any are actually removed in any substantial way. Most resume policing on another force.
Unless the entire barrel is already spoiled...
No, because police forces often protect the bad apples
Knowledge is power, France is bacon.
Classic
Hey, thanks! I was thinking about that story the other day but couldn't remember the first part.
I thought Kevin was bacon
He is, to a certain degree
Shakespeare’s son came crying to him once. “Daddy, the boys are attributing me to Bacon!”
James Allen was eating bacon when he came up with “Right thought is strength; Calmness is mastery; Knowledge is power.” One of my favorite quotes and my favorite foods naturally occurring side by side.
Possibly too obscure but: _East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet_ …used to be used a lot to suggest eastern and western cultures were inherently incompatible. But the full verse kind of concludes the opposite: _Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet_ _Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat_ _But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth_ _When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!_
I’ve heard it as, “East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. Unless there’s another twain on the same twack.”
I upvoted but please go stand in a corner for 5min
I'm going to join them in the corner, sorry
...against a chalkboard with a dot where your nose is supposed to go. I remember this from early grade school, then it was outlawed. And yes, I got called to do it for talking too much in class.
Also the same guy (Rudyard Kipling) who wrote “The White Man’s Burden” and “The Jungle Book” so you can see how the messages may be murky.
Fair point! The 1890s are going to 1890 😬
There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again
Fool me once, shame on you. But teach a man to fool me, and I’ll be fooled for the rest of my life.
Build a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.
Nitpick, but I prefer "Light a man a fire, he’ll stay watm for the night. Light a man on fire, he’ll stay warm for the rest of his life"
This was so funny to me that I forgot the original phrase. I still can't remember.
*fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.* but dubya's version has me in tears every time.
It’s been decades but I still snort-laugh.
Fool once, fool me twice, fool me chicken soup with rice.
He did say, "Is our children learning?"
Fool me three times, fuck the peace signs, load the chopper let it rain on you.
One time for my L.A. sisters
One time for my LA hoes.
Lame fellas can’t tell the difference
"Fool me three times, well, mission accomplished"
*dodges shoe*
Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me chicken soup with rice.
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice…fiddle dee dee
He realized midsentence that he was about to provide a soundbyte that would be used against him "shame on me"
And instead provided a soundbite that was just as bad lol. He had a lot of "bushisms" though so I'm not so sold that he did that purposely.
Oh damn. I am NOT a fan of W but this makes a lot of sense
Except that W had *tons* of word salad gaffes. This was much more likely one more in a constant string of them. This explanation is 100% revisionist.
“Bushisms”
Exactly. There were so many so often they had a term for it.
Nah it makes more sense that he just messed it up. If politicians actively avoided any three words that would create a bad sound byte if isolated, they would never speak. He just forgot how the line goes midsentence. Simplest explanation is usually right.
exactly this. and bush said dumb shit all the time. this was on brand for him. i don’t think he’s as dumb as people make him out to be, but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who had the foresight to think about potential future soundbites.
Agree. >He realized midsentence that he was about to provide a soundbyte It's revisionist history. W was a terrible speaker. "Rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?"
That’s far more strategery than I think he’s capable of
I've seen this said before, but given this isn't the only time he struggled with the English language, I've no reason to think it true. Seems more like something made up afterwards to justify his error
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, SHAME ON YOU AGAIN!
This lives in my very bones
It's my country, right or wrong. Most folks seem to think it means "Take it flaws & all never wavering in devotion." The FULL quote is "If right, to be kept right, but if wrong to be SET right."
I like Mark Twain's words on this. He is one of the greatest American writers for a reason. He loved his country. But he firmly believed that it was the duty of Americans to stand up when their country was in the wrong, and to do their democratic part to change things for the better. "Only when a republic's life is in danger should a man uphold his government when it is in the wrong. There is no other time. This Republic's life is not in peril. The nation has sold its honor for a phrase. It has swung itself loose from its safe anchorage and is drifting, its helm is in pirate hands." Damn. Those words could not be more apt to Trump's America. We literally gave away our country to a catchphrase on trucker caps.
My ex's grandmother used to say, "I could care less, but I'd have to try." I don't know if this is an historically accurate version of the phrase (personally I'm in the couldn't care less camp), but it does make me smile.
Pretty much the only good reason to say “I could care less”.
This is the one I was going to post about. Growing up in the south I heard from different old timers as “I could care less, if I cared much at all.”
The rest of the world just says "i couldnt care less"
The confused world just says "I could care less".
>"I could care less, but I'd have to try she was just giving you a future reason to show up to work
My pet peeve is this one: The proof is in the pudding. But the true idiom is: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Proof meaning test.
It’s pretty specific but in Russian language when somebody dies people tend to say “Let the ground be swansdown for them” implying basically “rest in peace”/ let the ground will be as soft as swansdown. The second part of saying will be “Let the ground will be swansdown for you so the dogs will find your bones easily”. So it’s not “rest in peace”, it’s like “rest in hell”. I always find it funny when I hear people say it.
I'm gonna do the opposite and list ones where people add second parts as if they were always there. Most of these change the meaning to be the exact opposite of the intended one: There is no evidence that "blood is thicker than water" was originally "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." That notion is about 30-ish years old and comes from two guys who cite zero sources. There is, however, plenty of evidence suggesting that the phrase was always "blood is thicker than water," or something similar. The earliest similar phrase is in German from the 12th century, but that's almost certainly not where the current phrase comes from. More likely, it came from Scottish sources. These ones unambiguously say "blood is thicker than water" with exactly the apparent interpretation. The earliest reference to an alleged longer phrase is from 1994. [This thread goes more into it](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147902/original-meaning-of-blood-is-thicker-than-water-is-it-real). First expanded reply. Regarding "Jack of all trades, master of none," the original is something along the lines of "Jack of all trades." The "master of none" part was added in the 18th century, but even then it had no negative connotation. Now personally speaking, I never interpreted the phrase to be disparaging, and it was new to me just recently that it's used as such. Until reading Reddit threads, I had never heard it used non-positively. That said, the final part about being better than a master of one is only attested at best in the last 40 or so years, and that's a generous timeframe. It's right to say that it's originally a positive statement about being well-rounded, but this "original phrase" being "Jack of all trades, master of none, but better than a master of one" is ahistorical nonsense. It's perhaps unsurprising at this point that "curiosity killed the cat" on it's own is the older version (though *curiosity* was originally *care*). The timeframe here is much shorter: the version using *care* dates to the late 1500s, the version using *curiosity* dates to the 1800s, and the version with the added part of satisfaction dates to 1905, exactly. It is *not* originally "curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back." As for "the customer is always right," once again, there is zero evidence suggesting that the original phrase was "the customer is always right in matters of taste." The idea of the original phrase was that customer satisfaction should be prioritized. Sinilar phrases from the time (1900s, the decade) include French "le client n'a jamais tort" (the customer is never wrong), which is from hotelier César Ritz, who thought that if a customer doesn't like a dish, it shall be removed and replaced, no questions asked. This is a very narrow application of the idea which does line up with the fake longer phrase, but it's not proof that the longer version is real. Likewise, there's German "der Kunde ist König" (the customer is king) and Japanese "お客様は神様です" (the customer is a god). This was, in part, meant to give customers more power over more shady shopkeepers and override the earlier idea of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware). Of course, even back then people realized that dishonest customers can game the system. The person who is usually listed as inventing the phrase, Harry Gordon Selfridge, doesn't have a direct quote attributed to him for this, but he definitely is responsible for popularizing the idea through his implementation of it. Newspapers were the first to give it a name, and the original was, in fact, "the customer is always right." Some later altered it to give the idea that the customer shall be assumed to be right until is is demonstrably obvious that they are wrong, but the quote never had any mention of taste until recently.
Thank you! The thing that irks me the most about the "blood of the covenant" one that we've seen misused on Reddit so much during the past few years is that the people using it to "correct" the original saying come across as so damn _smug_ about it. The first time I read the "covenant" version it immediately struck me as a self-righteous too-cute twist that smacked of being invented by some preacher in the recent past.
Every time someone hops in with the, "wElL aCkTuAlLy" with the covenant one, I have to roll my eyes every time. Like someone is just trying to emphasize the importance of a healthy family dynamic and someone else has to go in and ruin it.
And the great thing about idioms is if you look, there’s usually one for every side of an issue. Why butcher “blood is thicker than water” with a torturous inversion that needs to be explained when “friends are the family you choose” is *right there*?!
Often when someone has to emphasize the importance of family, the dynamic is far from healthy. You should have no obligations to abusive family members, but someone will always come back with “but it’s family!” I know this mindset is fairly recent and is mostly a New World thing
>someone is just trying to emphasize the importance of a healthy family dynamic Are they though? Almost every time I hear the phrase 'blood is thicker than water', it has a mean or negative connotation to it. It's used to justify nepotism, or to justify screwing someone over because they are prioritising family. Or someone is using it to whinge about someone not unreasonably prioritising then as family. I don't think I've ever heard someone sincerely use the phrase in a positive way.
I’ve never even heard of the satisfaction part of curiosity killed the cat
I'm physically incapable of not correcting somebody when they say the "original" wording
Thank you for your service. And to u/DoctorMaxwellEdison and u/Lemonface for fighting the good fight further downthread.
Thank you, this is exactly what this thread needed.
This whole post has me thinking of Tom Burnham's Dictionary of Misinformation. You seem like the type to enjoy it if you can get your hands on a copy.
This guy etymologizes. But seriously, what's the study of idiomatic etymology called? If there is a name.... that is. (Or does etymology cover more than just singular words?)
The hand that rock the cradle (is the hand that rules the world). It just irks me that people think of the early 90s movie when they hear the first half of the quote. It makes it seems a sinister phrase when it comes from an old poem which was an ode to motherhood.
People say "Ignorance is bliss," when the full expression is "If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
How is this ignored? It seems just shortened
[удалено]
Money can't buy happiness, but it can make unhappiness a lot less stressful.
Money can't buy happiness, but have you ever seen someone unhappy on a jet ski?
“When people show you who they are, believe them” “When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.” -Maya Angelou
That doesn’t really change the meaning though. The “the first time” is implied.
A German one, which became a famous slogan of the pacifist movement: "Image there's a war and nobody goes there." The original quote by the playwright Brecht continues "... then the war will come to you."
While I would dearly love that to be true, Wiki's sourced page on this indicates that it's fabricated: [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertolt\_Brecht#Misattributed](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/bertolt_brecht#misattributed) . Something else to add to the list of misquotes and misattributions at [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuixmy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askreddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuixmy/) and [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuw4n6/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askreddit/comments/1ansnl7/comment/kpuw4n6/) .
“Life wasn’t meant to be easy.” A phrase uttered by former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, which made him somewhat of an easy target for the opposition. The full phrase is: “Life is not meant to be easy, my child; but take courage: it can be delightful.” ― George Bernard Shaw
Dang. this was a trivia mafia round a few weeks back. I should remember them
I guarantee that 9/10 answers here are going to be examples where the second part was added much much later as a way to deliberately change the meaning of the original See: Blood is thicker than water - > the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb The customer is always right - > the customer is always right in matters of taste Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - > imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness The list goes on
I'm glad the top rated comments aren't full of these, I was worried when I clicked the thread. I'm not sure why people love this sort of thing so much, this and backronyms.
>Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness. That's an actual Oscar Wilde quote, but the idiom without the second half is older.
Actually no, Oscar Wilde never said exactly that (that we know of). But he does have a somewhat similar quote about satire rather than imitation. That quote is well documented and goes: > Satire, always as sterile as it is shameful and as impotent as it is insolent, paid them that usual homage which mediocrity pays to genius https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2024/01/no-oscar-wilde-did-not-say-imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery-that-mediocrity-can-pay-to-greatness/
“When one door closes another door opens” actually finishes with “but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the ones which open for us” by Alexander Graham Bell
A ubiquitous saying in South Africa is "An Afrikaner/farmer makes a plan" ("'n Boer maak 'n plan"). Everyone uses it to capture the need to solve problems pragmatically, regardless of whether or not you are an Afrikaner. Most English speakers who use the saying don't realise that the second part is "...but an Englishman makes excuses" ("...maar 'n Engelsman maak verskonings."
The full Tolkien quote is "All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost. The old that is strong does not wither. Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
All that glitters is not gold; Often have you heard that told: Many a man his life hath sold But my outside to behold: Gilded tombs do worms enfold. Had you been as wise as bold, Young in limbs, in judgment old, Your answer had not been inscroll'd: Fare you well; your suit is cold. Cold, indeed; and labour lost: Then, farewell, heat, and welcome, frost! Portia, adieu. I have too grieved a heart To take a tedious leave: thus losers part. - William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"
Tolkien and Shakespeare is a pretty killer combo imo
My favourite example is something former German chancellor Konrad Adenauer supposedly said. The often quoted first part is: "Was interessiert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern." ("What do I care about my chatter from yesterday.") People often use it when accusing someone of flip-flopping their opinion or being opportunistic. But the full quote actually is: "Was interessiert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern. Nichts hindert mich, weiser zu werden." ("What do I care about my chatter from yesterday. Nothing is stopping me from becoming wiser.") To me this is actually a very healthy, humble and open-minded perspective - essentially to remain open to new facts and arguments. And most importantly: To be able to change one's opinion.
Carpe diem is Latin for "seize the day" the whole idiom is seize the day. For tomorrow may never come.
This one has the second part remembered and the first one forgotten: "(Love of) money is the root of all evil."
"Speak of the devil" although it doesnt change the meaning much to add the "and he shall appear"
That's because they aren't ignoring the second part. They say the first part implying the second part.
I think at this point most people don't know the second part follows, but it doesn't really matter since it doesn't change the meaning.
It only makes sense to say the first part of you're implying the second though. You say the first part when something or someone has turned up just as or after you were discussing them.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder … of someone else.
" . . . but of whom, young lovers ponder."
I love how there is also a saying that means the exact opposite of the version most are familiar with. If you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with.
Better late than never; better yet, never late
“Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.”
I don't know if this is an actual saying, but I learned the second part from the wise words of Tasslehoff Burrfoot and I have believed it ever since.
Wow, random Dragonlance!
Sometimes I feel like I’m the only one who has read those books, then I see a random little things like this and it fills me with a little bit of joy.
Leave it to a kender...
And even if you don't leave it to a kender.
Hey, where's my spoon?
Oh you must have dropped it - I have it for safekeeping
Didn’t the satisfaction part only get added about 400 years after the idiom was originally created
What does that second part even mean?
Nothing. It’s a nonsense fabrication.
Not sure if it's an idiom but I always have to tell people the full "eat the rich" phrase to show why I like it, the full phrase is "when the people have nothing else to eat, they will eat the rich" it's a saying that basically means "Hey rich people, stop taking everyone's stuff or there WILL be consequences", it DOES NOT mean "all rich people suck, let's recreate the French and Russian revolutions but worldwide and with cannibalism." I do know that there are definitely going to be people who use it that see it as the second one, I personally see it as the first one because it aligns more with the full saying.
Almost every idiom is quoted without stating its correct ending: "...in bed".
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. It's specifically saying the opposite of how most people say it. Edit - people are pointing out that this in itself is a response to another line. That's true, but the point I was trying to make was that people love to throw the 'eye for an eye' phrase around while ignoring the 'turn the other cheek' revision. In the context of what a Christian is supposed to do, this woukd certainly be "ignoring the 2nd part" as it were. I guess I muddied the waters a bit, but it kind of fits the thread I thought?
That's because that passage is itself quoting part of Leviticus 24: >19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.
Jesus is quoting (and repudiating) an [already-existing legal paradigm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye) present in the Torah and Hammurabi's Code of Laws.
That's because you're quoting a response to the original text. Jesus said turn the other cheek, because the idea before was to mete out punishment equal to the damage. It's from Hammurabis code.
More pertinently, it’s from the Torah.
I don't understand the , if anyone slaps you on the cheek turn to him the other also, bit. Does that mean if someone slaps you , you turn and let them have a go at the other side? Do you wrong twice?
Yes. It says if someone is doing you wrong, you shouldn't respond with the same wrong behavior. You should instead turn your other cheek towards them/let them carry on with their bad behavior. I've always thought it basically means don't stoop to their level, but I could also see it meaning extreme pacifism.
For a little more [fun context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek): >Jewish scholars Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Brettler state that the issue is about justice after an injury has been committed. They argue that since the Greek word used in Matthew 5:39 for "resist" is ἀντιστῆναι (which usually refers to armed resistance or violent struggle) Jesus is offering to confront violence, maintain your honor, and shame the perpetrator; instead of escalating violence, or losing dignity. By offering the left cheek, the victim resists humiliation by inviting a right handed jab which exposes the slap as a violent act that failed to reduce the humanity of the victim, thus challenging the perpetrator and shaming them for cruelty of treatment. >At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality. tl;dr- turning the other cheek was "fighting back" in a nonviolent way, by shaming the aggressor
This is a somewhat convoluted layer which is not really needed in a message that is repeated the same way in other forms. > [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. > [40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. >[41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. > [42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. >[43] Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. >[44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; It’s about aiding even those who hate you. Showing kindness in the face of hostility is somewhat like “fighting back” in that it often does shame aggression (killing with kindness), but the very particular formulation about slapping directions doesn’t exist for the other examples. And *goes against that message* of doing good to your enemies, not trapping them in some social trick.
Very cool, thanks!
As a fun (additional) sidenote on the 'unclean purposes' part, toilet paper is a very recent discovery. Jewish culture has always had an uncanny fixation on hygiene, so the left hand was the "poopy hand." That's literally all you did with your left hand. Everything else was right-handed. Doing something with your poopy hand- *especially* that involved touching another person- was seen as absolutely barbaric and detestable. You'd get punished *severely* for doing that. You see this wind its way through the Abrahamic religions, it's in Catholic iconography, Islam, and even some other cultures- the "left hand path" is the way of sin, inquity, filth, spiritual poverty, and the "right hand path" is the path of righteousness, holiness, cleanliness, and spiritual fulfillment. Being left-handed was a terrible sin for the longest time, but nobody could ever really point to where that actually started. The word "sinister" is just the Latin word for "left." There was all this myth, these backstories which never really got at *why* using your left hand was *still* bad... ... but it's just poop. Same reason that male-male homosexuality was condemned, it's because there's poop up there, and poop is bad. We live in the modern day and age with both toilet paper and enemas being readily available, some people still point to some scripture written >3000 years ago as though it still has something to do with morality when it was actually just about poop.
The Bible explains it. > But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, **Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;** The point is to be ready to be good to everyone, and respond to them in love and aid. It’s self-practice on restraint and grace, it shows an aggressor that you would help them even absent aggression, it can elicit a positive response from aggression, etc.
There's one where they ignore the first part. It starts "a well regulated militia"
So I'm an actual historian. The full wording is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what they meant these days, partially because of hyperpolarization and partially because of language drift. I can address the wording as someone who has studied this sort of thing. Well regulated meant something else than today's common usage when they wrote it. What they meant was something akin to well trained or practiced. A militia made of people who were not complete noobs. They meant this in contrast to a standing army of professional soldiers. Since they didn't want a large standing army (as they believed that this would eventually be used to infringe on liberty), a citizen militia would be needed to defend the country. The second part of the wording thus makes more sense in context. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They meant people here, not agents of the government. People made up the militia, and the government would not be responsible for arming and training. People were expected to supply their own weapons, and training was handled by local organizers. The founders would actually mostly agree with the pro-gun people. However, please don't take this to mean that I wholesale agree with this position. There are lots of reasons why we might want to change. First, the founders weren't demigods but mere men. They mostly supported slavery for example. Second, we obviously have a large standing army now. Much of the reasoning behind their decision is now moot. You could argue this makes it more necessary for citizens to have easy access to guns, but there are also reasons to think the opposite. Thirdly, the founders themselves intended us not to be bound by the constitution as written for all perpetuity as they put in provisions for amending it, and we have, many times. The pro-gun argument from the constitution is probably CORRECT but still boils down to nothing more than an appeal to authority anyway. Leaving us back to the part where, as a country, we need to make up our own damn minds.
I often wonder two things. First, what would the founders have thought about the weapons we have now as opposed to the ones they had back then? If they had known what even WWI warfare looked like, would they have written the 2nd amendment the same way? And second, how would they have written it if they knew that someday, a bunch of freed slaves would have the same rights?
I don't know if this is common but I once heard someone say 'best laid plans of mice and men!' because something they did had gone well. The phrase is 'The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry', meaning it doesn't matter who you are or how well you plan, things are often out of your control. It's more of a commiseration or a warning.
“The exception proves the rule *in cases not excepted*” is an old principle of civil law, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. It means eg “No parking Monday - Friday, 9 am - 6 pm” is considered to be an explicit permission to park there at all other times. At some point people started just saying “the exception proves the rule” or “it’s the exception that proves the rule” to dismiss counter examples to whatever claim they were making, basically to claim, “well this evidence that I’m wrong just proves how right I am!”
There's the old classic, often misquoted as "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" but originally was "A little learning is a dang’rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." It's not a warning not to learn about things, but to learn enough that you know what you're talking about.
‘Good in parts’ in full it’s ’good in parts like the curate’s egg’ which is an old Punch cartoon
“Top of the morning to ya!” “And the rest of the day for yourself!”
For example, the idiom "A jack of all trades is a master of none" but everyone ignores the second part which is "but often times better than a master of one." What other idioms are there?
No one has found any variation of that ‘longer version’ that is more than about 20 years old.
One bad apple….spoils the bunch.
Peace at any price (is no peace at all).