Linguistic ambiguities and nonsense phrases etc

[Clinamenic]

I think about something similar quite often, namely how common usages of words deviate from etymology, resulting in a sort is semantic mutation over time.

But there are some words which remain etymological sound and self-evident in a given context of common usage. For example, the word “telephone” to me pretty perfectly describes the thing it is commonly used to refer to.

I also think about how slang can be construed as linguistic severances from etymological self-evidence, but I don’t know how much of a case there is to be made there.

 

[IdleRich]

If the skill of the workman is determined on a case by case basis depending only on the work just done (or if a good workman can only do good work, by definition), then blaming tools is a sure sign of bad workmanship:

View attachment 12087

If workman quality is a property intrinsic to the workman and all blame tools if a job has gone badly, then a tool-blamer is more likely to be a generally good workman, given a large enough population of good workmen, relative to bad ones:

View attachment 12086

If good workmen never blame their tools (even when a job goes badly), then blaming tools indicates a bad workman:

View attachment 12085

I think the phrase is most likely to mean the first scenario.

Tip for bad workman: if you don't want to be thought bad after a bad job in the absence of any evidence other than whether you blame your tools or not, don't blame your tools!

You're misunderstanding it by bringing in probability, it's intended to be a simple logical entailment.

 

[IdleRich]

Another that I have noticed is people are saying 'i was so angry i was spitting feathers!' which has mixed up two things:

• I was so angry I was spitting nails
• I was so thirsty i was spitting feathers.

It annoys me when people get these things wrong and i teach language change and i know i am being irrational but dammit, a man must have some standards.

Ah that's interesting you mention that cos on dissensus I used the phrase "spitting tacks" and @Leo asked me what I meant and I said it meant that I was angry but that I didn't know the origin. I guess that tack is (approximately) a word for nail so hopefully my usage meets with your approval...

 

[IdleRich]

Basically, one is likely to misidentify a bad workman when:
View attachment 12088

I think you're deliberately missing the point now.

 

[IdleRich]

A related phenomenon is sayings that get misquoted, or only partially quoted, and end up being used to mean the opposite of what the original saying was supposed to mean.

Like "blood is thicker than water", which people use to mean, in some vague sort of way, that the bonds of blood-relatedness are strong. But the original saying is "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", which means that relationships formed by choice are stronger than those of blood relations.

Another one that comes up so often in the context of police brutality or corruption as to have become a cliché is "a few bad apples", as if to imply it's not such a big problem. But the saying is that "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel", which means that it very much is a problem.

Then there's "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps", which is supposed to imply, oh I dunno, some guff about doing well through hard work after starting out in a lowly position, but was originally meant to imply something that's completely impossible, which it obviously would be.

But isn't "pulling yourself up by your boottraps" the origin of the phrase to boot or reboot a computer. The point is - I suppose - that turning on a computer is deemed to cause it to achieve that impossible task.

 

[IdleRich]

OK, YOU'VE STUDIED BAYESIAN STATISTICS, WE GET IT ALREADY

Though not when to use it apparently.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But isn't "pulling yourself up by your boottraps" the origin of the phrase to boot or reboot a computer. The point is - I suppose - that turning on a computer is deemed to cause it to achieve that impossible task.

Oh, maybe, I dunno. But was talking about how it's applied to people.

 

[IdleRich]

A very common mistake is the thing between "fore" and "for" - many instances.

Forego (to go before) vs forgo (to go without), forebear (ancestor) vs forbear (not do something) are always mixed up.

 

[IdleRich]

Oh, maybe, I dunno. But was talking about how it's applied to people.

Sure, I'm not contradicting you, just saying that the phrase has been adapted - in that instance - from what might well be a correct understanding of its original meaning.

 

[IdleRich]

To make this thread a general linguistic strangeness thing... i also wanted to mention the word cleave which is one of the few I can think of that means itself and its opposite. That is to say you can cleave together and cleave apart. Maybe oversight is another sort of.

 

[Mr. Tea]

There's this, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_model

 

[Clinamenic]

To make this thread a general linguistic strangeness thing... i also wanted to mention the word cleave which is one of the few I can think of that means itself and its opposite. That is to say you can cleave together and cleave apart. Maybe oversight is another sort of.

Yeah oversee and overlook can mean very different things, which is interesting.

 

[IdleRich]

But "an oversight" is very different from "having oversight" of something.

 

[Leo]

I've always been fond of "wait for the other shoe to drop".

 

[mixed_biscuits]

You're misunderstanding it by bringing in probability, it's intended to be a simple logical entailment.

When would a good worker blame their tools?

 

[IdleRich]

When would a rolling stone gather moss?

 

[IdleRich]

What is the probability of a cloud having a silver lining?

 

[IdleRich]

I started this thread as a bit of light-hearted break from the politics stuff, don't make it stupider than it already is.

 

[Mr. Tea]

When would a good worker blame their tools?

When they're shit tools?

 

[Leo]

death to tools.