PeterNdlovu081
COCK PISS PARTRIDGE
Christ, been getting a bit rowdy in here.
You guys are like a bowl in a china shop.
You guys are like a bowl in a china shop.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
Christ, been getting a bit rowdy in here.
You guys are like a bowl in a china shop.
You're daft as a brush!I like a good typo , me .
Obviously you meant to say ‘a bowel in a china shop ‘ which then makes perfect sense , along with the likes of ‘the proof is in the pudding’ and ‘ he couldn’t hit a barn door with a banjo ‘ …..
I'd ditch rather more than hald right now.This thread has reminded me of the time someone once suggested we ditch hald the squad.
JJ Sefton
Grecian2000
shorehamview
Remember that?
I'd ditch rather more than hald right now.
This thread has reminded me of the time someone once suggested we ditch hald the squad.
JJ Sefton
Grecian2000
shorehamview
Remember that?
Some memory there Nuddy. That must have been a good few years ago!
To be honest if you hadn't mentioned it I'd have continued to give this whole thread a swerve, that would have been a mistake for sure.
Doesn't matter in this context as we're looking at whether United will be properly prepared to start next season or not. In this case the summer/pre-season will be the evidential pudding.It doesn’t make the same sense as “the proof of the pudding will be in the eating”.
The mangled quote suggests that there will be a proof in the pudding, like a sixpence in a plum duff. The actual quote suggests that whether the pudding is good or not will be the proof when eating it. It’s a small difference but an important one.
I’m usually descriptivist rather than prescriptivist, but I think that important nuance is lost when misquoting this aphorism.
Doesn't matter in this context as we're looking at whether United will be properly prepared to start next season or not. In this case the summer/pre-season will be the evidential pudding.
Free Dictionary online offered the below confirming its common usage:
the proof is in the pudding
The final results of something are the only way to judge its quality or veracity.
Our analysts think that the marketing campaign will reinvigorate our sales, but the proof is in the pudding, so let's see how our figures look at the end of the year.
OK, if I did everything right, the engine should work right, but the proof will be in the pudding.
Doesn't matter in this context as we're looking at whether United will be properly prepared to start next season or not. In this case the summer/pre-season will be the evidential pudding.
Free Dictionary online offered the below confirming its common usage:
the proof is in the pudding
The final results of something are the only way to judge its quality or veracity.
Our analysts think that the marketing campaign will reinvigorate our sales, but the proof is in the pudding, so let's see how our figures look at the end of the year.
OK, if I did everything right, the engine should work right, but the proof will be in the pudding.
Common usage ≠ correct usage. Again, I don’t like being prescriptivist, but as I said before, there’s a subtle difference in meaning. If the summer/preseason were the pudding, then surely “the proof will be the pudding” or “the pudding will be the proof” would make more sense than “the proof will be the pudding”.Doesn't matter in this context as we're looking at whether United will be properly prepared to start next season or not. In this case the summer/pre-season will be the evidential pudding.
Free Dictionary online offered the below confirming its common usage:
the proof is in the pudding
The final results of something are the only way to judge its quality or veracity.
Our analysts think that the marketing campaign will reinvigorate our sales, but the proof is in the pudding, so let's see how our figures look at the end of the year.
OK, if I did everything right, the engine should work right, but the proof will be in the pudding.
Common usage ≠ correct usage. Again, I don’t like being prescriptivist, but as I said before, there’s a subtle difference in meaning. If the summer/preseason were the pudding, then surely “the proof will be the pudding” or “the pudding will be the proof” would make more sense than “the proof will be the pudding”.
I’m happy if you’re happy to accept the bastardised version as valid, but I’m equally happy that I don’t, and common usage doesn’t make it right in my eyes.
“I could care less” is commonly used in the States, but I’d argue that some of its meaning is also lost from the original.
But it did lead to the wonderful line from a character in an Irvine Welsh book:The original phrase is 'you want to eat your cake and have it' (which makes sense) but at some down the line it became 'you want to have your cake and eat it' (which doesn't make any sense).
The original phrase is 'you want to eat your cake and have it' (which makes sense) but at some down the line it became 'you want to have your cake and eat it' (which doesn't make any sense).
Plenty of puddings on here……So is there going to be any pudding or not? I’m hungry.
Is this itk or not? I get confused!The original phrase is 'you want to eat your cake and have it' (which makes sense) but at some down the line it became 'you want to have your cake and eat it' (which doesn't make any sense).
Bollocks. Proove it.The original phrase is 'you want to eat your cake and have it' (which makes sense) but at some down the line it became 'you want to have your cake and eat it' (which doesn't make any sense).
I don't understand half of those words, but I think agreeIt doesn’t make the same sense as “the proof of the pudding will be in the eating”.
The mangled quote suggests that there will be a proof in the pudding, like a sixpence in a plum duff. The actual quote suggests that whether the pudding is good or not will be the proof when eating it. It’s a small difference but an important one.
I’m usually descriptivist rather than prescriptivist, but I think that important nuance is lost when misquoting this aphorism.
No.So is there going to be any pudding or not? I’m hungry.
It works both ways because I prefer the phrase, 'Dull as dish water'.
But the original was, 'Dull as ditch water'.
You'll see a pretty even split of usage between those two.
Dish water makes more sense and seems more descriptive to me.
But I do accept that ditch water was the original and dish water is wrong.
The original phrase is 'you want to eat your cake and have it' (which makes sense) but at some down the line it became 'you want to have your cake and eat it' (which doesn't make any sense).
Another misquote really. Horses don’t chomp as the bit fits between their teeth.Another one is "Chomping at the bit" instead of "Champing at the bit". Chomping still makes sense in that context.
Imagined you looking different Sean……
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?