The household animals are not pouring down. This saying describes rainfall that is so powerful that it washes away the dead cats and dogs lying in the gutter in medieval cities.
Interesting. I always thought it was because the rain was so heavy it drove all the strays to seek shelter, so people noticed a lot more cats and dogs in front of their homes. I think a grade school teacher told me that when I was a kid. I like the dead animal version better.
"Quitting cold turkey" - I never actually thought about this one, but apparently it's directly related to addiction (which seems kind of obvious now that I do think about it). When you quit an addiction abruptly, you sometimes get that cold goosebump skin like a cold turkey.
Hoisted by my own petard (to be foiled by your own plan), is a nice flowery one, although it actually makes sense. The bee's knees (for something excellent) is a good one that makes no sense. Wet behind the ears (inexperienced) is another cool one.
The french used to use an explosive device called a "petard" (old french for a fart), that was used to breach doors. However these would sometimes blow back and kill the user rather than breach the door. This was the original intention for the Shakespearian phrase. One was Hoisted (old verb* not used anymore but essentially blown off their feet) by their own Petard (or door breaching bomb).
My wife has worked with lots of people who are not native English speakers who are sometimes taken aback by the idioms. One colleague flat out refused to accept that "FOMO" is a word.
I suggested that she is in a position to make some up, like "Let's not put fish in the milk bucket." But she didn't go for it. I guess she's not an agent of chaos after all :/
I had to explain that "you get what you pay for" to a disgruntled (and later banned from my store) customer years ago.
At the time I was selling eyewear for Red Eyewear Giant (now owned by Blue Eye-care Giant™) and a guy orders the absolute cheapest product for his quite strong prescription. The RX was roughly a -7 on each eye, not huge but definitely significantly thicker than average. The gentleman wanted LARGE eyewear. The man did not want to spend much.
I offered a quote for the ideal product for his vision, which is a 1.7 index lens with scratch resistant non-glare and a hydrophobic coating (well get to why thats important). The man declines and decides he wants the absolute bare minimum, cool, cr-39 plastic lenses, uncoated. No amount of education on the products would change his mind, I chalked it up to a budget thing, explained the downsides of his choice (to absolve myself of liability for the issues I knew he'd have) and allowed the oirchase to go through with confirmation he understood the issues.
Now, what we've just done here is gone from a very lightweight, low thermal mass product that repels water, to a HEAVY, High mass product with absolutely no water repellant properties. This is in Houston, TX - a literal swamp, and the Air conditioning capital of the US.
Man enters grocery store, man buys groceries, man leaves grocery store, man's glasses immediately are coated in a thick fog which is dense enough that evaporation does not occur quickly (or at all honestly with that humidity) and they need to be wiped up.
That man screamed at me about how I ripped him off for over an hour.
Now, I'm not telling this story to say you're wrong, I think this might be an "exception that proves the rule" situation. But yes, you get what you pay for, and no, it's not always said by scummy salespeople, sometimes we just want you to have the right product the first time.
We all have experience with buying a premium product and thinking “wow, that’s nice” just like we’ve all had the experience where we bought the cheapest option and though “this is pretty good”.
The rule is as follows: “it depends”.
It’s just that our monkey brains don’t like those kinds of generalization.
They aren't some unified entity. They don't even agree amongst themselves on most things if one digs deep enough. While there is some interpretation of the data involved, most people that use the phrase "Scientists say..." are essentially saying "Objective observations done by several of the smartest humans have been argued over by several of their rivals resulting in..."
Like, we should start calling them something like Observational Data Warriors ™ /s to put perspective on the magnitude of information and depth involved. You can have an opinion but you are a coward of no relevant value if you are not trained for battle and fighting on the front lines. So whatever nonsense you have to say results in you looking like a clown of no note.
Scientists say "im off to work dear, see you this afternoon”.
but seriously, we have to trust experts in STEM just to get through our day. Every time someone give the "scientists can be wrong too” line i look up at the ceiling as if its about to collapse. Sure science is about continuous improvement and falsifiability but that guys PHD is not equivalent to your youtube recomendations pipeline.
I'm so sure that this thing will happen, that I'm willing to make a bet whereby I'll pay you dollars if it doesn't happen, and you pay me donuts if it does.
I feel like I'm getting free donuts and my dollars are not at risk.
My father-in-law from rural west Texas refers to things as being 'slicker than owl shit' and some people as being 'richer than ten feet up a bull's ass.'
There are a lot of good Texasism. I was living in Texas when I first heard "Oh bless her heart.". Mean either she's a good person, or she's dumber than dog shit.
God punishes you, or he backs away, or he learns to not listen to you anymore in boy cries wolf type situation? Its really not clear what the repercussions are.
No, no, it was originally "Taking God's name in vein," as saying the name of God out loud would allow Him into your blood. If you say the name of God, you allow him to inhabit your blood, gain your power, and become even more mighty. The ancient Hebrews feared God gaining too much power, as He would be able to destroy the world. Then Christians figured out that if they took Communion and instead drank the blood of Christ, they could reverse the Hebrew God's power and slowly increase their own until they could ascend to the heavens and do battle with the Almighty, empowered by His blood in their veins, rather than weakened by taking His name in vein. In this seventeen-part essay, I will describe how we can defeat God by
The expression comes from the phrase "in vain" which restores the original meaning of the noun vain away from the conceited meaning and more towards the vacuous sense. So if you're taking God's name in vain, it's using God's name needlessly.
I think the idea was that he could be invoked by his name, but they couldn't have people going around saying "Jehova" (or whatever) randomly without any cool powers happening, so they made up the rule to discourage people poking holes in their flimsy story.
I know there are lots of possible origins for this phrase, but I think of it as "pleases" and "thank yous". The "k" sound from "thank" followed by the word "you" combine to sound like the letter q.
It's not a common saying here and I assumed it meant to pay attention to detail, be meticulous and precise, like "dot the i’s and cross the t’s". 'p' and 'q' can be written similarly.
My understanding is that that was the original intention of the phrase. It's meant to be ironic but then the irony was lost as the phrase got more popular
This is a theatre term as “Good luck” is supposed to bring bad luck. Therefore, you wish someone the worst luck possible in order to bring them good luck.