Talk:Idiom/Archive 1

Leave well enough alone

I'm awesome, so I didn't want to correct someone else's claim -- but what exactly is supposedly wrong with "leave well enough alone"?

Bob may not be perfectly well, but he is well enough, so let's leave him alone without trying to fix him. That seems completely fine to me, both semantically and grammatically.

And the supplied citation doesn't actually support the claim that "leave well enough alone" is somehow ungrammatical or semantically jarring. Can someone verify that there's nothing wrong with the customary idiomatic formulation? 75.3.94.131 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is estimated that William Shakespeare coined over 9,000 idioms still in use today.[citation needed]" "Over 9,000"? Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.132.177 (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND lol StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Computer Science Example

The example CS idiom: while(*a++ == *b++); -- originally written as an assignment (=) and now written as a comparison (==) -- doesn't make a lot of sense to me either way. The first way, while(*a++ = *b++);, will assign the contents of the array starting at b to the array starting at a, but there's no termination condition. The second way, while(*a++ == *b++);, you compare the current elements of a and b, then go to the next elements (the ++'s execute after the comparison), then repeat while the elements are the same. But, when you finally get to points in a and b where the elements are different, you'll stop on the NEXT elements, not the first ones that are different -- because the ++ happens regardless of the outcome of the comparison. Also, there's no termination condition if the arrays are the same; you'll spill over into the next chunk of memory. So, could someone either clarify this code for me (maybe I'm not reading it right or seeing its purpose) or come up with a better example? --sk19842 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. It's for strings, in which case you'll encounter a '\0'. I'll change it back to an assignment and explain what it does. --sk19842 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe you should just leave stuff alone that you don't understand, instead of running off at the mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.119.190 (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

dont be so jealous cause i got what you dont.... a damn dick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.26.104 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Two expressions

Open question for discussion: Expressions: "Too many cooks spoil the broth." or "Too many Chiefs, not enough indians" Are these true idioms or mere colloquial metaphors? Both seem much more literal than most true idioms? Come to think of it, a metaphor is a comparison. Surley they're not ultra-short parables. Talk amongst yourselves. -A.Sprankell 6/22/05 20:07

List

Would it be proper to have a list of idioms? user:zanimum

No, because, that's part of the function of the wikipedia itself - see idiom dictionary

Questions

A small bundle of questions:

Is bite your tongue an idiom?

1. Do children, like foreigners, have trouble acquiring idioms?

This is dependant on countless variables.

The biggest variables I would say are:

whether or not the child is at least familiar with the words contained in the idiom itself

whether they are familiar with what the idiom is ultimately conveying in the first place.

We don't learn words by reading the dictionary,

we learn words by experiencing them in their surrounding context. Especially with idioms.

Children learn them from any number of variables that they currently do understand. For example, the emotional tone of the conversation, ::the broader conversation, for example.

In a nutshell; the more obvious the context surrounding the idiom(relative to the child's own perceptions and understandings), the easier ::they will infer and intuit how the idiom is to be used and what it implies.

1. Is "virtually all idioms are peculiar to their own language" perhaps a misleading claim? It seems that romance languages have a number of idioms that more or less directly correspond to an idiom in another romance language. Presumibly, as a rule of thumb, the more historically distant the languages, the more distant the idioms, and the fewer they'll have in common.

I'm not sure about that rule of thumb. It would seem to have more to do with cultural similarities than language relationships, e.g. "good Samaritan" probably has equivalents in many languages the Bible is widely read in. Another example might be the adoption of a colonial ruler's (or otherwise culturally dominant's) idiom, which is possibly (this is a total guess) why Tagalog has "buto't balat" (literally "skin and bones"). I'll try to think of better examples.

1. What American and British English Differences has to say about "could care less" and "couldn't care less" suggests that former expression derived from the latter. (The latter is present in Britain and America, while the former is present only in America.) Is this a compelling argument? Should we include it? It'd be nice to say something about how idioms arise, and "mutating" from a non-idiom seems to be one way this happens. (Of course, "could care less" might not be an idiom from certain perspectives.)

"Could care less" is non-standard English. But I'd also like to see a section on how idioms come into usage.

1. There are expressions such that A) if you don't know what they mean, the meaning doesn't seem to follow from the parts, but B) if you do know what they mean, the meaning more or less does. (Some people would say the meaning is "motivated", but not "determined", from the component meanings.) It's easy to come up with short examples (perhaps "house boat", "mechanical pencil", "abstract algebra", or "generative linguistics"). Maybe someone (perhaps me, at another time) can provide better or longer examples. In any case, are these phrases also called idioms?

Those don't seem like idioms to me. Periphescent 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I find many idioms whose meanings are intuitive. Does this mean they are not really idioms? Also, many idioms use words with more than one meaning but one semi-literal meaning is implied instead of all literal meanings. Such as "price break" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.11.41 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed

Moved from article text to here:

There are thousands of idioms -- far too many to list here. It has been suggested that someone start a Wiki on this subject alone.

It seems more a discussion issue than an encyclopedic article on something in the real world. Not sure, though ... Atorpen 05:05 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Already covered under idiom dictionary. Wikipedia is already serving as one of these, and the Wiktionary won't replace this function in its current form.

---

A second meaning is in relation to one's language, and can be applied in specific graduations, for example, one's city, one's county, or one's country; a dialect may be referred to as an idiom.

Can someone clarify, perhaps by providing a definition of this sense? I really have no clue how to use the word "idiom" in this sense, and this definition doesn't help me. --Ryguasu

I'll do some more research and get back to you on this. What I meant was what you meant, I think, with: "idiom of the Americans," but that did sound weird. Think of it this way: in America, anyway, Minnesotans up north talk differently than Texans down south, and who 'talk different' than Californians out west. This is what I meant. Still, that's not at all what this article is about, at least at this point, and seems as if this definition would belong better in wiktionary. Maybe. Unsure.

In answer to 1) above, I seem to remember that children don't have trouble picking up idioms - its part of their learning the language. I think. :) Atorpen

---

Don't remove 'redundant' See Also links. Most See Also links are 'redundant'. The purpose of the 'See Also' is to point out the most closely related or confused concepts. It is entirely correct to make distinctions in the text and include a link, and then include another link at the bottom to underscore the relatedness or confusedness. Most articles don't have enough See Also links.

While the in-context link is usually enough, for some articles, those most commonly confused or closely related or providing more information on the same topic, it's appropriate to actually suggest that they read those other articles. Some concepts are very central and so have up to ten 'See Alsos', most of which are referenced in the text too.

Agreed. The idiom dictionary link is a good one. Atorpen

---

I think that they should be replaced with expressions that "actually make sense"

Removed text

"Some people nonetheless lament the existence of idioms, and argue that they should be replaced with expressions that "actually make sense". Others don't care, while some deeply appreciate the existence of idioms." - see weasel terms, passive voice - yuck. -Slack 04:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

More removed text

In my recent edit I removed:

The term can be applied in specific graduations, for example, one's city, county, state, or country

because its original purpose in the article had become almost completely obscured (see April 2004 version), and:

Indeed, much of human language is idiomatic in structure: even the most formal of structures contain characteristics, such as general typology, which categorically distinguish it from other languages.

because it seemed to be using the word idiom[atic] in a sense not directly related to the rest of the article. - dcljr 03:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) SHANITQUA MaYS & RAMIRE maYO

"Kick the bucket"

Take the English expression to kick the bucket. A listener knowing only the meaning of kick and bucket would be unable to deduce the expression's actual meaning, to die. Although kick the bucket can refer literally to the act of striking a bucket with a foot, native speakers rarely use it that way.

Does this belong in the intro? I think it would be more appropriatly placed under the "Culture" section. The intro should lean towards explaining the word, and less towards giving examples. --Stoa 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What is not an idiom?

Over on Wiktionary right now I'm having trouble telling a contributor that "smells like shit" is not an idiom. His argument is that it doesn't imply an odour that necessarily closely matches that of excreta. My argument is that that is the nature of simile and that not every nonliteral phrase equates to an idiom? Am I wrong? If not, how can I better formulate my argument? — Hippietrail 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this article "An idiom is an expression (i.e. term or phrase) whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through conventional use".

Since "smells like shit" is quite directly deduced (Q:"what does shit smell like" A:"well, it's not good"), it is not a colloquial simile or idiom.

Also, features of idioms include Non-compositionality, Non-substitutability, and Non-modifiability. Since the meaning of "smells like shit" is straightfoward from its parts, since you can substitute related words ("smells like poop") or make modifications ("shit-like smell") without losing or changing meaning, the phrase is not an idiom. Hyacinth 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one: "A problem shared is a problem halved" - supposedly an Idiom, but falling foul (sic) of the so-called "definition". I frequently hear/use "smells like shit" and/or "sounds like shit" to mean the exact same thing, nothing excrement-related. It would make no sense to use "shit-like smell" in the same context (or, LOL, "shit-like sound"). I would suggest that folks are taking the definition too seriously? Perhaps idioms are just expressions that people understand have non-literal meanings attached? (or non currently literal at least... "kick the bucket" came from literally kicking a bucket - out from the feet of a victim being hanged, thus generating the fall to execute him/her) 120.151.160.158 (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No article on set phrases

I was shocked to discover that we have no article on Set phrase. I was hoping to find a good explanation of the differences between an idiom and a set phrase, as well as whether set phrases always mean more than the sum of their parts, whether they are 100% set or tolerate some changes such as insertion of adjectives, replacement of components by synonyms, etc. — Hippietrail 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

second meaning of "idiom" missing.

This article is missing the second (and third) meaning of the word "idiom". It should be at least mentioned. Idiom does also mean: the characteristics that are specific for a language, or for a dialect. E.g. vocabulary and grammar forms that are specific for New Yorkers.

And, in arts, it stands for the characteristics of expression that are specific for a movement, an individual, a subgroup, ...

See Merriam-Webster definition

I won't add it myself, because my English is not proficient enough herefore. :)--Dr. Friendly 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think MW definition #3

a style or form of artistic expression that is characteristic of an individual, a period or movement, or a medium or instrument

along with MW 1b

a style or form of artistic expression that is characteristic of an individual, a period or movement, or a medium or instrument

describe the programming language examples brought up elsewhere here on the talk page. MW definition #3 is what is being used when in Monty Python's Holy Grail Lancelot says:

It's not right for my idiom

I agree that this other semantic meaning of idiom is important and should be represented. 66.129.224.36 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The "Non-modifiability" section first states the "The bucket was kicked" has nothing to do with dying, and then it says "John's bucket was kicked" is correct. Which is it? Capitan Obvio 10:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Computer Science

i think it would be very useful to have (perhaps in a serpate article) a list of common programming idioms in various languages. Perhaps after I've read over the article creation guidelines I'll add one--Michael Lynn 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Kick the bucket"

The source stated as an absolute truth is not so true as is said. The suicide-explanation seems indeed to be more of a folk etymology than reality. There are at least two other exlanations: 1) referring to the bucket (from Old French buquet) which was a wooden device on which pigs etc were slaughtered and while dying kicked it (hence: kick the bucket); 2) maybe a connection to Old Norse "bukr" as body. Generally, most etymologycal sources state that a definite, single-source origin is just not known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.62.172 (talk • contribs)

Why is this link here?

there is a link to the "idiomatic translation service" http://www.idiomatic.net/ which does not seem to belong here. Maybe someone who has been watching this article can consider deleting it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.75.50 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Confusion with Proverbs - contradiction in article

Under the "Common Features" sub-heading, the article warns against confusing idioms with proverbs, "which take the form of statements such as, 'He who hesitates is lost.'" However, the "Examples of idioms" section at the bottom of the page includes "Don't count your chickens before they hatch," which definitely strikes me as a proverb, not an idiom, since it is a statement of folk wisdom. As such, I think it should be removed from the list of examples. (I imagine these two contradictory bits likely came from two different contributors)

To answer A.Sprankell's inquiry, timestamped 6/22/05 20:07, I think the expression "Too many cooks spoil the broth" is similarly a proverb, not an idiom; though I'm less sure how to classify "Too many chiefs, not enough indians," since it more describes a condition than seeks to express a general (folk) "truth."

Lukescp 13:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" is not an idiom. If you think it through, you can easily get the connections with real world applications. It does not seem one bit illogical to me.B3nnic33 10:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Section merge

I merged the examples section with the section at the top, which already contained some examples. WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Meaning section added (explanation of idioms contained)

Hi. I'm actually the guy that discovered the meaning of idioms and what I wrote was very succint. Just to be clear, what I wrote is not some bogus, hippie attempt at understanding idioms but is actually very straightforward and very repeatable. Give me any idiom you care to name and I can break it down into a clash between idea and meaning. I refrained from giving this language of contradiction its own name - "riddletalk" - for the sake of clarity.

If anyone wants to go ahead and verify what I have written holds true for other languages, I'm sure it would not only be really interesting but I and others would also really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.175.202 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(Please try to add new material to a talk page at the bottom. It makes it easier to follow discussions.)

I find the paragraphs you have added giving your ideas on meaning very entertaining, but I do not think they are encyclopaedic. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. I am therefore deleting. In the event that your views were written up in peer-reviewed journals, then you could consider re-introducing them, with citations. Grafen 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: You have deleted the explanation of an idiom on a site dedicated to knowledge. Your remark that citations are necessary ignores the medium and demands research where none is needed. The observation needed to understand idioms is available at first-hand inspection and was explained clearly. All you need to do is look for the visual irony that contradicts the meaning of what is said, for example, "respect your elders" implies respect but there are equally many e's in "respect" as there are in "elders" whereas calling yourself an equal of an elder is not necessarily a sign of respect. All other English idioms follow the same pattern.

Link to French Article

In the 'read this in another language section,' this article links to the French article "idiotisme", which is basically when one makes a literal, rather than figurative, translation of an idiom into another language. The correct French term is "idiome," non?24.19.25.39 (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is right. Idiome in French corresponds to the linguistics meaning of the English idiom, ie the language used by a particular group. And idiotisme means idiom in the sense of an untranslatable phrase. See their Wiktionnaire entries ([1], [2]), and it is confirmed by my hard copy Collins Robert dictionary. So we should leave the link to the French Wiki where it is.

This does raise the question of why the English Wikipedia's article on idiom deals only with the idiotisme meaning... Grafen (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok i suppose. It's strange that the French idiome article only has links to two other (Slavic?) languages, and that the English idiom article only address one sense of the word, as Grafen pointed out.--67.170.102.142 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted the article back to a previous and more comprehensive version due to the current version being horrifically short. It may have been shortened as a result of vandalism since the original edit came from an IP not a user.

FaustusTheAwesome (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On "Common Parlance" Re-direct

I would like to change the re-direct that brought me here to indicate the following better definition: "Simply a fancy equivalent of Ordinary Speech", and then indicate that the reader may want to see Idiom, a subset of common parlance, and Jargon, a possible antonym. Does anyone want to add to the definition and redirect advice (There are other "possible antonyms". My original interest was in this particular distinction for the purpose of preventing a change in an article's title)?Julzes (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Idiom articles - Wikipedia or Wiktionary?

Do articles dedicated solely to the meaning of this or that idiom belong in Wikipedia or should they be proposed for deletion if met in Wikipedia? I mean the ones like Brass tacks and Gravy train. I've searched but found no policy of Wiki concerning this question. Best regards, --CopperKettle 07:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're not a dictionary, but if more information than a mere definition can be given and a couple sources cited, I see no reason to exclude them. Probably depends more on one's personal Inclusionist/Exclusionist views though. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chinese characters and weasel words

The article at present says:

many Chinese characters are idiomatic constructs, as their meanings often not traceable to a literal (pictographic) meaning of their radicals.

I don't think it's possible to give a sensible answer to the "which?" here, because almost all Chinese characters (hanzi) and Japanese characters (kanji) are opaque at best relative to their radicals. Generally only the most basic characters have any discernable connection; perhaps half of the Tōyō kanji, which are some of the most basic and fundamental characters in use in Japan, have a visible connection between their meaning and their radicals. The majority of kanji are not among these basic kanji and will generally be more complicated and obscure. I think it would be fair to say "most Chinese characters are idiomatic constructs"; there's no weasel word in saying that IMO. --AlexChurchill (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the notion of Chinese characters often being idiomatic is based on the mistaken premise that each character contains a semantic element. This mistake is made over-reading the radical systems of Chinese dictionaries, which organize characters by their elements for convenience, not because the Chinese writing system is supposed to provide literal meaning in each character. Chinese characters that have no semantic components are no more idiomatic than alphabets or syllabaries, which make no comment whatsoever as to the literal meaning of the word they represent. I think the entire paragraph is misguided and should probably be removed. Beyond that, it looks like it is probably original research. Bygmesterfinn (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Corrupted Idioms

As a casual reader and editor, I think that the Intro and "Background" sections of this article are OK; they could have more citations, but they read fine. The "Relation with culture" section is pretty bad, but not terrible. "Corrupted Idioms", however, is both VERY lacking in sources and seems inappropriate for Wikipedia - maybe a funny article on writing books, but certainly not Wikipedia. I mean, seriously, how many authors actually DO that? I'm sure some do, but any very famous ones in PUBLISHED works? Probably not. I'm on the verge of deleting the whole thing myself, but I don't want to delete a whole section without bringing it up on the talk page. Any thoughts? --StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It was dropped in in one shot in this edit a couple of months back, along with a clumsy sentence in the first paragraph. I think I agree it doesn't quite make sense, and is probably better out than in - I'll remove it. Shimgray | talk | 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

idiom

Idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, "special feature, special phrasing", f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, "one’s own") is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.[1] There are estimated to be at least 25,000 idiomatic expressions in the English language.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.238.4 (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirected from 'Parlance'

Yet the word does not appear once in the article itself. 84.13.106.71 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrible article

Absolutely awful. Hundreds of editors all desperate to show just how many clever words they can fit into one sentence.

English is not my first language and I came here trying to learn more. I read the article 4 times and I still don't have a clue what an idiom is.

Truly awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.190.107 (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Idiomatic

I came here through a link, to understand what an idiomatic translation is. Thank to the automatic redirection, I still don't know what it is and it seems that I'll have to search for it outside Wikipedia. Why a merge of articles if it removes parts of information?41.83.27.242 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Which article did you arrive from?

Check the history of Idiomatic - there was never anything there. (Redirects only indicate a merge in some cases).

An idiomatic translation is a nuanced one, that attempts to clearly translate the contexts and subtexts of the original word choices, into the target language. (As opposed to a literal translation). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If one translates something idiomatically, one is not translating literally, i.e. not word for word. One is looking for a way to render an expression from the source language using a seemingly unrelated expression in the target language. There is a continuum of translation: at one end of the continuum, one translates literally, i.e. word for word. At the other end of the continuum, one translates idiomatically, i.e. using expressions across the languages that seem quite different. For example, if I translate the German expression Lust auf etwas haben word for word into English, this is what I get:

Ich habe Lust auf Bier. --> I have desire for beer.

Native speakers would, however, rarely produce the sentence I have desire for beer. They would, rather, probably say I feel like a beer.. Thus we have two competing translations: desire for and feel like. The first is the word-for-word literal translation and the second is the idiomatic translation that uses a different expression entirely. Competent translators will be proficient with idiomatic translations.

I do not think that a Wikipedia article should exist for "idiomatic translation". Knowing what that means is more a matter of knowing how the English language is used in a broad sense. It is not something that is worthy of a Wikipedia article.

Revision initiated

I agree with the last comment. This article is poorly written and is trying to convey information about idioms at a level that is not accessible to a wide audience. I am going to draft a revision of the article and will post a link to my sandbox where the draft can be viewed. I will do my best to maintain the current content and cited literature where possible.

I see that the article is rated "low importance" by a/the editor(s) at WikiProject Linguistics. I think that assessment of the importance of this article is strongly mistaken. This article gets more hits than any other linguistics article that I have encountered:

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/idiom

Judging by the numbers, this article is more important than most any other linguistics article at Wikipedia. --Tjo3ya (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have begun the revision of this article. The revision can be reviewed in my sandbox here. If there are no objections, I will replace the current article with the revision in a couple of days. --Tjo3ya (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

chutar o balde

I wonder if this is so 'completely different' from the English idiom. Looking at wiktionary I see no consensus on the origin of the English idiom, and am wondering whether the notion of someone 'giving up on a difficult task' is really that different a figurative notion as dying. So I agree it is used in a different context, but with regard to there being no hard and fast etymological origin, the possibility that the roots are not so different should not be over looked and the phrase 'has a completely different meaning' could be replaced with 'has a different context'.

ALERT --- Today I discovered a couple of advertizing links embeded in this article.

I don't know if this is the appropriate venue for this ALERT, but I'm sure some of the more Wiki savvy members reading this can alert the proper people. It was very disconcerting to find an ad link here. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.81.216 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive

I think it's time to archive this talk page. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Youtube videos

The user here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.236.11.151 has put a link below in the article to videos in Youtube that contain information for ESL learners. These videos are all with the same personality in front of the camera. They strike me as too heavy on the side of self-promotion and thus less valuable as content. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for such cases? Do other editors have an opinion about this. I'm going to remove the link unless someone else speaks up in its favor. --Tjo3ya (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

'smell the flowers from underneath' Polish

You suggest that 'smell the flowers from underneath' is the Polish equivalent of kicking the bucket.

I know nothing about Polish but would this really be used in the sense of Fred kicked the bucket as opposed to Fred's now pushing up the daisies?

There is a difference in tense. Kicking the bucket can be used in the instantaneous past - Fred's just kicked the bucket - in a way that pushing up the daisies couldn't. Is the Polish idiom usable in this way?

Ganpati23 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. The difficulty with all the examples is that they have been added by a large number of contributors. No single individual knows all the variaous expressions in the numerous languages, so it is difficult to scrutinize them all appropriately.

A few examples, conversationalist style

Why is everyone up in arms today? What did he do?

I told him to pass the word, but he dropped the ball, which threw a monkey wrench in our plans.

Oh, when it rains, it pours!

Yes, I guess it will rain on our parade as long as he won't toe the line.

The rank and file will likely want to tear him limb from limb.

Yes, old fancy pants is going to read him the riot act.

I wish we knew who sold us out.

We could run it up a flagpole and see who salutes.

I wonder if it was just smoke and mirrors?

Are you just whistlin' Dixie?

No, I'm serious as a heart attack!

Who could pull the wool over our eyes?

It was probably someone who doesn't have a fighting chance in hell to get caught!

Like who? Let the cat out of the bag.

If I tell, will you cross your heart and hope to die?

Give me a break. You wouldn't know who did it if your life depended on it.

Listen. Someone put a fly in the ointment. So guess who knew about our little secret?

I'm not following you.

Well, the whole ordeal about the "personality conflict" is the elephant in the room.

You don't mean sweet sister Sue?

No, you've got the cart before the horse.

Then you mean the other girl? Just spit it out!!

There you go again. You're still jumping the gun.

Ok, fine. Check please. I'm out of here.

It was the one who didn't want the hot potato.

Her? I thought she was the only adult in the room.

Yes, but she is a gold digger. Just ask her husband.

Her husband kicked the bucket about a year ago.

Really? Maybe he died of lead poisoning. My theory is looking like a million bucks if so.

She's a bad apple, not a murderer!

She is the one who wove this web if you ask me.

I don't buy it.

Then give me the whole nine yards about her.

She was born in the lap of luxury to a couple from Singapore. They spoiled her.

You sound you know her like the back of your hand.

Everything she does comes out smelling like roses.

She has the Midas touch?

She had her husband wrapped around her little finger.

That's what I always thought see. Success makes her world go round.

Power, actually. She craves power like it's going out of style.

Well, that ship has sailed.

Not if she claws back her status in the group.

I thought she burned her bridges?

Not completely. She has an ace in the hole.

But I thought she no longer had a horse in this race?

Since her husband died, she became an heir to the throne.

This group has gone to the dogs.

I hope you aren't calling her a bad word. She is a helpless eighty-pound weakling!

You think I could take her?

Not if I'm around. I would go to the mat for her!

You like her? Does she make your heart bleed?

I really like shooting the breeze, but I need to run.

Stay away from her. She will eat you alive!

Keep your ear to the ground in case this thing blows up more than it already has.

Ok, if I hear anything more, I will shoot you a line.

I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-proverbs in list of proverbs?

Are "Go take a pill" and "I have butterflies in my stomach" really proverbs??? I suspect that somebody added them to the end of the list of idioms without realizing that the ones at the end are also supposed to also be proverbs. Also "Break a leg." AmigoNico (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise; there's nothing idiomatic about "waste not - want not." It's a truism/aphorism/adage, and possibly a tautological pleonasm (the concept of "waste" being partly defined by what one might "want"). The initial definition of idiom in this article is that the idiom's figurative meaning is different from the literal meaning, and "waste not - want not" does not fit it. Steve8394 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cat out of the bag derivation

Is the derivation cited correct please ? I have always understood it had something to do with the whip, the cat o'9 tails, and its bag. If someone carelessly let something slip that got others punished by whipping, he had 'let the cat out of the bag' ... is my long held understanding incorrect ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.31.53 (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Idiom Movement

This article does not contain any mention of distinctions between mobile and non-mobile idioms. While some idioms must maintain the routine form, others can undergo syntactic modifications such as passivization. Note the distinction between acceptable passivization in spill the beans and kick the bucket:

The beans were spilled.

The bucket was kicked.

Spill the beans - urban legend

The origin story for spill the beans is in fact an urban legend, it originated in the USA around the start of the 20th century as horse racing slang for a 'dark horse' that won a race. The original meaning was closer to "to upset an apple cart" rather than the later "divulge secrets" meaning it had by the gangster era. I provided some links to historic usages and discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.36.105 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)