>> ^HadouKen24:

Apparently, in the UK you just can't swing a cat.
So much for that idiom.


Looks like there's enough room though.

Apparently, in the UK you just can't swing a cat.

So much for that idiom.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^budzos:
Edit your post or I'm gonnna downvote for "all the sudden."

haters gonna hate... Allow my southern idioms, yall.


Already upvoted anyhow

>> ^budzos:

Edit your post or I'm gonnna downvote for "all the sudden."


haters gonna hate... Allow my southern idioms, yall.

http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth

I love Stephen Fry. I love QI.

However, you've hit upon why I refuse to upvote this video. Not one mention of the idiom? Absurd.

My cursory research turns up that this belief/contraption is not actually related to the idiom "to blow smoke up one's ass". That saying is dated to the mid-20th century, when the rectal intensifier was added to the less crass "to blow smoke", which phrase derived from illusionist's use of smoke to distract the audience & disguise their surreptitious actions.>> ^kymbos:

Is that where the term comes from? I've often wondered.

Reminds me of... not is ... it shares a general concept but not the motivation to create obediance.

Here, the language takes away the context of human idioms, emotion, and cultural norms embedded in the words replacing it with dry descriptions and simplified adverbs. e.g. Lips, eyes, smile, waiter, food, drink, menus, mirrors, tears, man, woman. Smiling or crying means something. Lip uplifting or dripping salt liquid is an empty description.

Living with such a language would limit the ability to think and behave emotively as a human... there just wouldn't be a word for it any more.>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^raverman:
Awesome Post! Steampunk style poetry... reminds me of Orwellian "Newspeak".

It's more like the opposite of Newspeak. Newspeak was a parred down vocabulary, simplifying sentence structure, omitting alternative words, and emphasizing simplistic concatenations such as "doublethink", as well as shortened concatenations such as "minitrue" (Ministry of Truth). It's also important to note that in order to truly speak and understand Newspeak you must have a specific understanding of each word, for no single word is intended to be used in any other way than it's original meaning, eliminating poetics.
This video, on the other hand, is a string of modern expressions filled with stiff latinate words for comedic (and poetic) effect. There are too many thoughts associated with each word to be even remotely considered for ingsoc's Oceania.

try don milo duqette qwiz.
his books on crowley,the golden dawn,enochian magick and the knights templar are fantastic reads (if your a geek like me).he also happens to be a nice guy (met him a few years back..ooo i'm such a lil name dropper).

lets remember that there are 4500 religions on the planet and the ones you are referring to are the abrahamic.
it is easier when you break them down into "eastern" and "western" theologies.western being predominantly the judau/christian/islam.

now as for the "do as thou whilt".that can easily be transcribed as "do unto others",different idioms with similar intentions and can be found in all religions in one form or another.it is the church that focuses on the subservience while the actual teachings of say jesus or mohamhed tend to be much more open in their interpretations.

I love that they are working on this. It already looks good enough to get through basic conversations. It's been a while since I've seen the current state of voice recognition, and they seem to have made great strides. You can still see some mistakes, but the guy is talking at full speed, and the system is picking up a lot of it accurately. Just a few years ago you would have gotten nothing but garbage at conversational speed. Custom voice recreation would be cool, but not terribly important. I'd be more interested to see how translation programs are coming along on that pesky problem of idiom translation?

In my own particular idiom, I want to comment on this whole "killing innocent civilians" line of thinking that some of you are using. For example - this guy in the vid. He isn't qualifying what he defines as an 'innocent civilian'. I expect his persective is something along these lines... 1. Iraq war is unjust. 2. Threfore all American actions in it are UNjust. 3. Therefore, aggressive action against anyone in Iraq is 'killing innocent civilians'. We don't know jack-all about this guy's actual situation except what he's telling us, which is obviously filtered, slanted, and biased to the nth degree. I expect the members of his platoon would have a very different interpretation.

People use the phrase to make themselves sound angelic, and to label things they don't like as demonic. So when you trot out the phrase 'killing innocent civilians' it makes it sound like the soldiers are going around, rounding up random citizens, and blowing them away. In reality, that 'innocent civilian' could very well have been a foreign nationalist Taliban jackass with a rocket launcher. Or (more likely) he had to shoot at a Taliban guy and innocent civilians were in the vicinity caught in the crossfire. It is vitually a complete guarantee that no person at ANY level ever told this guy, "Hey - go out and start shooting innocent civilians". That's in his head.

So this guy needs a little more factual evidence before I give any credence to his wild accusations. Especially since he loses 100 points on the 'sanity scale' for being a truther. Plus his language is idiotically generic. I very much doubt there is a scrap of evidence of any kind that American soldiers were ever ordered to 'kill everyone in a crowd once there is a single shot'. It is patently ridiculous to claim that 'EVERY apartment building in Bagdhad' has been blown up by the military. This guy is clearly two cans short of a six-pack.

>> ^Bullwinkle
A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

Humans make errors regardless of skill level, and frankly, that is an easier one for an advanced person to make than many others on first drafts. It doesn't discredit a damn thing any more than your capitalization of "Major" discredits you. What you've done is a logical fallacy in debate. Because you lacked a rebuttal, you tried to find something I was wrong about then used the associative property to say all else must then be wrong.

>> ^Bullwinkle
I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.
Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant.

Grammar has nothing to do with this and I already admonished those who did, so stop floundering. Whenever this phrase is used, it is a whimsical way of saying they're in danger of caring less than they already do. It is never misinterpreted by the listener as the opposite and for good reason. You would never confess your capacity to care more or less, or fail to state a preference if you cared enough to give one. I can't even believe we're arguing about something so idiomatic. Idioms don't have to be literal, they simply to have to be interpreted for what they intend to convey.

Merci bien:) for brushing up my German Idiom..now I know what
rede kein Schmogg in meinen 7er alpina, du Wankster..
means..indeed the rap all in all is so so, but
I like the concept of the video, and the
echte kriminelle Blaulichtschein..

When an assumption is accurate it is called "superior observational skill". I know 'you' (Flood) don't feel you nailed square. People hate to have thier weaknesses described. So no matter how accurately they are nailed, people will protest that you don't get 'them'. They are different somehow, and so the analysis (which they acknowledge is good for someone else) does not apply to 'them'. To justify it they toss out piddling nuances, tortured distinctions, or half-fabricated idioms... ANY rhetorical life preserver will suffice for them to psychologically rescue their self esteem from drowning in the bitter sea of truth.

The typical 'sift' person was pegged by what I said solidly - right in the gold. A hefty # of sift vids point out Fox news bias. OK fine. Compare this to the ZERO vids pointing out the bias that routinely sluices from the orifices of NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, PBS, BBC, etc etc etc... One can only explain the blatant nature of such omissions by hearking to the bias of the sifters themselves. FOX's bias scourges thier psyche like a cross to a vampire because they are diametically opposed to it. It offends them. It galls them. And so they gleefully (and selectively) cherry pick the worst of the worst to dance around on the sift like so many demons around Satan at Bald Mountain.

But in the interest of giving YOU (Flood) the benefit of the doubt I'm willing to accept your counter-evidence. What comments have you made here that point out the eggregious biases of NON-FOX news agencies?

It is part of Episode 113 – "End With a Bang" aired 11/12/08 where they tested three popular idioms. "You can't polish a turd", "hit the ground running" and "end with a bang".

Pretty good episode. Jamie cuts an SUV in half using thermite.

I've heard Madonna with a much thicker fake accent so I suspect someone's tried to talk her down a bit. Still annoying.

Also, I think it's weird when Americans use English idioms.

Madonna doesn't say it here but "Sus out" is one that seems to have fully crossed over: many American TV personalities (Bill Maher, Conan, etc) now use this idiom regularly. They're free to use it, of course, but it's weird. What's next, lorries and lifts?