This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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
Would it be proper to have a list of idioms? user:zanimum
A small bundle of questions:
Is bite your tongue an idiom?
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)
Moved from article text to here:
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)
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
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.
I think that they should be replaced with expressions that "actually make sense"
"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)
In my recent edit I removed:
because its original purpose in the article had become almost completely obscured (see April 2004 version), and:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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 merged the examples section with the section at the top, which already contained some examples. WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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)
The article at present says:
many Chinese characters [which?] 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)
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)
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)
Yet the word does not appear once in the article itself. 84.13.106.71 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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'.
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)
I think it's time to archive this talk page. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 like to saw logs! (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |