Idioms that don't make sense

[PM 2Ring]

What about "scaring the living daylights out of someone"? It is said that daylights is 18th century slang for someone's eyes.

You're right. Maybe the two idioms have combined.

My guess is that "living daylights out" is a corruption of "liver and lights out". But of course I could be totally wrong and it could be a case of convergence of two originally independent idioms.

[gmalivuk]

My guess is that "living daylights out" is a corruption of "liver and lights out". But of course I could be totally wrong and it could be a case of convergence of two originally independent idioms.

I'm pretty sure it's a case of convergence, because the first recorded instance of "daylights" as slang for a body part was the eyes.

[Eugo]

Personally, I can't see much difference between having cake and not eating it, and not having cake and not eating it. Either way you're not eating it.

Actually, the "have XOR eat" exclusion puts me in an awkward position when someone says "have a cake". What am I supposed to do with it, possess it for some indeterminate time? I was told to have it, therefore I can't eat it.

I prefer the Serbian unambiguous one about inability to "both squeeze and fart".

My favourite ridiculous phrase for today is "pretty ugly", a close relative to "far closer".

[Derek]

I prefer the Serbian unambiguous one about inability to "both squeeze and fart".

Is this anatomically true?

[MHD]

"couldn't hit a $large_object with a $handheld_object"

It has been my experience that $handheld_object usually refers to something that's relatively easy to hit some other thing with. Assuming even a below average level of coordination, one should be able to hit something as large as a barn as they stand directly before it swinging a banjo.

Though, to highlight the difference between the ease of hitting $large_object & the ease of hitting something with $handheld_object, I tend to say things like "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a guided missile".

/angell

I prefer "you couldn't hit water if you fell out of a boat."
EDIT: inb4 dry docks and stranding

In Danish we are referring to proper marksmanship when we say "You couldn't hit a barn door if you stood in it," as in you would not be able to shoot through the opening of it.

[Eugo]

I prefer the Serbian unambiguous one about inability to "both squeeze and fart".

Is this anatomically true?

I can offer no proof, only empirical evidence.

[gmalivuk]

Here's one German's take on shooting fish in a barrel.

[Anonymously Famous]

I saw the headphones, and part of me thought that he was going to use them as ear protection as he proceeded to shoot fish in a barrel. I am somewhat disappointed.

I might just start using the phrase "shooting cake in a barrel" now.

[Grop]

This, or fishing cake in a barrel.

[Fire Brns]

"It's like comparing apples and oranges". They're pretty similar. I guess it rolls of the tongue better than "it's like comparing apples and irony", though.

In German they are much more simmilar: Apple is apfel and orange is apfelsine. Blam! Comparison sucessfull.

[Anonymously Famous]

Does the -sine suffix mean anything in particular?

[Lazar]

It's an adaptation of the Dutch appelsien, meaning apple-(from)-China. But in southern Germany and Austria they call it "Orange" instead.

[Judah]

"He made it by the skin of his teeth."

I think this expression carries a general sense of "by the narrowest possible margin", like "by a hair". However, it originates from a misunderstanding of a Biblical quotation: "I have escaped with [only] the skin of my teeth" (Job 19:20), meaning that only the 'skin of Job's teeth' have escaped unscathed. (As you might recall, Job was smitten with proverbial suffering.)

The skin of one's teeth are his gums.

[bigglesworth]

How is that a misunderstanding?

[Judah]

How is that a misunderstanding?

Because as the expression is commonly used, it means that one['s whole body] has actually escaped, whereas Job would have meant anything but.

What about "scaring the living daylights out of someone"? It is said that daylights is 18th century slang for someone's eyes.

You're right. Maybe the two idioms have combined.

My guess is that "living daylights out" is a corruption of "liver and lights out". But of course I could be totally wrong and it could be a case of convergence of two originally independent idioms.

That sounds very unlikely to me: I can't imagine someone mishearing "liver and lights" as "living daylights".

Rather, I think that "the daylights out of" is more or less equivalent to "the lights out of" (no liver involved), and "living" is an intensifier (see definition 8 here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/living).

[Anonymously Famous]

"He made it by the skin of his teeth."

I think this expression carries a general sense of "by the narrowest possible margin", like "by a hair". However, it originates from a misunderstanding of a Biblical quotation: "I have escaped with [only] the skin of my teeth" (Job 19:20), meaning that only the 'skin of Job's teeth' have escaped unscathed. (As you might recall, Job was smitten with proverbial suffering.)

The skin of one's teeth are his gums.

You know, it makes sense that the skin of one's teeth is one's gums. Is there a source for that?

No matter the origins, the modern use of the idiom still doesn't make sense, though.

[Eugo]

The skin of one's teeth are his gums.

There's this kind of idiom which did have sense once, but it was forgotten. I've recently started saying (in forums in English) just "there are graffiti" instead of "there's writing on the wall", for several reasons, but mostly because it means the same and I don't want to use a worn out phrase.

I have discovered that the meaning doesn't mean much (pardon the pun (don't execute it!)); people just don't understand what I said.

[Qaanol]

Well, here are a few idiomatic expressions that, while they make perfect sense, don’t mean what they originally meant.

“Have an axe to grind” originally meant, as near as I can tell, trying to flatter or curry favor because of an ulterior motive.

“To each his own” originally was a shortened version of “To each his own is beautiful”, in essence restating the choice-supportive bias, meaning the tendency of people to convince themselves that what they have is great.

And “Murphy’s law”, oft-quoted as “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong” was, to the best of my knowledge, originally phrased as “If there’s more than one way to do something, and one of them will result in catastrophe, someone will eventually do it that way”; hence more a statement about people doing things without thinking them through, rather than mere chance.

[Drab Emordnilap]

In reference to having and eating cake:

I've always understood that the idiom was originally "you can't eat your cake and have it too", which makes more sense. If you eat your cake, you can't subsequently possess your cake; if you want to have some cake later on (maybe to share?), don't eat it now.

[Eugo]

In reference to having and eating cake:

I've always understood that the idiom was originally "you can't eat your cake and have it too", which makes more sense. If you eat your cake, you can't subsequently possess your cake; if you want to have some cake later on (maybe to share?), don't eat it now.

That's not a problem, but it makes me think twice (actually, many times) about the real meaning of "have a cake". What am I supposed to do with it - possess it?

[Makri]

The meaning of "have a cake" as "eat a cake" is an idiomatic expression. German doesn't have it (and a natural question to follow "I had a cake" is indeed "Well, so what did you do with it?", although I get a feeling that an idiomatic meaning is beginning to develop; it's there in certain contexts like "have for breakfast".), and it may be speculated that English didn't either at the time when "eat a cake and have it" developped. I don't have any idea about whether that's actually true, though.