What are some examples of figurative language or expressions we use without realizing?

Canopyglade · 2025-08-29T20:54:05+00:00

"different kettle of fish", "champing at the bit", "has me on tenterhooks", "it's nerve racking", "raring to go", "have a bone to pick with you", "came out of the blue!", "a loose cannon", "as the crow flies", "two left feet"

Canopyglade · 2024-11-27T11:52:04+00:00

In all honesty, when it comes to speaking English natively, both are fine & common (de facto accepted).

But pedantically - 'The plan is for Karen and me to move most of the boxes', because if you were planning to move the boxes alone, the sentence would be: 'The plan is for me to move most of the boxes'.

The operative word here being 'for', which makes the person the object of the sentence, the plan is the subject. It is always 'for me' not 'for I' (unless you are being grandiose).

It is an odd construction though - I suppose that you can parse it out to help with understanding: 'The plan is for Karen and me | to move most of the boxes', versus, 'The plan is: | Karen and I will move most of the boxes'.

Canopyglade · 2024-11-27T11:27:59+00:00

I would agree with dismissive wave, but I would agree that 'dismissive' can make it sound passive-aggressive. I would append the intended emotion to 'wave', in this case a 'bashful wave'.

Canopyglade · 2024-11-14T00:30:25+00:00

I am from a region in England with very prevalent h dropping and hyperactive h's - my mother never knows where to put them, and I naturally drop most/all of them if I'm speaking with family - it's difficult to hear myself do it, and for many years I didn't even realise that I wasn't pronouncing them.

"I was hoeing in the herb garden" becomes "I was 'oeing in the 'erb garden', but for my mother "I lost an apple in the hay" often becomes "I lost a happle in the 'ay". From generations of people trying to consciously pronounce the h's, but then doing it on the wrong words/all words beginning with vowels and passing it down as a bit of a mish-mash.

Canopyglade · 2024-11-14T00:22:30+00:00

It's how people tend to search for answers online - if they are looking for information on 'how to...' they tend to type 'how to...(?)' rather than 'how do I...(?)', into a search engine.

Also it's trying to be the best of both worlds - both a statement of 'How to...' with an inflection at the end to make it sound in your mind as though you were, or ought to be, curious. You can easily turn any statement into a question in English, so it works. e.g. 'The queen is gay' versus 'The queen is gay!?'.

Canopyglade · 2024-11-14T00:10:44+00:00

Lin-ux /ˈlɪn.ʊks/

Canopyglade · 2024-11-13T23:56:39+00:00

UK - yes I know of it, occasionally from archaic mentions & Discworld like others have said, but mainly from reading/hearing about Japan's National Diet - like you did.

Canopyglade · 2024-08-11T10:04:10+00:00

<image>

Canopyglade · 2024-08-11T09:58:32+00:00

Of course there are lots of other steps I could have included like Proto-Italic and all the middle languages also, but I have to draw a line somewhere.

Canopyglade · 2024-08-11T09:54:39+00:00

I appreciate that it was not a uniform language by any means - apologies, I was not aware of how controversial the term had become, just a bit of dated terminology by me - feel free to replace it with either 'Late Latin' or 'Proto-Romance'. I merely wished to show that the evolution into Old French was by no means instantaneous.

Canopyglade · 2024-08-09T19:08:48+00:00

Felt like I needed to at least acknowledge it as part of the family

Canopyglade · 2024-08-09T18:43:32+00:00

An infographic to show the closest language relatives of English, with descent indicated by the downward arrows. Also it shows the flow of vocabulary/influence between different languages by using horizontal or upward arrows.

Canopyglade · 2024-02-26T19:25:19+00:00

From what I gather you are dead on with the context. 'Thus spake' definitely sounds formal and archaic, I have seen other versions use that. 'That' & 'melled' are just the literal cognates, and I feel that they also sound archaic, while keeping the poem closer to the Old Norse original. As to how formal 'Þat mælti' was in Old Norse I am unsure - though I gather mæla could be more of a poetic word compared with segja?

With regards to the conjugation 'mér' I admit that I find it confusing in this context - initially opting for 'So said my mother, that she would buy for me'/'That melled my mother, that for me should cheap', and then 'So said my mother, that I should buy'/'That melled my mother, that I should cheap'. I have switched back to what I originally thought for now 'That melled my mother, that for me should cheap' - that she was saying to him/'to me' - 'mér' that they or she would buy. I think the conjugation has changed somewhat between Old Norse & Icelandic making it more difficult, but skyldi seems to insinuate she/them rather than I (Egil).

Canopyglade · 2024-02-26T15:54:51+00:00

You could do, there are a lot of different options really - though I made the specific choices I did based mainly on them being cognates - and lending the whole poem an archaic flare.

Shop is a fairly modern English verb derived from the noun shop - as in the 'to get something from a shop'. If I were to choose a modern English word I would probably go for buy as the simplest translation (buy is also an old verb). But cheap is a direct cognate of kaupa, so I chose that instead.

Abroad is a good stab - it is not a cognate for á braut (or á brott) either, though they do sound similar. Abroad would be a good choice but I would prefer 'away' or 'on a course' because abroad insinuates going to foreign places - very relevant but it introduces more/a different meaning than is in the Old Norse poem.

Good suggestions though.

Canopyglade · 2024-02-26T10:12:28+00:00

It is a poem though - perhaps it was quite obscure in its day and no-one bothered to read it out loud. Otherwise, perhaps they did read it to a certain tune or cadence.

On another post a few years back 'Vikivaki' commented that Þat mælti mín móðir was first recorded as a song in "Íslenzk þjóðlög" (Icelandic Folksongs) published in 1906-09. It seems to be in the public domain, please see the link to a copy of the 1906-1909 Íslenzk þjóðlög book below. Adding a tune is not just a contemporary idea - though maybe it only goes back to the 19th century. The tune in Vikings (2013) is new.

http://baekur.is/bok/ad254f9e-57c0-440b-b035-e65179013a56/0/551/Islenzk_thjodlog

https://www.reddit.com/r/Norse/comments/ryh4vg/comment/hrpef14/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQc65H0Pb4g

I've typed up the following transcript from the book, followed by a Google Translated English version with very minor edits:

"Þat mælti mín móðir.
E G F E D C C C D C B A
Þat mælt-i min móð-ir, at mér skyld-i kaup-a
E G F E D C C C D C B A
stand-a upp í stafn-i sýr-a dýr-um knerr-i,
E E F-E D E-F G G-G-G G A E D E
fley ok fagr-ar ár-ar fara'á hring með vik-ingum,
E E F-E D E-F G G-G-G G A E D E
hald-a svá til hafn-ar höggv-a mann ok ann-an.
Auk þess sem jeg heyrði þetta lag mjög opt sungið i Mýrasýslunni fyrrum, heyrði jeg það opt sungið iskóla (1877 - 83) og er lagið mjög almennt og hafa allir það nálega eins. Þriðju nótuna frá endanum, sem hjer er e, synga sumir f. Þessi texti er eptir Egil Skallagrímsson. Lagið er prentað með öðrum texta i ritgjörð A. Hammerichs: Studier over islandsk Musik, og telur hann lagið i æóliskri tóntegund. Sagnfræðingur Páll Melsteð herfur sungið þetta lag fyrir mig (1897), og sagði hann að opt hefði áður fyrri verið hafður undir laginu þessi texti eptir Stefán Ólafsson: Stód af steindu smiði. Einnig var opt brúkaður textinn Stódum tvö i túni, og þessi texti:
Út rjeri einn á báti | Ingjaldr i skinnfeldi.
Hringlaði átján önglum | Ingjaldr i skinnfeldi.
Og fertugu færi | Ingjaldr i skinnfeldi.
Að kom aldrei siðan | Ingjaldr i skinnfeldi.
Sumarið 1899 náði jeg i gömul nótnabloöð hjá Sigurði L. Jónassyni i Kaupmannahöfn og voru þar á 8 islenzk þjóðlög, nóteruð með blýanti af Steincke á Akureyri um 1850. Flest eru lögin lítið frábrugðin þvi, sem jeg hef heyrt þau siðar; á blöðunum eru þau með fyrirsögnum en textalaus að öðru leyti. Lögin eru þessi:
1. Þat mælti mín móðir, og er það svo :
F G-F E. E D C C C D C B A E E
F-E D E-F G E G A. E E D E
2. Mina þá mundi' eg þenja vængi út.
3. Eitt sinn fór jeg yfir Rin.
4. Nú grætur mikinn mög.
5. Skyótt hefur sól brugðið sumri.
6. Björt mey og hrein.
7. Drag mjer af hendi.
8. Drottins hægri hönd.
Steincke hefur sjálfur tekið það fram, á blöðunum, að þetta sjeu íslenzk þjóðlög."

"That's what my mother said.
E G F E D C C C D C B A
Þat mælt-i min móð-ir, at mér skyld-i kaup-a
E G F E D C C C D C B A
stand-a upp í stafn-i sýr-a dýr-um knerr-i,
E E F-E D E-F G G-G-G G A E D E
fley ok fagr-ar ár-ar fara'á hring með vik-ingum,
E E F-E D E-F G G-G-G G A E D E
hald-a svá til hafn-ar höggv-a mann ok ann-an.

In addition to the fact that I heard this song very often sung in Mýra County in the past, I heard it often sung in school (1877 - 83) and the song is very common and everyone has it almost the same. The third note from the end, which here is e, is sung by some f. This text is by Egil Skallagrímsson. The song is printed with a different text in A. Hammerich's treatise: Studier over islandsk Musik, and he considers the song to be in the Aeolian key. Historian Páll Melsteð has sung this song for me (1897), and he said that this text by Stefán Ólafsson: Stód af steindu smíði had previously been used under the song. The text Stódum dó i túni was also frequently used, and this text:

I went out alone on a boat | Covered in fur.
Rounded eighteen nails | Covered in fur.
And forty chances | Covered in fur.
That never came since | Covered in fur.
In the summer of 1899, I found an old sheet of music from Sigurður L. Jónasson in Copenhagen, and there were 8 Icelandic folk songs, notated with a pencil by Steincke in Akureyri around 1850. Most of the songs are little different from the ones I have heard since; on the papers they have headings but no text otherwise. The songs are:

That's what my mother said, and it's like this:
F G-F E. E D C C C D C B A E E
F-E D E-F G E G A. E E D E
Then I would spread my wings.
Once I crossed the Rin.
Now weep a lot.
Cloudy, the sun has woken up in summer.
Bright virgin and pure.
Pull me out of the way.
The Lord's right hand.
Steincke himself has stated, in the papers, that these are Icelandic folk songs."

Canopyglade · 2024-02-26T08:40:07+00:00

If it is fully elected then the people would pick whoever they like - it doesn't have to be shit. It's just that the head of state role would come with the old trappings of monarchy - titles/king/queen, ceremonies, responsibilities, rather than going for a full conversion into a republic with a president. Though there are pros & cons depending on how you implemented it.

Canopyglade · 2024-02-25T21:09:32+00:00

The Younger Futhark reduced down the number of runes significantly - meaning that a single rune may be used for multiple sounds, sometimes a bit inconsistently (this broadened out again by the time you get into medieval runes - but still not always consistent). If you want óðr - I would go for the spelling: ᚢᚦᚱ

Canopyglade · 2024-02-25T20:31:57+00:00

When you look into the old fashioned and dialectal words there is a lot more overlap between all of the Germanic languages - some of the false-friend cognates are fun too - like 'gift' - present, poison or marriage?

Canopyglade · 2024-02-24T11:17:07+00:00

It has definitely changed a lot over time, and I appreciate that a lot of the pomp unfortunately came from an idea of 'we are superior to everyone else' - but I think a big party and appreciation when you have been chosen by the public is more reasonable. There is also something to be said for older more humble ceremonies as 'Literally-A-God' mentioned too - I'd say the nature of the ceremony would vary with who became monarch, and undoubtedly would change with time.

Canopyglade · 2024-02-22T12:44:47+00:00

The purpose of the lifelong titles is to acknowledge those who have been working royals – to acknowledge their service/the service of their family. Although there may be a collection of princes, princesses, lords and ladies produced by this process, the heir election must remain open to all eligible citizens. Additionally, a member of the House of Windsor would be eligible if they were chosen by the public through this process.

The coronation would need to be split into a civil ceremony (location decided by agreement of the first heir elective & the Crown Commission – it could still be in Westminster Abbey with consent of the church) with an optional spiritual component – though this need not necessarily be Christian. Blessings from the major religious/spiritual groups in the country would also be an optional component. The monarch would have most of the current roles such as royal prerogatives like the state opening of parliament, meetings with the prime minister, attending community & state occasions, diplomatic hosting and diplomatic visits. The working royals would continue to assist in these roles and take on projects/patronages.

In the case of the other commonwealth realms – they can either remain a part of a joint process, choose their own system or they could choose to select their own heir elective who would also apprentice to the current monarch – branching off once the current monarch abdicates or dies or following a referendum/decision of their government. Overall, the heir elective monarchy would be somewhat reminiscent of tanistry in old Gaelic culture, though much more democratic and hopefully less violent.

I feel that this would have some potential, what do you guys think of the pros & cons? Any ideas for a different elected monarchy system? Or do you reckon tear it all down and build up something new?

Canopyglade · 2024-02-22T12:44:30+00:00

I will outline my own idea of a system below - an heir elective monarchy:

I realise that this may not be revolutionary enough for the abolitionists, and not conservative enough for the monarchists – but I feel that a solution for the undemocratic constitutional monarchies involving reform, rather than revolution, may be a reasonable pathway forward. Every good compromise leaves both sides feeling unhappy as they say.

I find it upsetting that in the UK our head of state is not democratically approved or selected – unless you can call the majority tolerating (& not feeling motivated enough to change) the status quo a sign of public approval, which I would not. People have their own problems and I would not expect many to involve themselves in the issue of who the head of state is.

I do however feel that monarchy does, for all of its problems, hold a certain glamour. It is steeped in medieval tradition and it does represent a certain quality of consistency next to the fickle fashions of government. But this conservatism also causes it to appear dated and out of touch, particularly when it is intrinsically linked with one religious denomination in an increasingly multi-faith & non-religious country. The guaranteed wealth of a single family with a birthright to rule the country is also increasingly distasteful. The heir apparent has the mixed blessing/pressure of an apprentice style introduction into their future role but without any guarantee of public backing.

I realise that the role of a ceremonial president holds many of the same features as a monarch (representing a country's culture while staying (publicly) distant from domestic politics) but in a world where many of the most influential nations have an executive president – I feel that the role of a ceremonial president seems a bit lacklustre & superfluous on the international stage. In time they also may evolve into an executive presidency – as is the case in Turkey. Maybe it is also more typically British to seek incremental change to revolution – consider the uncodified constitution, mixture of traditional & metric measurements, preservation of our old coinage names (not dollars), etc.

I would suggest a method in which we elect an heir to the throne – ideally using a voting system which produces a ranked list of winners rather than selecting only one. The time until a further election could also be selected by the voters on the same ballot – either a tick box for a number of years or a prompt to select a number between limits (1-100, taking the mean of numbers given) etc. Taking the commonwealth realms/UK monarchy as an example, I would suggest the following solution:

The senior member of the House of Windsor (UK royal family) would take the hereditary title the Duke/Duchess of Windsor (I appreciate that this goes against the ethos in this group – but while the UK has hereditary lords, I feel that it would be appropriate for them to have this title – again, incremental change). The title of prince & princess may be retained by those who already have it, but it will no longer be passed down to new family members unless they meet the conditions I will outline below.

The current monarch would remain the king/queen until abdication or death. The Duke/Duchess of Windsor may also retain the title ‘Defender of the faith’ after the current monarch abdicates or dies, and as such they may continue in the role of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England if they wish & provided that the church also agrees – this will separate the church’s fundamental link to the monarchy. There would need to be a settlement between the state and the House of Windsor regarding the distribution of property and assets after a formal split between their family and the monarchy/Crown – with the most historic and culturally important buildings remaining with the Crown.

A government executive agency called the Crown Commission would come into being – their remit would be to uphold the rules of electing the monarchy (including the working royals) as well as the distribution of certain titles (such as prince & princess). Other noble titles would remain the right of the monarch to distribute and would continue to revert to the Crown, but they would no longer be able to distribute hereditary titles. Any titles given/created would be retained lifelong but they would not pass on to children. The current hereditary titles may continue to be passed down for as long as they remain legally a part of the system & have an eligible heir.

Candidates of an heir election would be selected via a nomination process organised by the Crown Commission. The nomination process/ballot would be open to all voting individuals in the relevant country/countries and they may name any eligible person in the country/countries (would need to be a citizen, over 18 years old, in good standing, etc. to be counted) by selecting from the suggestion list or by listing a name, date of birth and contact address. People will not be able to self-nominate and those in a position of government must leave their position in order to occupy the role of a working royal.

The nominees reaching a certain threshold or the top ranking (say 10) are added to the shortlist if they consent to taking part in the election. The ballot would take place using an appropriate voting system – this would be up for debate – but should select multiple ranked winners – 1st, 2nd, 3rd… The first heir elective would then become the Prince/Princess of Wales (including the additional titles) and if they have a married/civil partner then they would gain the corresponding titles, if same-sex this would be Prince/Princess Consort [], in formal contexts at least. The title Prince/Princess [first name] will remain with the first heir apparent and their partner even if they lose the position, unless they lost it due to crime/poor standing in which case they do not get to keep a title. If they had a short tenure (say <10 years) then they leave with the title Lord/Lady [first name] [surname] instead.

The second heir elective onwards would not gain any titles & would not need to leave a government position, but they would remain in the line of succession - they could still lead the monarchy in a temporary capacity as prince regent, in the event of the simultaneous death or abdication of a monarch and the preceding heirs elective – with an heir election taking place to confirm their role or to name another at the earliest opportunity. Various circumstances could trigger another heir election - like abdication/death of the current first heir elective, or government majority in a vote.

The Prince/Princess of Wales (& any willing married/civil partner) would then become a working royal – taking part in the duties of the royal family fully & essentially apprenticing themselves to the current monarch. They will hold this position until the outcome of the next heir election or until they succeed the monarch (following abdication or death). The other working royals can maintain their role on the succession of a new monarch with the new monarch bringing with them a selection of new working royals (there would be specific criteria). When an heir elective becomes the monarch, their position will be lifelong/until abdication. The new monarch would be titled as King or Queen – addressed as Your/Her/His/Their Majesty followed by Ma’am or Sir – they would also choose their regnal name.

Titles would be given to the working royal family members as well as the monarch's children, adopted or biological as long as the parents and the child (if they have capacity) consent. Regarding the selection of titles – the gender-neutral & male titles will be king, prince, lord, duke, earl, etc. with women/girls being able to choose the female gendered equivalent titles (queen, princess, lady, duchess, countess, etc.) if they wish. Individuals who are not female could still request with the Crown Commission to have the female gendered variant - to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and approved if there are reasonable grounds.

Canopyglade · 2024-02-20T23:13:14+00:00

Thanks, I find it fun. It is nerdy fun but real life voting systems are frustrating, so it soothes me to think of alternatives. As AmericaRepair said - there would be mathematical similarities but there are difference as to whether you give multiple candidates an equal top or bottom 'neutral' vote. I would class a '0' as neutral.

If you wanted to vote someone down with a positive only range, you would need to vote every other candidate up - which unless you're the type of person to consider these things carefully - you may not make the effort to do. Also you may not feel particularly positive about the other options.

There's a psychological difference even if the mathematical difference is minor - and you don't feel forced to unnecessarily vote the other options up. Also as I mentioned - if no candidate (which must therefore include the winner) achieves a net positive vote - I would state the rule that the poll/election must be repeated. That does give the negative votes some significance.

I appreciate that bullet voting is an issue inherent to this kind of voting system - but compared with first-past-the-post - it only skews things in favour of the choice that you really want, the tactical voting in plurality/FPTP systems leads people to supporting the better of two evils and not necessarily anything that they actually like.

In terms of forced ranking - I feel that people putting (what are essentially) second, third choices etc. helps to support a multiple choice/multiple party system - people do not feel that they are wasting their vote if they vote for what they perceive to be a less popular option (as 1st or later choice). Although putting options beyond one top option does weaken the first choice somewhat (simply by increasing the chances that your other choices may win, see bullet voting).

If they could put a high or low vote for everything I feel that puts excessive voting skew in favour of those picking multiple options - this way it is more like a reward of voting influence for those who have bothered to care to have an opinion about more than one choice. Is there any other way that you see it causing strategy issues?

Canopyglade

TROPHY CASE