| Words & Pictures [message #11497] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 11:38  |
|
Clare and I have a bet going.
This is not the first time; I once resorted to betting with her because she argued with me over a six-month period that the word ominous was, in fact, onimous. (Interesting how my browser has just underlined that last one as a spelling mistake!)
Today's argument, again descending to a bet, is over the expression "A picture's worth a thousand words." Or should that be "A word is worth a thousand pictures"? Clare seems to think so.
In fact, she's emailed me this morning from work:
Of course, she's seems to have neglected that the other form has nine times as many hits, of which the first is its own Wiki page documenting its history, the second is a database of well-known phrases, and the third leads into it as "the well-known cliché".
Would forumanoj please consider putting her out of her misery? Maybe one of you could explain the meaning to her; she'd get mad at being "lectured" if I did it.
Thanks 
Attachment: ha.jpg
(Size: 47.27KB, Downloaded 102 time(s))
Attachment: words.jpg
(Size: 74.52KB, Downloaded 102 time(s))
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11498 is a reply to message #11497 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 11:47  |
|
Admission of defeat, from when I responded to her email earlier?
Attachment: phone.jpg
(Size: 47.60KB, Downloaded 102 time(s))
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11503 is a reply to message #11497 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 12:36 |
|
You're not a bad loser, no.
History has shown that you are, in fact, very good at it! 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11505 is a reply to message #11504 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 12:56 |
 |
 Underhand
Messages: 189
Registered: August 2006 |
|
|
|
I think that you're generally supposed to be pretty confident you're right before you take a bet.
You should realise that Tim will rarely offer a bet unless he knows he's going to win.
If you're not sure, don't take the bet! And if Tim's offering a bet, assume that you should go look it up first because otherwise he will likely end up winning.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11507 is a reply to message #11497 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 12:59 |
|
Shush, don't tell her that, Gavan! I'll have to start buying my own books soon!
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11508 is a reply to message #11506 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 13:02 |
|
| Noktema Strigulino wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:58 |
The most stupid English phrase ever is "cheap at half the price". Think about it.
|
I was just about to argue that one, then realised that what I was going to say wouldn't make sense and the opposite would be true.
See, Clare? That's the way to handle these things 
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11510 is a reply to message #11506 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 13:05 |
|
Underhand
Messages: 189
Registered: August 2006 |
|
|
|
"Cheap at half the price" was always a corruption of "cheap at twice the price" used sarcastically.
Of course it's stupid. That's the point.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11514 is a reply to message #11497 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 13:38 |
|
That's the point.
You use it normally when you like the price of something so much that you would consider it to be cheap at twice that price; you know, that it's such a good price that you'd still consider it cheap if it were twice as expensive.
Someone ballsed up somewhere though and got the phrasing wrong. If you like the price as it is, then it goes without say that you'd consider it cheap if it were half price, so the phrase is unnecessary, tautologous, and lacks the exclamation that it's supposed to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11523 is a reply to message #11516 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 14:29 |
|
| Radio~! wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 13:53 |
But... couldn't you use it when talking about something really expensive, saying, "It would be cheap at half the price"? 
|
Yes, but that's not using the sentence in the same context as it's meant.
When you normally use it, it's done when you like the price of something, which is why we say it's tautologous.
"She bought a cracking new car. Only spent £4k on it!"
"Wicked, man. Cheap at half the price!"
The situation that you're outlining is absolutely logical, but it's not the same situation where one would use the phrase. Nobody would say, "£4k for a new car? It's too much. It's cheap at half the price."
|
|
|
|
| Re: Words & Pictures [message #11525 is a reply to message #11524 ] |
Fri, 20 November 2009 14:53 |
|
If you did hear it, you'd pick up that it doesn't mean what it's used to express, no problem.
******
On that subject, here's another old thread that may interest Pen.
|
|
|
Jebsite
Vortaroj
Membroj
Serĉi
Helpo
Registri
Ensaluti
Hejmo
Plus I emailed you to say that this didn't need to be discussed in the forums!
To be honest, I've never heard anyone use the phrase in any context whatsoever 