Twice, yesterday I heard television presenters use the expression "take it with a pinch of salt".
Now I know I sound a bit Humpty-Dumpty-ish, but when I use this expression I know what I mean by it. I mean that although I accept what you are saying for now, I don't necessarily actually believe it.
The expression can be applied solely to information: things I've heard or read, so I couldn't understand its application in the two instances on television yesterday. One was referring to a film which might work for a documentary but this was a drama. How can you take an acknowledged work of fiction with a pinch of salt?
The other was even more unlikely. It was on a "best of the Antiques Roadshow" program and was used by a presenter to refer to a dress, not to its provenance but to the dress itself.

Am I wrong about the meaning of the phrase? Is me that's been misusing it all these years? Or is it that the people using it on TV don't really know the meaning?

To me the phrase has the meaning you attribute to it.

with a pinch of salt

Strange, I have never heard the expression except in its original form in Latin: cum grano salis ("with a grain of salt"). To me, it means to accept something somebody says, but with a degree of skepticism, or reserving the right to be skeptical.

It's fairly common in the UK.

Same here. I think the TV person didn't know what he was saying.

Not quite on the subject but there is the superstioon, which my mother held to, that if you accidentally spill salt you have to toss some of it over your shoulder to ward off bad luck. However, she carried it one step further. She believed it also applied to "spilling" salt on your food. Every meal she would toss some from the shaker over her shoulder.

One day she was seated across from me in a diner with a bald man in the booth behind her. When the food came, she tossed salt over her shoulder and it hit the man on top of his head. He looked at the ceiling while I tried not to laugh out loud. I thought that was the end of it but another course brought another toss. Once again, it hit the man's bald pate but this time he called the waiter.

"The plaster is falling from the ceiling and I want to change booths," he said. I, of course, was nearly bursting with laughter. Luckily, no one sat in the booth for the remainder of our repast. My mother refused to believe me when I told her what happened behind her and the reason for it.

That's TV skit material!

Did you watch the video on proofreading that I posted elsewhere? Nobody seems to have found it funny but me.

Yep, I just posted to it. It never showed up while I was on and I found it by accident.

I watched some of it. I have to say that some of the comments posted were more funny (or should that be sad?) than the video.

Apparently we are more stingy with our salt over here, expressing skepticism with only a grain, while, across the pond, they lay on a whole pinch. But yes, I agree, the TV commentators were using the expression incorrectly.

Wordmatic

Yes, I agree with the skepticism definition, but also, as z & wm have said, I've only heard "take it with a 'grain of salt'."

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
Apparently we are more stingy with our salt over here, expressing skepticism with only a grain, while, across the pond, they lay on a whole pinch. But yes, I agree, the TV commentators were using the expression incorrectly.

Wordmatic

Or perhaps we tend to be more sceptical over here, and require more than just a grain of salt to express the way we feel.

Well, I think it's because the Americans and English just like to be a little bit different. It reminds me of our "knock on wood" and your "touch wood."

And we say "different from," while Brits say "different to."

WM

quote:

And we say "different from," while Brits say "different to."

"Different to" is considered by many in the UK to be incorrect. After all, one would only ever say "differs from" - never "differs to".

grain ... pinch

The phrase in its Latin original translates as "grain". As is usual with UK vs US English. the innovation happened on the right side of the pond.

"different to"

As usual, the excellent MWDEU has the historical facts with many citations of the whole controversy of which preposition to use with different. The funny truth is that different to slightly beats out different from in terms of age, and different than comes last. What is correct is probably a matter of stylistic choice. I prefer different from.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
"Different to" is considered by many in the UK to be incorrect. After all, one would only ever say "differs from" - never "differs to".

I think this is an analogical and etymological fallacy. Etymological because "different" does not derive from "differ", so the preposition that one takes is not necessarily the same preposition that the other takes.

Analogical because, as Motivated Grammar says

quote:

why would semantically equivalent phrases require the same preposition if they’re allowed to differ in the number of words and parts of speech they employ?

quote:

I think this is an analogical and etymological fallacy. Etymological because "different" does not derive from "differ", so the preposition that one takes is not necessarily the same preposition that the other takes.

When I first saw this example I assumed that differ and different had the same etymology (as presumably did the person who made the assertion).

Even if they had the same etymology that still doesn't give any peevologist the right to pronounce on whether a phrase in common usage is "right" or "wrong".

Still, that's the old argument between decriptivists and prescriptivists and is unlikely to be resolved...

quote:

Even if they had the same etymology that still doesn't give any peevologist the right to pronounce on whether a phrase in common usage is "right" or "wrong".

But if there were no "peeveologists" to say something about these kinds of things, then in the end anything and everything would be allowed. Verbal anarchy might appeal to some but it doesn't appeal to me.

I realise that you do state "common usage" but who is to decide what is "common"? It is very common for people to use the word "it's" as the possessive of "it" - should we therefore accept it or should we point it out as inaccurate?

But if there were no "peeveologists" to say something about these kinds of things, then in the end anything and everything would be allowed. Verbal anarchy might appeal to some but it doesn't appeal to me.

There are many languages that are not written and do not have dictionaries and grammar books. There has been no evidence presented to show that they have descended into anarchy. In fact, the few articles I have read on the matter, suggest that, the changes happen between generations and that they tend to happen in such a way that both generations know about them and can understand one another. In fact, the peevers have to be able to understand the differences between their versions of the language to be able to complain, and I have seen proof that the generations complain, even in illiterate societies.

The main thing is that these changes in the case of grammar and sound changes are almost always systematic. Take sound changes, for example: if you compare words in Latin to those in Italian, blancus 'white' (an early loanword from Germanic) became bianco. The /bl/ has become a /bj/, but this change does not just happen here. In fact, it is almost a universal change that happens with stops plus l going to stops plus j.

The case with the possessive of it is an excellent example of how a change is wanting to happen that makes perfect sense. All the other possessives of nouns are 's. Why not it. Some say, but none of the other personal pronouns have an apostrophe in the possessive form. Interestingly enough, all the other forms are anomalous: his not hes[/i], etc. Except of course, the one personal pronoun for the indefinite third person singular, one and one's. If we just spelled it's[ for the possessive, the erstwhile normative grammarians could lower their blood pressure and get on with writing.

There is nothing like verbal anarchy that I have run across. Once two dialects split far enough to become languages, you have two perfectly self-consistent systems of speech that are mutually unintelligible, but within each language there is no anarchy. Style choices in written language are not a system of government. They are suggestions made by a select few and gathered in style guides. One is pretty much free to pick one's own style guide. The best option in matters of style is to choose one and stick with it, but arguing that one style is superior, more logical, more meaningful, or whatever is the thing that most descriptivists just roll their eyes at.

The only thing that is in a state of mere anarchy in English is the atrocious spelling system we have saddled ourselves with. If you want to peeve about something, lay on Macduff.

Of course, as Arnie suggested, the grammatihooligans have mostly made up their minds and that's that ...

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
When I first saw this example I assumed that differ and different had the same etymology (as presumably did the person who made the assertion).

The words are related, but not in the way some people say they are. Anyway, the fact that they are related is irrelevent to their current usage.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
But if there were no "peeveologists" to say something about these kinds of things, then in the end anything and everything would be allowed. Verbal anarchy might appeal to some but it doesn't appeal to me.

You seem to be assuming that complaints about language use always have a direct measurable effect. I'm sure that people have always complained about usage, for as long as there has been language. But exactly what effect has it had? English changed drastically between 1000 and 1600, so if people were complaining about it, it didn't seem to do any good. The tradition of English prescriptive grammar started in the 17th century with the first usage books, attempts to form an English academy, etc. But the fact that English survived a long time without such a tradition shows that prescriptive grammar is not necessary to save us all from verbal anarchy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

I'm sure we will all get by as we always have, irregularities of spelling and grammar notwithstanding. But in an ever more communicative world it is surely better that the majority stick to what rules there are rather than break them as they will. Verbal anarchy, like societal anarchy, will not necessarily lead to collapse but it will lead to difficulties.

I recall recently when I was offered some hotel accommodation which, included in its price, "...allowed me a complementary room...". I suspect that the room was complimentary, not complementary, but it could have been either. Am I being too picky to suggest that the correct use of the correct word would have enhanced the communication?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I recall recently when I was offered some hotel accommodation which, included in its price, "...allowed me a complementary room...". I suspect that the room was complimentary, not complementary, but it could have been either. Am I being too picky to suggest that the correct use of the correct word would have enhanced the communication?

That's a good example, but it is an example about spelling, and I thought we were talking about grammar and usage. There's a case to be made for adhering to spelling conventions, since there are many different English dialects that use the same spelling system. But variations in usage (eg, "different from/different to") rarely lead to unclarity or ambiguity - at least, no more so than any other aspect of language leads to unclarity or ambiguity.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

That's a good example, but it is an example about spelling, and I thought we were talking about grammar and usage.

I'd consider it a question of usage. Isn't the question, "Which do you use, the word complementary or complimentary. I can't see how it's an example of a misspelling. Indeed, I get confused about which complementary/complimentary to use in that circumstance.

I see it as an issue of spelling. Presumably you know which word you want to use - you want either the word meaning "given free as a courtesy", or the word meaning "serving to complete". These aren't words you are likely to mix up. You know which one you mean. You just aren't sure how to spell it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

I agree with Kalleh. It is a question of misuse of the language - in this case, spelling usage. Someone doesn't know how to spell a word; different misuse from that of using the wrong preposition, but misuse nevertheless.

Here's another example of misuse, which I read in a local newpaper's car test. "...The vehicle eschews quality and luxury..." It was possible to tell from the rest of the article that this was not what was meant, since the test was of a top-of-the-range Mercedes, not of some kind of off-road or utility vehicle. I don't know what verb the author was seeking - "issues" possibly - but nevertheless it was an example of misuse of langauge that could have created misunderstanding and it is right that such errors should be pointed out.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I agree with Kalleh. It is a question of misuse of the language - in this case, spelling usage. Someone doesn't know how to spell a word; different misuse from that of using the wrong preposition, but misuse nevertheless.

By "usage" I meant grammar and word choice, not spelling. Spelling a word wrong might lead to some unclarity, but a usage variation like "different from/different to" won't.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
nevertheless it was an example of misuse of langauge that could have created misunderstanding and it is right that such errors should be pointed out.

Now you're talking about real mistakes. "Different to" is not a mistake, it's just a variant usage. "Eschew" for "issue" is a mistake. But these sorts of mistakes are happening all the time, they're one of the ways language changes. They might cause some minor confusion, but all sorts of aspects of language can cause confusion; language isn't perfect. If we really want to communicate, we'll manage to do so.

Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to point out mistakes. But I don't think that not pointing out such mistakes is going to lead to verbal anarchy where "anything and everything would be allowed". There is no evidence that this happens.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

it was an example of misuse of langauge that could have created misunderstanding and it is right that such errors should be pointed out

I am not sure that a spelling mistake is a misuse of the [English] language. And, it certainly won't lead to verbal anarchy in any case. If I were teaching an English class I would point out any spelling mistakes or infelicities in grammar or usage, as well as problems with style, but if I were teaching a programming class, I would pass over those little problems in silence. It's just a matter of getting on with the subject being taught.

As an example of the minimum impact of spelling conventions on a language's communicative capabilities, I would offer the period from roughly 1100 to 1700 CE. During this period there was no standard spelling system as we know it today. There were also precious few dictionaries or grammars as we know them today, and finally there were no style usage books at all. Yet this period saw English literature blossom. Chaucer and Shakespeare did not spell consistently, they used questionable grammar (by the silly Strunk & White standards of today), and yet they communicated quite efficaciously, not only with their contemporaries but, with the future speakers of English, us. For example, here's one (130) of Shakespeare's Sonnets in the spelling of the first edition:

quote:

MY Miſtres eyes are nothing like the Sunne,
Currall is farre more red, then her lips red,
If ſnow be white why then her breſts are dun:
If haires be wiers, black wiers grow on her head:
I haue feene Roſes damaskt red and white,
But no ſuch Roſes ſee I in her cheekes,
And in ſome perfumes is there more delight,
Then in the breath that from my Miſtres reekes.
I loue to heare her ſpeake, yet well I know,
That Muſicke hath a farre more pleaſing ſound:
I graunt I neuer ſaw a goddeſſe goe,
My Miſtres when ſhee walkes treads on the ground.
And yet by heauen I thinke my loue as rare,
As any ſhe beli'd with falſe compare.

Nobody chided Shakespeare for his spelling, nor predicted the doom of the English language. In fact the spelling in 1609, the year of the first edition of his sonnets, is rather modern compared with something from just a couple of centuries or so before by Chaucer (link):

quote:

Whan that Apprill with his ſhorris ſote
And the droughte of marche hath peid þe rote
And badid euery veyne in suche licour
Of which uertu engendrid is the flour
Whann zepherus eke with his sote breth
Enſpirid hath in euery holte and heth
The tendir croppis and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram half his cours yronne

In examining the birth records of my mother's family I found the family name spelt "Latham," "Lethem," and "Leatham." One of the most extreme examples of British Isles name changes I'm aware of was that of the Scottish family Loughead. Two members of that clan went into the aircraft business here in the USA, but, finding precious few business associates who could pronounce their name, changed it to the phonetic (for Anglo-Americans)Lockheed. Thus it seems that some words get changed due to the dominant culture's unfamiliarity with the spelling or pronunciation of another culture.

Like most of us here, I hate to admit (or make public) my stupidity. But in my individual case, unlike Richard's or goofy's discussion (Richard seemed to agree with goofy that it is a spelling mistake), my problem with complementary and complimentary is a usage, not a spelling, problem. When it comes to a complementary room, I become confused about which word...not the spelling...makes sense with that definition. The usual way I use compliment is to provide good feedback to someone; for complement it's to add something else that makes it better. Neither of those definitions mean to provide something free (yes, words have more than one definition, but I am going through my thinking process), though complementary seems the closest, to me. A complementary room would add to my enjoyment of the room.

Now, you've all been treated to my unconventional thinking process.

As I wrote, it wasn't clear in context as to whether the room was completentary (in other words, an additional room that would give more space) or complimentary (in other words, free of charge). It could have ment either in the confirmation I received, so I had to write back and ask which was the actual meaning.

Usage, spelling, grammar, style, call it what you will - it was an example of sloppy writing that caused me problems and it is that kind of thing that I feel it right to rail against.

It's always nice to see typos in posts about the importance of spelling.

quote:

It's always nice to see typos in posts about the importance of spelling

It's one of the few infallible rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
The usual way I use compliment is to provide good feedback to someone; for complement it's to add something else that makes it better.

Kalleh, when people compliment, "provide good feedback to someone," they give it freely. There's no charge. But to complement is to complete, "to add something else that makes it better," which usually isn't free. If you see a purse you like because it complements your outfit and decide to buy it, it isn't free. But there's no charge when a friend tells you she really likes that purse and it goes well with your clothes. Compliments are freely given; complements aren't. Maybe that will help.

Hotels that offer a "complementary room" are really offering a "complimentary room." They just got it wrong. Do a search for both terms and I think you'll find at least 10 times as many hits for "complimentary room" than for "complementary room."

Yes, Tinman, that does help.

I remember an embarrassing moment once when I called to to attention what I had thought was a misuse of "complimentary" on our Web site. Like other businesses, we don't like mistakes on our Web site, so we all feel compelled to point them out when we find them. Well, this time I was wrong. They had used the correct "complimentary." It was I who was the dufus.

I just want to state for the record that when I mentioned "different from" vs. "different to," I was not peeving; I was merely observing!

WM

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I agree with Kalleh. It is a question of misuse of the language - in this case, spelling usage. Someone doesn't know how to spell a word; different misuse from that of using the wrong preposition, but misuse nevertheless.

Here's another example of misuse, which I read in a local newpaper's car test. "...The vehicle eschews quality and luxury..." It was possible to tell from the rest of the article that this was not what was meant, since the test was of a top-of-the-range Mercedes, not of some kind of off-road or utility vehicle. I don't know what verb the author was seeking - "issues" possibly - but nevertheless it was an example of misuse of langauge that could have created misunderstanding and it is right that such errors should be pointed out.

I would think that in keeping with the initial e of eschews, they meant exudes, though if said quality and luxury were laid on to thick, it would be "reeks".

If you read above, you'll see that we had a discussion here about "complementary" vs. "complimentary." The agreement seems to be that chocolates, for example, are complimentary when you book a hotel room. Way back in 2004 we seemed to agree with that as well. This site , however, has an interesting comment (scroll down) that really could make the right word "complementary."

Interestingly, I could find nothing about "complimentary" meaning "free" in the online OED, but also nothing about "complementary" meaning "free." I assume, though, that the right one is with the i, from all our discussions. There are some interesting nuances, though.

Yes, flowers in a hotel room can be complimentary (free) and (less likely) complementary (as in completing). Rather tortuous reasoning, though.

Interesting, though, that it wasn't in the OED - at least my version.

The OED Online has

quote:

compliment
3. A complimentary gift, a present, gratuity. to make one a compliment of (a thing).

and

quote:

complimentary
a. Expressive of, or conveying, compliment; of the nature of a compliment.

1891 N.E.D. at Complimentary, Mod. They have received complimentary tickets for the entertainment.

It seems obvious that the "free" meaning derives from the "conveying compliment" meaning. This is an OED entry that could use an update.

Interestingly, I do have the NED definition, but not the one above that in my link to the online OED. I wonder why.