Consider the use of the expression "take" and "took" in these ways, which you have probably heard before:
"I got a shot for that, but I don't think it took."
"I tried to ingratiate myself with his family, but it didn't take."
Anyone know how this got started and/or whether it's a colloquialism?
January 10, 2007, 14:27
Seanahan
I think the expression comes from "take hold".
"I got a shot for that, but I don't think the effect took hold."
The second one is a little trickier, because it is the more idiomatic of the two. One could rewrite it in intermediate form as:
"My attempts to to ingratiate myself in his family didn't take hold."
This is still idiomatic, and it seems it may well have come from:
"I was unable to ingratiate myself in his family, they didn't take hold of me."
This last is quite a bit of a stretch, so this may not be convincing, but my attempts to search various dictionaries left me annoyed with take's polysemy.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Seanahan,
January 10, 2007, 20:10
Kalleh
Interesting question. It seems to me that you could just switch the sentences:
I got a shot for that, but it didn't take. Less so for this one: I don't think my attempts to ingratiate myself in his family took.
January 11, 2007, 13:15
arnie
Another possibility is the agricultural metaphor "take root".
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
January 12, 2007, 01:38
Myth Jellies
Don't take it too hard ( ) but I thought these were all examples of using the word 'take' in the sense of "becoming affected by"? The classic example of this is to take ill.
Myth Jellies Cerebroplegia--the cure is within our grasp
January 12, 2007, 09:57
pearce
quote:
Originally posted by saranita: "I got a shot for that, but I don't think it took."
A mixture of slang and garbage. I have no idea what it means.
"I tried to ingratiate myself with his family, but it didn't take."
The meaning here is perceptible, just. But logically, how can ingratiation take? It's simply bad writing or speech.
4. To have the intended effect; operate or work: The skin graft took. 5. To gain popularity or favor: The television series, which didn't take, was later canceled.
January 12, 2007, 12:27
arnie
Pearce,
I think "I got a shot for that, but I don't think it took." means "I was given a vaccination (or an immunisation injection) for that but I don't think it worked."
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
January 12, 2007, 12:54
goofy
quote:
Originally posted by pearce: The meaning here is perceptible, just. But logically, how can ingratiation take? It's simply bad writing or speech.
If we're going to apply logic to language, then we're in trouble. Logically, how does one come into possession of home in the sentence "I got home at 5"? Logically, how does music get - as in "Music really gets me"? And so on.
January 12, 2007, 14:56
pearce
quote:
Originally posted by gooofy: If we're going to apply logic to language, then we're in trouble. Logically, how does one come into possession of home in the sentence "I got home at 5"? Logically, how does music get - as in "Music really gets me"? And so on.
The application of logic to language means only that the language makes understandable sense to the reader. Colouful metaphors are fine, and "in phrases" have a place and may enrich conversation, but they have to be good, and that of course is a matter for personal judgement. Without wishing to be pedantic or prissy, I could neither write nor say either of the expressions you mention.
January 12, 2007, 21:36
goofy
quote:
Originally posted by pearce: The application of logic to language means only that the language makes understandable sense to the reader. Colouful metaphors are fine, and "in phrases" have a place and may enrich conversation, but they have to be good, and that of course is a matter for personal judgement. Without wishing to be pedantic or prissy, I could neither write nor say either of the expressions you mention.
And that's fine. My point is simply that you can't apply logic to language consistently. Deciding whether or not it's understandable is different from whether it's logical. If language was logical, why can we say
Metaphor has been seen within the Western scientific tradition as purely a linguistic construction. The essential thrust of Lakoff's work has been the argument that metaphors are primarily a conceptual construction, and indeed are central to the development of thought. He says, "Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature." Non-metaphorical thought is for Lakoff only possible when we talk about purely physical reality. For Lakoff the greater the level of abstraction the more layers of metaphor are required to express it. People do not notice these metaphors for various reasons. One reason is that some metaphors become 'dead' and we no longer recognise their origin. Another reason is that we just don't "see" what is "going on".
Lakoff has been making the media rounds recently talking about framing. He is one of the founders of the Rockridge Institute, a think tank in Berkeley, California.
) but I thought these were all examples of using the word 'take' in the sense of "becoming affected by"? The classic example of this is to take ill.