WEBVTT - Interesting Origins of Everyday Phrases

0:00:01.480 --> 0:00:04.280
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Stuff you Should Know, a production of I

0:00:04.360 --> 0:00:13.319
<v Speaker 1>Heart Radio. Hey you, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh,

0:00:13.360 --> 0:00:15.880
<v Speaker 1>and there's Chuck and Jerry's here too, and this is

0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:18.880
<v Speaker 1>a good old fashioned episode of Stuff you Should Know.

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:22.600
<v Speaker 1>That's right. But before you get going, we want to

0:00:22.680 --> 0:00:26.920
<v Speaker 1>make a plea to cough up just a little bit

0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:28.960
<v Speaker 1>of dough for our friends at co ED. If you

0:00:28.960 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>don't know our friends at Cooperative for Education who break

0:00:32.080 --> 0:00:35.240
<v Speaker 1>the cycle of poverty in Guatemala through education. We're trying

0:00:35.240 --> 0:00:38.280
<v Speaker 1>to get to a million bucks donated by the Stuff

0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:42.120
<v Speaker 1>you Should Know family notary. This is the family sure,

0:00:42.440 --> 0:00:45.120
<v Speaker 1>and we're getting close. So where can they go to

0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:49.840
<v Speaker 1>do that? They can go to Cooperative for Education dot

0:00:49.960 --> 0:00:53.920
<v Speaker 1>org slash s y s K and every little bit helps.

0:00:54.280 --> 0:00:57.440
<v Speaker 1>Large donation, small donation doesn't matter because they're all going

0:00:57.480 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 1>to be pulled together and get us to one million

0:01:00.040 --> 0:01:02.760
<v Speaker 1>dollars donated from Stuff you Should Know listeners, which would

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:06.120
<v Speaker 1>be great. And you got a little piece of housekeeping, right. Yes,

0:01:06.200 --> 0:01:09.720
<v Speaker 1>I wanted to thank a guy named Daniel Murgatroyd who

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:13.679
<v Speaker 1>is a rather talented painter who a while back noticed

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:19.080
<v Speaker 1>a picture of um Momo that I posted on Instagram,

0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:22.000
<v Speaker 1>and he offered to paint it, and he sent me

0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:26.400
<v Speaker 1>a straight up amazing oil painting that looks just like

0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:29.440
<v Speaker 1>the photograph. So we have a wonderful oil painting of MO.

0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:31.600
<v Speaker 1>And I just wanted to thank him for that and

0:01:31.640 --> 0:01:35.040
<v Speaker 1>tell everybody to go check him out on Instagram. Daniel

0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:39.039
<v Speaker 1>Murgatroyd art m u r g a t r o

0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:43.200
<v Speaker 1>y d art. Uh. He's really really good. So and

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:45.360
<v Speaker 1>I think he might be accepting commissions by the one.

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:48.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna check that out. No Marvin Martian jokes, I

0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:51.760
<v Speaker 1>promise no. I always think of jam on it um.

0:01:51.800 --> 0:01:55.920
<v Speaker 1>I think that's one of the little Gremlin's sisters. His

0:01:56.000 --> 0:01:59.080
<v Speaker 1>named Murgatroyd. I always think of Marvin Martian. Have inster

0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:02.360
<v Speaker 1>margat Troyd. Oh, yeah, that's right. I forgot about him.

0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:04.680
<v Speaker 1>I was never a big fan of his. He was creepy.

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.919
<v Speaker 1>I liked him. Okay, we also need to shout out

0:02:08.960 --> 0:02:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Worldwide Words. If you've never been on Worldwide Words website,

0:02:13.320 --> 0:02:16.320
<v Speaker 1>it's amazing. The guy Michael Quinlan who ran the site

0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:20.359
<v Speaker 1>is he just really did some amazing work of digging

0:02:20.440 --> 0:02:23.600
<v Speaker 1>up word origins and etymology and all that and then

0:02:23.639 --> 0:02:25.640
<v Speaker 1>Graham Arst. There is another really good site that we

0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:28.520
<v Speaker 1>drew from, among many others, but those two were the

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:30.959
<v Speaker 1>ones who deserve the biggest shout outs. Yeah, we've done

0:02:30.960 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 1>something like this before, and I think every couple of

0:02:33.720 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 1>years will probably throw out another word in phrase origin

0:02:37.560 --> 0:02:40.240
<v Speaker 1>episode because it's always fun to look at this stuff.

0:02:40.639 --> 0:02:44.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm an enthusiast of phrase origins. We're gonna kick it

0:02:44.400 --> 0:02:48.680
<v Speaker 1>off with the old on the wagon phrase. You were

0:02:48.720 --> 0:02:52.360
<v Speaker 1>on the wagon that means you're not drinking, you are sober.

0:02:52.880 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 1>I can't have that drink, man, I'm on the wagon

0:02:55.320 --> 0:02:58.680
<v Speaker 1>right right. And this one's awesome because we actually know

0:02:59.000 --> 0:03:02.919
<v Speaker 1>pretty much with a of percent certainty where it came from. UM.

0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:05.080
<v Speaker 1>But first, before we get to that, let's talk about

0:03:05.080 --> 0:03:07.919
<v Speaker 1>a couple of competing theories. One of them is from

0:03:07.919 --> 0:03:12.359
<v Speaker 1>our friends across the pond in the UK who apparently, UM,

0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:14.959
<v Speaker 1>back in the day, if you were being taken to jail,

0:03:15.400 --> 0:03:18.200
<v Speaker 1>or you were being taken to the gallows, you would

0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>be taken by wagon or cart and the very gracious

0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:26.280
<v Speaker 1>constable or jailer would stop at a pub and let

0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:28.359
<v Speaker 1>you have one last drink. And then after you had

0:03:28.360 --> 0:03:31.640
<v Speaker 1>that drink, you would get back on the wagon never

0:03:31.680 --> 0:03:35.080
<v Speaker 1>to drink again. That's right, because you're about to go

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:39.080
<v Speaker 1>get your head chopped off, right, So I don't even

0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:42.360
<v Speaker 1>know if that happened, but whether it did or not,

0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:45.760
<v Speaker 1>it it's not the origin of on the wagon, Sorry,

0:03:45.800 --> 0:03:48.560
<v Speaker 1>britt friends. It's a good one though, and it's funny.

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:53.160
<v Speaker 1>Anytime you do research on phrase origins, there are always

0:03:53.240 --> 0:03:57.160
<v Speaker 1>a lot of competing theories and a lot of them

0:03:57.200 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 1>sound really fun and you will probably repeat some of them,

0:04:00.120 --> 0:04:02.800
<v Speaker 1>but a lot of them aren't true. No, but these

0:04:02.840 --> 0:04:05.200
<v Speaker 1>are vetted. Man. We we really worked hard to make

0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:09.320
<v Speaker 1>sure that this one really really is accurate. Alright, So

0:04:09.400 --> 0:04:13.120
<v Speaker 1>moving on a little closer, but not quite there. This

0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:16.600
<v Speaker 1>sort of dances around the true origin. But this one

0:04:16.640 --> 0:04:19.000
<v Speaker 1>takes us to America. We don't have to go across

0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:23.480
<v Speaker 1>any pond because we're here already. And the Temperance Movement

0:04:23.560 --> 0:04:26.600
<v Speaker 1>is what we're speaking of. Where uh, if you listen

0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:29.800
<v Speaker 1>to our episode on What's it call it? When they

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:33.400
<v Speaker 1>get rid of all the booze prohibition prohibition it was

0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:35.520
<v Speaker 1>led by the Temperance movement, which was a movement of

0:04:36.560 --> 0:04:40.479
<v Speaker 1>uptight people who said you shouldn't drink no one should drink,

0:04:40.880 --> 0:04:43.200
<v Speaker 1>and we're gonna make uh it really hard for you

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:46.960
<v Speaker 1>to drink. So the Temperance Movement was really happening, and

0:04:47.000 --> 0:04:51.200
<v Speaker 1>they would go through towns at times preaching abstinence and

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:55.240
<v Speaker 1>literally like parading through town, and they would almost like

0:04:55.440 --> 0:05:00.480
<v Speaker 1>a church invitation, would call people, uh, to take a pledge,

0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 1>like come up and take the pledge and say you're

0:05:02.680 --> 0:05:06.680
<v Speaker 1>not going to drink this devil's juice anymore, and sign

0:05:06.760 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>this thing swearing that you're never gonna take a drink again.

0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:12.839
<v Speaker 1>And here after you signed it, why don't you just

0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:15.440
<v Speaker 1>jump on this wagon. We're riding around on through town

0:05:15.880 --> 0:05:19.279
<v Speaker 1>and you can beckon others to do the same. And

0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:24.919
<v Speaker 1>that is where the origin of on the wagon came from.

0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:28.119
<v Speaker 1>Always such a good actor. Uh, not quite. It's good

0:05:28.200 --> 0:05:30.920
<v Speaker 1>and it's close again, it dances near it, but that's

0:05:31.040 --> 0:05:34.760
<v Speaker 1>not quite right, right right? Uh. It turns out it

0:05:34.800 --> 0:05:37.039
<v Speaker 1>did have to do with the Temperance Movement and their

0:05:37.040 --> 0:05:39.760
<v Speaker 1>pledge and people taking the pledge, but it wasn't a

0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:42.080
<v Speaker 1>parade wagon that was being referenced. It was what was

0:05:42.120 --> 0:05:45.320
<v Speaker 1>called a water wagon or a water cart. And back

0:05:45.320 --> 0:05:47.680
<v Speaker 1>in the day around the time of the Last Turn

0:05:47.720 --> 0:05:49.840
<v Speaker 1>of the century. There are lots of towns out there

0:05:49.880 --> 0:05:52.720
<v Speaker 1>that had just nothing but a dusty dirt street. There

0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:56.360
<v Speaker 1>was no pavement, no oyster shells, no cobblestones, something like that.

0:05:56.960 --> 0:06:00.240
<v Speaker 1>And on dry days that dirt could turn to dust

0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:02.920
<v Speaker 1>and blow in your face. So the water cart would

0:06:02.920 --> 0:06:06.600
<v Speaker 1>be a cart of non potable water, non drinkable water

0:06:06.960 --> 0:06:09.400
<v Speaker 1>that a horse would draw that would just kind of

0:06:09.440 --> 0:06:13.520
<v Speaker 1>spray the road down to keep it from being dusty. Yeah,

0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:18.160
<v Speaker 1>that's what they call in the film business, a wet down. Sure,

0:06:18.760 --> 0:06:20.920
<v Speaker 1>they usually doing on asphalt streets to make it look

0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:23.920
<v Speaker 1>cooler at night, right, So, I don't know if they

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:26.719
<v Speaker 1>did it for that, But this was more This was

0:06:26.760 --> 0:06:29.760
<v Speaker 1>more practical. But the point was the water in the

0:06:29.760 --> 0:06:32.360
<v Speaker 1>water cart you did not want to drink. So when

0:06:32.440 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 1>somebody who signed the pledge said something like I'd rather

0:06:35.279 --> 0:06:38.159
<v Speaker 1>drink from the water wagon or the water cart rather

0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:41.839
<v Speaker 1>than take a strong drink. Again, that is the origin

0:06:42.160 --> 0:06:44.360
<v Speaker 1>of I'm on the wagon. That's what they were saying,

0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:46.960
<v Speaker 1>is I would rather drink this nasty water than drink

0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:50.320
<v Speaker 1>a glass of whiskey. Again. Yeah, that's a good one.

0:06:50.680 --> 0:06:53.600
<v Speaker 1>I thought so too. And then water wagon became just

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:57.080
<v Speaker 1>the wagon, And apparently by four there was an article

0:06:57.120 --> 0:06:59.760
<v Speaker 1>in the Davenport Daily Leader that said a man fell

0:06:59.800 --> 0:07:02.479
<v Speaker 1>off the water wagon, and they felt obligated to say

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:05.000
<v Speaker 1>this was a real water wagon, not the figurative one.

0:07:05.080 --> 0:07:08.600
<v Speaker 1>So it was at least right in widespread use by

0:07:10.120 --> 0:07:12.200
<v Speaker 1>I like that. I do too. That was a good one.

0:07:12.400 --> 0:07:15.960
<v Speaker 1>All right, Uh, this one, I guess we're just gonna

0:07:15.960 --> 0:07:17.960
<v Speaker 1>have to get into this because this one bothers me.

0:07:19.440 --> 0:07:24.000
<v Speaker 1>That is exception that proves the rule, because I fully

0:07:24.080 --> 0:07:26.760
<v Speaker 1>understand what this means and I get it, and I

0:07:26.760 --> 0:07:30.200
<v Speaker 1>didn't know anyone had any problem with the phrase the

0:07:30.280 --> 0:07:33.440
<v Speaker 1>exception that proves the rule? Oh really, so like the

0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:35.960
<v Speaker 1>the original and proper use of it, that's what you

0:07:36.560 --> 0:07:38.680
<v Speaker 1>that's the only one you're aware of. I mean, I

0:07:38.800 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>just I know, I feel like I know what it means,

0:07:43.280 --> 0:07:48.400
<v Speaker 1>and that I don't understand the confusion of what it means. Well,

0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:51.760
<v Speaker 1>let's explain what some people are confused by. So a

0:07:51.840 --> 0:07:55.080
<v Speaker 1>lot of people out there think that the phrase the

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 1>exception that proves the rule is talking about like an outlier,

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:03.680
<v Speaker 1>an exception that by its very existence it shows that

0:08:03.840 --> 0:08:07.840
<v Speaker 1>the rule that it's breaking is generally true. But that's it'

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:11.760
<v Speaker 1>that's not it though. That's not correct, and it's actually

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.680
<v Speaker 1>kind of nonsensical if you dig into it. I don't

0:08:14.720 --> 0:08:17.000
<v Speaker 1>think so. I think that's how modern people use it.

0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:20.040
<v Speaker 1>I think this is a case of changing language. Yes,

0:08:20.320 --> 0:08:24.080
<v Speaker 1>and I think it's very easily understood. Like if I

0:08:24.120 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 1>say I hate all mushrooms, but I like portobellos only,

0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:32.040
<v Speaker 1>then that is an exception that that generally proves the

0:08:32.160 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 1>rule that I hate all other mushrooms. Okay, but let

0:08:35.240 --> 0:08:38.200
<v Speaker 1>me under let me explain why it's actually nonsensical. Like, yes,

0:08:38.240 --> 0:08:40.800
<v Speaker 1>you're absolutely right, So so so many people use it like

0:08:40.840 --> 0:08:43.520
<v Speaker 1>that that it has come to mean that as well.

0:08:44.040 --> 0:08:46.840
<v Speaker 1>But we're talking about like the original version, which is

0:08:46.880 --> 0:08:49.520
<v Speaker 1>still holds the same meaning to It's still a useful

0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:52.880
<v Speaker 1>way of using it. It's not like archaic or anequated, right,

0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:55.160
<v Speaker 1>But what I'm saying is, don't get your hopes up

0:08:55.280 --> 0:08:58.640
<v Speaker 1>that you're convince me that it's nonsensical. Okay, that's not

0:08:59.280 --> 0:09:02.280
<v Speaker 1>perfect sense. Let me explain why you're wrong. So, um,

0:09:02.720 --> 0:09:04.880
<v Speaker 1>there's a there's an adage that you only have to

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:08.520
<v Speaker 1>find one white crow to disprove that all crows are black.

0:09:09.200 --> 0:09:12.680
<v Speaker 1>But does that mean that that one white crow also

0:09:12.840 --> 0:09:16.720
<v Speaker 1>proves that crows in general are black. I would say no,

0:09:17.040 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 1>because how many white crows are out there? Right, it

0:09:20.880 --> 0:09:24.840
<v Speaker 1>doesn't mean anything. It just means the one thing that crows.

0:09:24.920 --> 0:09:27.840
<v Speaker 1>Not all crows are black. It doesn't. It doesn't show

0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:31.320
<v Speaker 1>also that crows are generally black. That's why it's generally

0:09:31.360 --> 0:09:35.720
<v Speaker 1>considered nonsensical. Yeah, I'll buy it. There's a second way

0:09:35.760 --> 0:09:38.640
<v Speaker 1>to do it too. Um that that says, Um, that

0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:43.160
<v Speaker 1>really emphasizes the proves part. The exception proves the rule.

0:09:43.200 --> 0:09:45.480
<v Speaker 1>But they don't mean prove isn't like I proved it.

0:09:45.480 --> 0:09:48.520
<v Speaker 1>It's it's uh, it's inarguable. They meet it in the

0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:52.480
<v Speaker 1>scientific term of of test the validity of Yeah, that

0:09:53.000 --> 0:09:55.560
<v Speaker 1>makes sense, but that's not what it was originally intended

0:09:55.600 --> 0:09:59.120
<v Speaker 1>to mean either though, Right. No. And another good example is, um,

0:09:59.200 --> 0:10:02.720
<v Speaker 1>let's say you have a rule that says you shouldn't

0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:06.840
<v Speaker 1>put pants on horses, and an exception to that rule

0:10:06.920 --> 0:10:10.040
<v Speaker 1>might test the validity the viability of that rule. So

0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:15.000
<v Speaker 1>there's one guy who puts pants on a horse. Yeah,

0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:18.880
<v Speaker 1>that guy, the horse trips breaks a leg, and that

0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:22.320
<v Speaker 1>horse has just shown that that rule is pretty valid.

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:25.120
<v Speaker 1>That you shouldn't put pants on a horse, because that

0:10:25.200 --> 0:10:29.440
<v Speaker 1>rule protects horses makes sense way more sensical than the

0:10:29.480 --> 0:10:33.199
<v Speaker 1>one that that you subscribe to. But finally we reach Chuck,

0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:38.080
<v Speaker 1>the the original version, the original meaning of the exception

0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:40.520
<v Speaker 1>that proves the rule, and I think it's beautiful in

0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:43.040
<v Speaker 1>its elegance. Well it is, and and I guess this

0:10:43.080 --> 0:10:44.800
<v Speaker 1>is how I used it with the mushrooms, and this

0:10:44.880 --> 0:10:47.400
<v Speaker 1>is how I always took it to mean, which was

0:10:47.800 --> 0:10:51.480
<v Speaker 1>the use of the phrase is basically that the presence

0:10:51.559 --> 0:10:58.000
<v Speaker 1>of an exception proves that a rule exists. Okay, okay, yeah,

0:10:58.040 --> 0:11:01.120
<v Speaker 1>I could see how you. There's an interpretation of your

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:06.079
<v Speaker 1>mushroom statement that that that follows mushrooms. I hate them,

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:09.839
<v Speaker 1>but I like Portobella's. That basically proves that I hate

0:11:09.880 --> 0:11:15.200
<v Speaker 1>all other mushrooms if I only like one. Yeah, okay,

0:11:15.240 --> 0:11:17.920
<v Speaker 1>so yeah, I think it's the phrasing of it that's

0:11:17.920 --> 0:11:21.640
<v Speaker 1>throwing me off, because typically when you're using the exception

0:11:21.679 --> 0:11:25.000
<v Speaker 1>that proves the rule correctly, um. An example of it

0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:29.800
<v Speaker 1>is UM free parking on Sundays like this one. This

0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:32.680
<v Speaker 1>made my brain hurt. Okay, but listen, that's an exception

0:11:33.000 --> 0:11:36.480
<v Speaker 1>that suggests that, uh, there's a rule that all the

0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:38.319
<v Speaker 1>other days of the week you have to pay to park.

0:11:38.800 --> 0:11:44.599
<v Speaker 1>There's an exception that's posted that proves that a rule exists. Okay,

0:11:44.600 --> 0:11:47.640
<v Speaker 1>no shirt, no shoes, no service. The fact that a

0:11:48.080 --> 0:11:53.000
<v Speaker 1>store would feel obligated to post that sign suggests that

0:11:53.160 --> 0:11:58.560
<v Speaker 1>elsewhere you can wear go without shoes or a shirt. See.

0:11:58.600 --> 0:12:00.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if I buy that. That to me

0:12:00.679 --> 0:12:03.400
<v Speaker 1>doesn't mean that. That to me means that at some

0:12:03.480 --> 0:12:07.120
<v Speaker 1>point someone came in there without a shirt and people complained,

0:12:07.400 --> 0:12:10.079
<v Speaker 1>so they said, well, we gotta have a rule now, right,

0:12:10.120 --> 0:12:17.080
<v Speaker 1>But that anything about other restaurants, I disagree. So, um,

0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:19.120
<v Speaker 1>that's but that's how that's how you're supposed to use.

0:12:19.160 --> 0:12:21.679
<v Speaker 1>And the reason why this is the original version is

0:12:21.720 --> 0:12:25.880
<v Speaker 1>because it's actually it actually comes from medieval law. Yeah

0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:29.240
<v Speaker 1>it was. I believe there was a Latin phrase. I

0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:36.400
<v Speaker 1>love reading Latin acceptio probat regulum and cassibus non accept us.

0:12:37.040 --> 0:12:40.960
<v Speaker 1>The exception confirms the rule, and the cases not expected

0:12:42.040 --> 0:12:48.400
<v Speaker 1>accepted accepted. What I say expected. I got a question

0:12:48.400 --> 0:12:50.319
<v Speaker 1>for you. Let's go back to no shirt, no shoes,

0:12:50.320 --> 0:12:53.040
<v Speaker 1>no dice. Alright, So you're saying, if you walk into

0:12:53.080 --> 0:12:55.679
<v Speaker 1>a restaurant and says no shirt, no shoes, no service.

0:12:56.240 --> 0:12:58.760
<v Speaker 1>You would say, hey, I didn't see a sign at

0:12:58.960 --> 0:13:01.320
<v Speaker 1>uh that so that must mean you can go in

0:13:01.320 --> 0:13:06.040
<v Speaker 1>there without a shirt on. Uh. If I stopped and

0:13:06.080 --> 0:13:09.000
<v Speaker 1>thought about it, yes, that logically makes sense, But I

0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:11.320
<v Speaker 1>don't think. I think you don't have to fixate on

0:13:11.520 --> 0:13:14.480
<v Speaker 1>other restaurants. It can just mean that other places in

0:13:14.600 --> 0:13:17.320
<v Speaker 1>public you could be without a shirt and a shoe

0:13:17.800 --> 0:13:20.040
<v Speaker 1>and you're not going to be arrested for it or

0:13:20.120 --> 0:13:23.000
<v Speaker 1>something like that. Okay, so like you got your shirt

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:26.679
<v Speaker 1>tied around your waist your roller blade, and you stop

0:13:26.760 --> 0:13:28.600
<v Speaker 1>to go in to get some food. You take off

0:13:28.600 --> 0:13:31.800
<v Speaker 1>your roller blades and you're now barefoot, but you gotta

0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.280
<v Speaker 1>put on that shirt and fish the flip flops out

0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:39.439
<v Speaker 1>of your back. Back excuse me, I My The point

0:13:39.600 --> 0:13:42.160
<v Speaker 1>was that this was supposed to be more understandable. I

0:13:42.160 --> 0:13:44.920
<v Speaker 1>think we made it at least ten times less understandable.

0:13:44.960 --> 0:13:47.079
<v Speaker 1>All right, that's perfect. I think that means we should

0:13:47.080 --> 0:14:11.119
<v Speaker 1>take a break. Alright, let's take a break, kids, sk'

0:14:12.360 --> 0:14:16.600
<v Speaker 1>all right? That was fun. I think from here on

0:14:16.640 --> 0:14:19.040
<v Speaker 1>out it's gonna be pretty pretty easy going. I think

0:14:19.080 --> 0:14:23.160
<v Speaker 1>it's smooth sailing ahead because we move on to one

0:14:23.160 --> 0:14:25.800
<v Speaker 1>of my favorite things that I said as a kid

0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:28.600
<v Speaker 1>that you don't say as much as an adult. I

0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:31.240
<v Speaker 1>don't feel like. But as a kid, when you smell

0:14:31.360 --> 0:14:34.320
<v Speaker 1>something that's a nasty a lot of times you'll go P.

0:14:34.840 --> 0:14:38.200
<v Speaker 1>You you don't say that as an adult. Home No,

0:14:38.840 --> 0:14:42.200
<v Speaker 1>I say who farted? But I don't need to ask

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:46.560
<v Speaker 1>because my daughter already had announced it. That's as PU

0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:50.480
<v Speaker 1>as in the letters PU. But they don't even mean anything.

0:14:50.520 --> 0:14:54.840
<v Speaker 1>They don't stand for anything, right, yeah, which is pretty interesting. Um.

0:14:54.880 --> 0:14:57.840
<v Speaker 1>And if you think about PU, it's it's totally unnecessary.

0:14:57.880 --> 0:15:00.960
<v Speaker 1>You can just say that smells awful, but by adding PU,

0:15:01.120 --> 0:15:03.880
<v Speaker 1>it just puts a whole luster on it and really

0:15:03.920 --> 0:15:08.560
<v Speaker 1>says that smells really bad. Um. So they don't stand

0:15:08.560 --> 0:15:12.280
<v Speaker 1>for anything but P. And you in that order have

0:15:12.400 --> 0:15:18.120
<v Speaker 1>a long standing association with something offensive or disgusting. Um.

0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:21.080
<v Speaker 1>And it goes all the way back to Latin. Actually

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:24.720
<v Speaker 1>before Latin. There's a Latin word called puteo which means

0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:27.840
<v Speaker 1>I stink, which is probably not said that that frequently

0:15:27.880 --> 0:15:31.200
<v Speaker 1>back then. And then um there's an even more ancient

0:15:31.280 --> 0:15:36.440
<v Speaker 1>word and from proto Indo European Um language, which is

0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:40.320
<v Speaker 1>really really old p U h P. That meant rotten

0:15:40.400 --> 0:15:43.920
<v Speaker 1>or foul, so that word has been around a really

0:15:43.960 --> 0:15:48.320
<v Speaker 1>long time. Um, but again, PU doesn't stand for anything.

0:15:48.400 --> 0:15:52.200
<v Speaker 1>It's just a total coincidence that those two letters put

0:15:52.280 --> 0:15:56.520
<v Speaker 1>together in the English language make the same sound that

0:15:56.640 --> 0:16:01.240
<v Speaker 1>humans typically make when we encounter something gross and nasty. Yeah, like,

0:16:01.800 --> 0:16:04.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, you think of the word putred has PU,

0:16:04.880 --> 0:16:09.240
<v Speaker 1>But it's all just coincidence. People say pew you know,

0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:11.440
<v Speaker 1>spell it however you want, p y o O or

0:16:11.600 --> 0:16:15.520
<v Speaker 1>p e W. I guess even you can throw an

0:16:15.640 --> 0:16:20.680
<v Speaker 1>h in there. pH e w and PW just came PU.

0:16:20.760 --> 0:16:23.080
<v Speaker 1>And I think this is a great thing to keep

0:16:23.080 --> 0:16:26.480
<v Speaker 1>in your hip pocket. Like, I think it's genuinely interesting

0:16:26.520 --> 0:16:29.960
<v Speaker 1>that PU is just a coincidence with the Latin and

0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:33.960
<v Speaker 1>the proto Indo European such that you could even drop

0:16:34.040 --> 0:16:37.840
<v Speaker 1>some wolf bait at a dinner party and very quickly

0:16:38.720 --> 0:16:41.360
<v Speaker 1>like get out of the embarrassment by saying, well, here's

0:16:41.360 --> 0:16:44.720
<v Speaker 1>an opportunity, actually, did you know? And then all of

0:16:44.760 --> 0:16:48.040
<v Speaker 1>a sudden everyone's like, I don't even remember that you farted, right,

0:16:49.120 --> 0:16:52.040
<v Speaker 1>what's awesome to PU has only been in use since

0:16:52.080 --> 0:16:55.960
<v Speaker 1>like the nineteen fifties. Yeah, and it's in the O. E.

0:16:56.080 --> 0:17:02.120
<v Speaker 1>D Rights in the Oxford English Dictionary spell pew and

0:17:02.160 --> 0:17:04.439
<v Speaker 1>that's where p you generally just thought to sort of

0:17:04.480 --> 0:17:09.320
<v Speaker 1>come from. That's right, Pugh. I like that one too, Chuck.

0:17:09.359 --> 0:17:12.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna bring it back. Let's start, Okay, I think

0:17:12.920 --> 0:17:16.000
<v Speaker 1>we should because it is really great. Uh so too

0:17:16.119 --> 0:17:20.640
<v Speaker 1>is the next phrase, Chuck, burry the hatchet. Burry the hatchet?

0:17:20.680 --> 0:17:25.479
<v Speaker 1>Now what does that mean? Uh? This is a really

0:17:25.520 --> 0:17:30.080
<v Speaker 1>good one. This is something that you say if like,

0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:32.159
<v Speaker 1>let's say you and I are having a big fight

0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:35.600
<v Speaker 1>and that eventually we're having a fight over what the

0:17:35.640 --> 0:17:39.400
<v Speaker 1>exception that proves the rule? We're at logger heads, we say,

0:17:39.400 --> 0:17:42.480
<v Speaker 1>oh god, we gotta take a commercial break, which is

0:17:42.480 --> 0:17:44.359
<v Speaker 1>when we do our best fighting. And then in that

0:17:44.400 --> 0:17:46.960
<v Speaker 1>commercial break, I might listen. Man. No, actually you say

0:17:46.960 --> 0:17:49.960
<v Speaker 1>it because you're the peacemaker. You say, let's just bury

0:17:50.000 --> 0:17:51.960
<v Speaker 1>the hatchet here. This is a dumb thing to fight over,

0:17:52.320 --> 0:17:56.000
<v Speaker 1>And I say fine, and then that's it. We move on.

0:17:56.240 --> 0:17:58.920
<v Speaker 1>Everything's good from that point on because the hatchet has

0:17:58.960 --> 0:18:02.359
<v Speaker 1>been buried. Yes, this him. It's a symbol of getting

0:18:02.480 --> 0:18:07.520
<v Speaker 1>over an argument. Letting bygones be bygones. Right, Um, what's

0:18:07.520 --> 0:18:10.600
<v Speaker 1>interesting is that it actually started out with a really

0:18:10.720 --> 0:18:14.679
<v Speaker 1>literal meaning to the phrase bury the hatchet. Uh. And

0:18:14.720 --> 0:18:18.960
<v Speaker 1>the whole thing comes from the Iroquois language family, better

0:18:19.040 --> 0:18:22.560
<v Speaker 1>known by their own term the hawt in O'shawnee, which

0:18:22.600 --> 0:18:26.600
<v Speaker 1>means people of the long house. Iroquois was the French

0:18:27.040 --> 0:18:29.399
<v Speaker 1>name for for this group of people that included a

0:18:29.480 --> 0:18:38.480
<v Speaker 1>number of tribes up in the northeast, the Cayuga, Cherokee, Huron, Seneca, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga,

0:18:38.560 --> 0:18:43.159
<v Speaker 1>and Tuscarora, and their whole jams stretched from Lake Ontario

0:18:43.280 --> 0:18:45.640
<v Speaker 1>over to Pennsylvania and New York and all the way

0:18:45.720 --> 0:18:48.560
<v Speaker 1>up to Ontario and Quebec, which means that they were

0:18:48.640 --> 0:18:51.440
<v Speaker 1>rubbing elbows with the French, British and the Dutch after

0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:54.080
<v Speaker 1>the Europeans started to come over, which also means that

0:18:54.200 --> 0:18:57.080
<v Speaker 1>ideas were able to spread among this group, which is

0:18:57.119 --> 0:19:00.600
<v Speaker 1>why we're talking about bury the hatchet today. That's uh.

0:19:00.640 --> 0:19:02.880
<v Speaker 1>And if you and I think this is a very

0:19:02.920 --> 0:19:08.480
<v Speaker 1>great story, according to Iroquois legend um, there was a

0:19:08.560 --> 0:19:11.080
<v Speaker 1>treaty for it by some members of this Iroquois family,

0:19:11.840 --> 0:19:14.520
<v Speaker 1>and they actually got it wrong. For many years. They

0:19:14.520 --> 0:19:18.960
<v Speaker 1>placed it at fourteen fifty one, but researchers at the

0:19:19.040 --> 0:19:24.760
<v Speaker 1>University of Toledo go rockets, rockets almost said, mud, hen's

0:19:24.840 --> 0:19:30.840
<v Speaker 1>not right, that's the team. Yeah. Uh. They got together

0:19:30.880 --> 0:19:34.320
<v Speaker 1>and used oral history and astronomy data and all sorts

0:19:34.320 --> 0:19:38.080
<v Speaker 1>of great documentary resources and said, actually, hey, we know

0:19:38.119 --> 0:19:42.040
<v Speaker 1>what it is. It was August thirty one, eleven forty two,

0:19:42.760 --> 0:19:46.560
<v Speaker 1>so much earlier than it was believed. But in this treaty,

0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:51.119
<v Speaker 1>it's very cool what happened. They got the five original signatories,

0:19:51.119 --> 0:19:55.600
<v Speaker 1>which were the Cayuga, the Oneida, the Mohawk, the Seneca,

0:19:55.640 --> 0:19:58.960
<v Speaker 1>and the Onondaga, and they formed what was known as

0:19:59.080 --> 0:20:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the a josh Confederates hot in O'shawnee hot in Oshawni Confederacy.

0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:09.879
<v Speaker 1>The French called it the Iroquois Confederacy, but it was

0:20:10.359 --> 0:20:14.160
<v Speaker 1>it was an early model of democracy in action. Yeah.

0:20:14.200 --> 0:20:16.919
<v Speaker 1>And if those University of Toledo scholars are right, and

0:20:16.960 --> 0:20:19.800
<v Speaker 1>the whole thing was established in eleven forty two, that

0:20:19.920 --> 0:20:23.960
<v Speaker 1>makes it one of the oldest continuously functioning democracies in

0:20:24.040 --> 0:20:27.480
<v Speaker 1>the world. It's up there with the Government of Iceland,

0:20:27.680 --> 0:20:32.240
<v Speaker 1>the Swiss Cantons, and I said, continuously operating. It's still

0:20:32.280 --> 0:20:35.040
<v Speaker 1>functions as a government entity in Upstate New York and

0:20:35.119 --> 0:20:39.000
<v Speaker 1>issues passports. So it's been going since possibly eleven forty two.

0:20:39.440 --> 0:20:41.600
<v Speaker 1>And the whole reason we're talking about this is because

0:20:41.880 --> 0:20:45.120
<v Speaker 1>at that meeting in eleven forty two of those five

0:20:45.200 --> 0:20:48.800
<v Speaker 1>nations that came together to form a treaty to to

0:20:49.080 --> 0:20:53.119
<v Speaker 1>the leaders of this um, this treaty UH meeting, I

0:20:53.160 --> 0:20:57.800
<v Speaker 1>guess uh dagana Widah who is a Huron, and Hiawatha

0:20:57.840 --> 0:21:02.400
<v Speaker 1>who is either a mohawk er and onondaga Um. They said, hey, everybody,

0:21:02.600 --> 0:21:05.200
<v Speaker 1>just to kind of keep everything peaceful and on the level,

0:21:06.000 --> 0:21:09.080
<v Speaker 1>let's all bury our weapons under this white pine tree

0:21:09.600 --> 0:21:13.399
<v Speaker 1>and just leave them there during this meeting and we

0:21:13.440 --> 0:21:16.639
<v Speaker 1>can dig them up afterward. But they couldn't dig them

0:21:16.760 --> 0:21:19.960
<v Speaker 1>up chuck, could they. Now they thought this is a

0:21:20.040 --> 0:21:22.560
<v Speaker 1>nice symbol, and it also has the side benefit that

0:21:23.080 --> 0:21:27.520
<v Speaker 1>no one's gonna get murdered probably, And a river, an

0:21:27.600 --> 0:21:31.360
<v Speaker 1>underground river, came and washed them away. And so they

0:21:31.400 --> 0:21:36.119
<v Speaker 1>all said, hey, this is like kismet. I don't even

0:21:36.160 --> 0:21:38.720
<v Speaker 1>know what that word means, but this was meant to be.

0:21:38.800 --> 0:21:42.280
<v Speaker 1>We buried, literally buried our weapons and they were washed

0:21:42.280 --> 0:21:46.480
<v Speaker 1>away underground. So this is a charmed treaty and a

0:21:46.560 --> 0:21:50.600
<v Speaker 1>charmed joining of nations. So that whole practice spread pretty

0:21:50.680 --> 0:21:55.639
<v Speaker 1>quickly among the Iroquois language family tribes. UM. Where Like

0:21:55.680 --> 0:21:58.000
<v Speaker 1>if you were having like a peace treaty meeting like

0:21:58.040 --> 0:22:02.320
<v Speaker 1>the two, the two groups would bury their their weapons

0:22:02.359 --> 0:22:06.440
<v Speaker 1>of war. UM. And then like I said, the proximity

0:22:06.480 --> 0:22:09.320
<v Speaker 1>of the Europeans allowed ideas to spread. And this was

0:22:09.400 --> 0:22:14.520
<v Speaker 1>definitely one of them. Um, the Brits, the French, the Dutch, uh.

0:22:14.640 --> 0:22:18.240
<v Speaker 1>Later on the Americans, they all actually like buried weapons

0:22:18.320 --> 0:22:22.000
<v Speaker 1>when they were engaged in peace treaty talks with different

0:22:22.080 --> 0:22:25.680
<v Speaker 1>Native American tribes. And what was interesting is that some

0:22:25.800 --> 0:22:28.719
<v Speaker 1>Native American tribes that had nothing to do with the

0:22:28.760 --> 0:22:32.720
<v Speaker 1>Iroquois had never probably even met iroquire hot in O'shawnee,

0:22:32.720 --> 0:22:38.240
<v Speaker 1>I should say, Um, the Americans buried the hatchet with

0:22:38.480 --> 0:22:41.360
<v Speaker 1>those tribes as well. So in that sense, the Americans

0:22:41.400 --> 0:22:45.639
<v Speaker 1>actually spread Native American idea from one group to another

0:22:45.680 --> 0:22:48.359
<v Speaker 1>group of Native Americans who had never even met. I

0:22:48.440 --> 0:22:51.440
<v Speaker 1>find that fascinating totally Down here in the Southeast with

0:22:51.480 --> 0:22:55.440
<v Speaker 1>the Chickasaw they were burying hatchets in Alabama and Mississippi.

0:22:56.240 --> 0:23:00.919
<v Speaker 1>And yeah, it's pretty interesting how custom can spread like that. Uh.

0:23:01.440 --> 0:23:04.639
<v Speaker 1>The seventeen nineties was basically when it became sort of

0:23:04.680 --> 0:23:09.280
<v Speaker 1>a common phrase in North America among English speakers, and

0:23:09.760 --> 0:23:12.440
<v Speaker 1>everyone still uses it, like people still say bury the hatchet.

0:23:13.119 --> 0:23:17.840
<v Speaker 1>Why not bury the tomahawk. Well, that's a good question. Uh,

0:23:18.280 --> 0:23:20.000
<v Speaker 1>you would think that a tomahawk would be a little

0:23:20.000 --> 0:23:25.000
<v Speaker 1>more correct. But the tomahawk was I believe Algonquin. We

0:23:25.119 --> 0:23:29.000
<v Speaker 1>talked about the Algonquin hotel recently, right, yeah, by Hyatt,

0:23:29.320 --> 0:23:38.720
<v Speaker 1>that's right. Uh was a man this very symbolic. Uh,

0:23:38.720 --> 0:23:44.200
<v Speaker 1>it was not an Iroquois word at all, so right, no, um.

0:23:44.359 --> 0:23:47.520
<v Speaker 1>And apparently the Seneca um had a word godji wa,

0:23:48.280 --> 0:23:51.480
<v Speaker 1>so you would probably more accurately say bury the goji wa,

0:23:51.880 --> 0:23:55.360
<v Speaker 1>bury the godgi wa. So there you go, bury the hatchet.

0:23:55.560 --> 0:23:59.720
<v Speaker 1>Literal stuff. How about the next one, Chuck, I love

0:23:59.760 --> 0:24:03.880
<v Speaker 1>this one, short and sweet and it has Shakespeare, that's right.

0:24:04.240 --> 0:24:09.480
<v Speaker 1>And the phrase is in a pickle, yeah, which means

0:24:09.520 --> 0:24:12.239
<v Speaker 1>you're in a tight spot, a tough situation, you've got

0:24:12.320 --> 0:24:16.040
<v Speaker 1>a problem, there's a difficulty over your head, something like that. Right,

0:24:17.040 --> 0:24:18.960
<v Speaker 1>that's right. And it always struck me as odd. And

0:24:19.000 --> 0:24:21.359
<v Speaker 1>I think I might even mentioned this before that you

0:24:21.400 --> 0:24:23.159
<v Speaker 1>can be in a pickle, in a jam, and in

0:24:23.240 --> 0:24:26.000
<v Speaker 1>a stew and that's all kind of the same thing.

0:24:26.000 --> 0:24:29.800
<v Speaker 1>And it's all food related, it is, but all of

0:24:29.840 --> 0:24:32.919
<v Speaker 1>it means you're you've got a problem, You're you're in

0:24:32.960 --> 0:24:35.199
<v Speaker 1>a tight spot. That's where I'm going to define it

0:24:35.240 --> 0:24:36.879
<v Speaker 1>as you're in a tight spot. We're gonna leave it

0:24:36.920 --> 0:24:38.959
<v Speaker 1>with that. And it was Shakespeare that that came up

0:24:38.960 --> 0:24:41.840
<v Speaker 1>with this one. Yeah, so you mentioned Shakespeare the great

0:24:41.840 --> 0:24:45.640
<v Speaker 1>play The Tempest. There's a line from in the play

0:24:45.720 --> 0:24:50.480
<v Speaker 1>from Trinculo to Alonso. I have been in such a

0:24:50.520 --> 0:24:54.560
<v Speaker 1>pickle since I saw you last. I fear me will

0:24:54.640 --> 0:24:58.560
<v Speaker 1>never out of my bones. I shall not fear fly

0:24:58.680 --> 0:25:04.280
<v Speaker 1>blowing Very nice? Shall I translate? Please? So Trinculo has

0:25:04.600 --> 0:25:08.200
<v Speaker 1>been saying he's been totally trashed since the last time

0:25:08.240 --> 0:25:11.400
<v Speaker 1>he saw Alonso, and he's drunk so much that he's

0:25:11.400 --> 0:25:13.679
<v Speaker 1>concerned it's never going to get it out of his system,

0:25:13.920 --> 0:25:16.920
<v Speaker 1>and that even after he dies, the flies won't even

0:25:16.960 --> 0:25:19.320
<v Speaker 1>touch his courts because it will be so preserved by

0:25:19.359 --> 0:25:22.520
<v Speaker 1>all the alcohol that he's drunk. He was in a pickle,

0:25:23.480 --> 0:25:26.280
<v Speaker 1>which it doesn't quite make sense. What does that still mean?

0:25:26.320 --> 0:25:28.520
<v Speaker 1>As in a pickle. But it does make sense when

0:25:28.560 --> 0:25:32.080
<v Speaker 1>you trace it back a little further. Shakespeare actually borrowed

0:25:32.080 --> 0:25:35.040
<v Speaker 1>this phrase introduced to English, but he borrowed the sentiment

0:25:35.080 --> 0:25:37.720
<v Speaker 1>in the phrase from the Dutch, who had their own

0:25:37.800 --> 0:25:43.960
<v Speaker 1>little phrase into pickle zitten for Dutch. That is remarkably readable,

0:25:44.840 --> 0:25:48.359
<v Speaker 1>it really is. There's no rando j somewhere. It's just

0:25:48.440 --> 0:25:52.000
<v Speaker 1>all pretty straightforward. So um, in this sense, the chuck

0:25:52.040 --> 0:25:57.359
<v Speaker 1>peckle doesn't mean the pickle, it means the pickle brine. Yeah, so,

0:25:57.680 --> 0:26:00.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean this is also has to do with if

0:26:00.240 --> 0:26:03.439
<v Speaker 1>you say you're drunk, you you're pickled. That's sort of

0:26:03.520 --> 0:26:05.480
<v Speaker 1>along the similar lines of what that means, right, that

0:26:05.520 --> 0:26:08.760
<v Speaker 1>you were sort of soaking in that pickle brine. Exactly.

0:26:08.800 --> 0:26:12.200
<v Speaker 1>You're preserved by the alcohol, just like a pickle would

0:26:12.200 --> 0:26:15.520
<v Speaker 1>be by the brine. But the thing is is that's

0:26:15.560 --> 0:26:17.440
<v Speaker 1>not what in a pickle means. In a pickle means

0:26:17.440 --> 0:26:20.800
<v Speaker 1>in a tight spot. So at some point hundred two

0:26:20.880 --> 0:26:26.040
<v Speaker 1>hundred years after Shakespeare, Samuel peppis um. I think that's

0:26:26.040 --> 0:26:28.280
<v Speaker 1>how you say his name. I've only ever seen it written,

0:26:29.119 --> 0:26:31.800
<v Speaker 1>but he he was famous for his diary, and one

0:26:31.840 --> 0:26:34.879
<v Speaker 1>of the entries in his Diary in sixteen sixty he

0:26:35.000 --> 0:26:38.040
<v Speaker 1>says that his house is in a pickle, meaning that's

0:26:38.040 --> 0:26:41.040
<v Speaker 1>in in a sorry state, in in bad shape, because

0:26:41.080 --> 0:26:44.760
<v Speaker 1>it was under construction. And so Samuel Peppis was the

0:26:44.760 --> 0:26:46.800
<v Speaker 1>one who kind of took that term and ended up

0:26:47.080 --> 0:26:50.800
<v Speaker 1>setting it free, letting it evolve into being in a

0:26:50.800 --> 0:26:54.520
<v Speaker 1>hard place a bad state. Amazing. And you know what,

0:26:54.640 --> 0:26:57.720
<v Speaker 1>I actually get to follow up on the Shakespeare episode.

0:26:57.720 --> 0:27:00.959
<v Speaker 1>When I was shouting out my great English professor who

0:27:01.119 --> 0:27:05.200
<v Speaker 1>translated just like you just translated, somebody wrote in you

0:27:05.240 --> 0:27:07.200
<v Speaker 1>can always count on a listener. Someone who was at

0:27:07.680 --> 0:27:09.960
<v Speaker 1>at park Hall, the English Building, around the same time

0:27:10.000 --> 0:27:12.800
<v Speaker 1>I was, said, I bet you it was John Vance.

0:27:13.320 --> 0:27:16.679
<v Speaker 1>And I looked him up and lo and behold John Vance,

0:27:16.840 --> 0:27:22.360
<v Speaker 1>former professor Department of English, now retired and writing novels.

0:27:22.960 --> 0:27:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, what kind of novels. It's read article from

0:27:25.920 --> 0:27:29.680
<v Speaker 1>like four or five years ago. Uh, writing parody novels

0:27:30.160 --> 0:27:34.480
<v Speaker 1>based on his professorship, erotic parody novels. I don't think so.

0:27:35.040 --> 0:27:36.920
<v Speaker 1>But she she said that she try and get the

0:27:37.160 --> 0:27:40.040
<v Speaker 1>word to him that I was shouting him out, but

0:27:40.200 --> 0:27:41.960
<v Speaker 1>I just decided to do it on the show. So

0:27:43.080 --> 0:27:44.719
<v Speaker 1>John Vance, if you're out there and you hear this.

0:27:45.320 --> 0:27:48.119
<v Speaker 1>You were one of the best English teachers I've ever had.

0:27:48.520 --> 0:27:51.520
<v Speaker 1>Very nice, Chuck, I don't. I don't think there's anything

0:27:51.520 --> 0:27:53.560
<v Speaker 1>we can do but follow that with a break, because

0:27:53.760 --> 0:28:13.120
<v Speaker 1>that's stuff off in large skate. As watched my sks,

0:28:13.640 --> 0:28:20.280
<v Speaker 1>you should know, all right. So we got a few

0:28:20.280 --> 0:28:23.960
<v Speaker 1>more to drop on your head, and one is one

0:28:24.040 --> 0:28:29.520
<v Speaker 1>that we uh actually messed up, and that is the

0:28:29.560 --> 0:28:32.960
<v Speaker 1>old slippery slope which I think a lot of people

0:28:33.440 --> 0:28:35.399
<v Speaker 1>over the years, and I had heard it before you

0:28:35.440 --> 0:28:39.920
<v Speaker 1>said it, have it attributed to a Supreme Court justice.

0:28:40.000 --> 0:28:43.320
<v Speaker 1>But that's not the case, right. No. I couldn't see

0:28:43.360 --> 0:28:46.040
<v Speaker 1>exactly where it came from or even what justice has

0:28:46.160 --> 0:28:47.840
<v Speaker 1>used at Wayne, but I did see it goes at

0:28:47.920 --> 0:28:50.800
<v Speaker 1>least back to the nineteenth century. Um. But I think

0:28:50.840 --> 0:28:54.280
<v Speaker 1>what's more interesting about it, Chuck, is UM, it's actually

0:28:54.280 --> 0:28:57.120
<v Speaker 1>a logical fallacy, and it has its own name, the

0:28:57.160 --> 0:29:02.680
<v Speaker 1>slippery slope argument. And basically everybody who's walking around using

0:29:02.680 --> 0:29:07.120
<v Speaker 1>the phrase slippery slope is using it correctly. Um. It

0:29:07.240 --> 0:29:10.920
<v Speaker 1>just basically means, if we do something take one or

0:29:10.960 --> 0:29:15.920
<v Speaker 1>two steps, we're we're entering a dangerous situation that could

0:29:16.040 --> 0:29:20.080
<v Speaker 1>end in catastrophe just from taking that first or second step. Yeah,

0:29:20.120 --> 0:29:24.320
<v Speaker 1>it's a phrase that I have always loathed. Um. I

0:29:24.360 --> 0:29:26.960
<v Speaker 1>think if you say something is a slippery slope, it's

0:29:26.960 --> 0:29:32.520
<v Speaker 1>always it's never like, uh, hey, if you know, if

0:29:32.560 --> 0:29:35.479
<v Speaker 1>your kids hanging out with the the kids smoking by

0:29:35.520 --> 0:29:38.600
<v Speaker 1>the dumpster, it's a slippery slope and they could end

0:29:38.680 --> 0:29:42.080
<v Speaker 1>up smoking too, Like that makes sense. It always is

0:29:42.120 --> 0:29:46.000
<v Speaker 1>some really far off extreme where you say, then your

0:29:46.080 --> 0:29:49.600
<v Speaker 1>kid's gonna end up on heroin one day. Uh if

0:29:49.640 --> 0:29:51.720
<v Speaker 1>they hung out with the kids smoking by the dumpster.

0:29:52.520 --> 0:29:54.960
<v Speaker 1>It's always taken to this really far extreme, and it

0:29:55.000 --> 0:29:59.040
<v Speaker 1>seems like it's used a lot in political arguments where

0:29:59.800 --> 0:30:03.480
<v Speaker 1>just the dumbest things are said about you know, if

0:30:03.520 --> 0:30:06.479
<v Speaker 1>we allow gay marriage, then then what's to stop us

0:30:06.520 --> 0:30:10.120
<v Speaker 1>from marrying our pets and things like that. It's it's

0:30:10.160 --> 0:30:13.960
<v Speaker 1>so infuriating it is, and you're right, I think you

0:30:14.040 --> 0:30:17.320
<v Speaker 1>kind of nailed it. Like it goes from we could

0:30:17.320 --> 0:30:22.000
<v Speaker 1>try this to catastrophic problems. And the reason it does

0:30:22.040 --> 0:30:25.240
<v Speaker 1>that is because the slippery slope argument is is used

0:30:25.240 --> 0:30:30.120
<v Speaker 1>to scare somebody else into agreement. It's basically saying, like, hey,

0:30:30.120 --> 0:30:34.120
<v Speaker 1>this new thing that you're talking about It sounds great

0:30:34.480 --> 0:30:37.000
<v Speaker 1>on its face, but do you realize that if we

0:30:37.080 --> 0:30:40.400
<v Speaker 1>do that, the world will literally end? And the other

0:30:40.440 --> 0:30:42.400
<v Speaker 1>person goes, oh, well, I don't want the world to end,

0:30:42.400 --> 0:30:44.959
<v Speaker 1>so we should probably not do that thing. I was suggesting.

0:30:45.320 --> 0:30:48.719
<v Speaker 1>That's right. Uh. And what the problem is, as far

0:30:48.760 --> 0:30:52.720
<v Speaker 1>as the logical fallacy goes, is you are predicting an

0:30:52.720 --> 0:30:56.400
<v Speaker 1>outcome that cannot be predicted. Uh. It's literally just sort

0:30:56.440 --> 0:31:00.480
<v Speaker 1>of making something up to scare people into submission of

0:31:00.560 --> 0:31:04.560
<v Speaker 1>not doing anything. Yeah. Um. There's a guy named James

0:31:04.560 --> 0:31:07.600
<v Speaker 1>Graft who wrote an article about it in the Week

0:31:07.880 --> 0:31:11.960
<v Speaker 1>in two thirteen, and he said the reason why it's

0:31:13.040 --> 0:31:15.720
<v Speaker 1>it just doesn't make sense is because he said, there's

0:31:15.720 --> 0:31:18.320
<v Speaker 1>no reason to reject doing one thing just because it

0:31:18.400 --> 0:31:22.920
<v Speaker 1>might open the door for some undesirable extremes. Permitting aid

0:31:22.960 --> 0:31:25.560
<v Speaker 1>does not suspend our ability to say, but not be

0:31:26.080 --> 0:31:29.880
<v Speaker 1>and certainly not zac down the line. And he also

0:31:29.920 --> 0:31:32.720
<v Speaker 1>points out something I think is really important too, that

0:31:33.040 --> 0:31:36.560
<v Speaker 1>if you with the slippery slope argument, the whole point

0:31:36.640 --> 0:31:39.280
<v Speaker 1>is to say, all these terrible things can happen, and

0:31:39.320 --> 0:31:41.800
<v Speaker 1>if you just focus on that, you're never gonna do anything.

0:31:41.880 --> 0:31:48.280
<v Speaker 1>That's right. Scared into an action exactly nice. Um. And

0:31:48.400 --> 0:31:51.000
<v Speaker 1>the thing about the slippery slope argument is the more

0:31:51.080 --> 0:31:53.840
<v Speaker 1>you look for it, the more you see it everywhere.

0:31:54.000 --> 0:31:56.200
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it is everywhere, and once you realize what

0:31:56.400 --> 0:31:59.520
<v Speaker 1>you're actually what's actually being done to your your psyche,

0:32:00.200 --> 0:32:06.040
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of annoying. At that point, I agreed, Uh, yeah,

0:32:06.160 --> 0:32:08.760
<v Speaker 1>so you're you're right to loathe it. I think I'm

0:32:08.800 --> 0:32:11.360
<v Speaker 1>with you on that, alright. So moving on to a

0:32:11.360 --> 0:32:17.360
<v Speaker 1>phrase that I always, very stupidly assumed was French k

0:32:17.520 --> 0:32:20.680
<v Speaker 1>sara sara the great song whatever will be, where will be.

0:32:21.320 --> 0:32:24.480
<v Speaker 1>For some reason, it always sounded French in my head.

0:32:25.000 --> 0:32:27.960
<v Speaker 1>But now that I'm looking at it, k q u

0:32:28.080 --> 0:32:32.120
<v Speaker 1>e is clearly like some variation of Italian or Spanish.

0:32:32.680 --> 0:32:34.120
<v Speaker 1>I don't know why I always thought it was French.

0:32:34.120 --> 0:32:36.400
<v Speaker 1>It just sounded French to me. It does sound French.

0:32:36.440 --> 0:32:42.200
<v Speaker 1>You're absolutely right, other people think Italian. Maybe what's interesting

0:32:42.280 --> 0:32:46.240
<v Speaker 1>is it's it's both. It's also neither, and it's gibberish.

0:32:46.400 --> 0:32:49.640
<v Speaker 1>It turns out in both languages. But the upshot of

0:32:49.680 --> 0:32:54.960
<v Speaker 1>the meaning of k sara sara is that, Um, the

0:32:55.000 --> 0:32:57.400
<v Speaker 1>way it's translated is whatever will be will be, and

0:32:57.400 --> 0:32:59.640
<v Speaker 1>it's a it's a reminder to kind of take like

0:32:59.680 --> 0:33:03.040
<v Speaker 1>a lacks attitude toward life, take life as it comes, accepted,

0:33:03.120 --> 0:33:06.280
<v Speaker 1>and enjoy it. You can't you can't really predict the future.

0:33:06.600 --> 0:33:10.920
<v Speaker 1>Don't try you'll just fail. That kind of thing, that's right. Uh.

0:33:10.960 --> 0:33:13.239
<v Speaker 1>And it comes from the Hitchcock film The Man Who

0:33:13.320 --> 0:33:16.400
<v Speaker 1>Knew Too Much and it was sung by Doristay very

0:33:16.440 --> 0:33:18.920
<v Speaker 1>famously in that movie. Became a big, big hit for

0:33:19.040 --> 0:33:22.640
<v Speaker 1>Doris Day. But it was written by Jay Livingston and

0:33:22.720 --> 0:33:27.640
<v Speaker 1>Ray Evans, who were very uh. I don't know about

0:33:27.880 --> 0:33:30.960
<v Speaker 1>how famous famous they were, but within the industry well

0:33:31.000 --> 0:33:34.280
<v Speaker 1>regarded as kind of pumping out these big hits during

0:33:34.320 --> 0:33:38.080
<v Speaker 1>the heyday of of this sort of songwriting. What was

0:33:38.120 --> 0:33:41.040
<v Speaker 1>the uh we did a podcast on it, the um

0:33:41.200 --> 0:33:45.000
<v Speaker 1>tim pan Alley tim pan Alley was this? Then I

0:33:45.000 --> 0:33:49.400
<v Speaker 1>thought tim pan Alley was way earlier. No, I don't

0:33:49.400 --> 0:33:52.000
<v Speaker 1>think so, Okay, Well, these guys would be tim pan

0:33:52.040 --> 0:33:54.200
<v Speaker 1>Alley all the way. Then agreed, I might be wrong,

0:33:54.280 --> 0:33:58.720
<v Speaker 1>but they had big hits with uh Mona Lisa, men

0:33:58.800 --> 0:34:02.280
<v Speaker 1>Have Known You and Silver Bells a great Christmas song,

0:34:03.080 --> 0:34:08.120
<v Speaker 1>the theme to Bonanza. Another great song, The ed Horse

0:34:08.200 --> 0:34:11.640
<v Speaker 1>is a Horse. Of course, of course, yeah, and Livingston,

0:34:11.840 --> 0:34:14.600
<v Speaker 1>one of the writers was the voice of Mr Edge

0:34:14.680 --> 0:34:16.839
<v Speaker 1>Mr Ed. I've always heard of rumor that they put

0:34:16.840 --> 0:34:20.360
<v Speaker 1>peanut butter in Mr Ed's mouth to make him flap

0:34:20.360 --> 0:34:23.759
<v Speaker 1>his gums like that, and he hated peanut butter. That

0:34:23.800 --> 0:34:26.600
<v Speaker 1>a horse loves peanut butter. So they wrote this song

0:34:26.680 --> 0:34:29.560
<v Speaker 1>for the Hitchcock movie. But they actually kind of stole

0:34:29.640 --> 0:34:32.320
<v Speaker 1>the phrase, not actually kind of. They definitely stole the

0:34:32.360 --> 0:34:36.840
<v Speaker 1>phrase from another movie, The Barefoot Contessa. I'd like to

0:34:36.840 --> 0:34:40.080
<v Speaker 1>say inspired. I think they do too. But in that movie,

0:34:40.120 --> 0:34:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Ava Gardner's character, her family motto is inscribed on her

0:34:44.760 --> 0:34:50.000
<v Speaker 1>Italian villa villa and it's case Sarah Sarah, but they

0:34:50.040 --> 0:34:53.200
<v Speaker 1>spelled that c h E. And what's interesting is the

0:34:53.239 --> 0:34:56.520
<v Speaker 1>guy who wrote and directed The Barefoot Contessa, Joseph Manka

0:34:56.560 --> 0:34:59.479
<v Speaker 1>waits who I think that's the guy that they made

0:34:59.520 --> 0:35:02.759
<v Speaker 1>Manca out right, that's one and the same. Yeah, he

0:35:03.040 --> 0:35:07.000
<v Speaker 1>um apparently did his homework because k Sara Sara did

0:35:07.200 --> 0:35:10.719
<v Speaker 1>originate as a family motto, not in Italy, but with

0:35:11.239 --> 0:35:14.880
<v Speaker 1>the first Earl of Bedford in England in the sixteenth century.

0:35:14.960 --> 0:35:19.000
<v Speaker 1>Interestingly enough, right, so put a pin in that Livingston

0:35:19.080 --> 0:35:23.080
<v Speaker 1>and Evans are inspired enough by this phrase to immediately

0:35:23.239 --> 0:35:27.000
<v Speaker 1>write this song. Uh, and then wait a couple of

0:35:27.000 --> 0:35:30.319
<v Speaker 1>weeks for Hitchcock to come calling because they, I guess

0:35:30.360 --> 0:35:32.319
<v Speaker 1>they want to make it seem like they really took

0:35:32.320 --> 0:35:34.520
<v Speaker 1>their time with it and came up with a true

0:35:34.520 --> 0:35:38.480
<v Speaker 1>original for Hitchcock for hitch Yeah. And I don't understand

0:35:38.520 --> 0:35:43.319
<v Speaker 1>this response from Hitchcock. Ah, is this what he really said?

0:35:43.360 --> 0:35:46.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't, I don't quite get it. His quote was gentleman,

0:35:46.960 --> 0:35:49.319
<v Speaker 1>I didn't know what kind of song I wanted, and

0:35:49.400 --> 0:35:52.160
<v Speaker 1>that is the kind of song I want. Okay, just

0:35:52.160 --> 0:35:54.360
<v Speaker 1>a little clumsy. I guess it is a little clumsy.

0:35:54.400 --> 0:35:56.560
<v Speaker 1>You could also take it as like a subtle dig

0:35:57.239 --> 0:36:02.839
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, I could believe me. The movie the song

0:36:02.920 --> 0:36:04.319
<v Speaker 1>was a big hit. The movie was a big hit.

0:36:04.360 --> 0:36:06.719
<v Speaker 1>Like I said, Doris Day who apparently did not like

0:36:06.840 --> 0:36:10.440
<v Speaker 1>it at first, But it's a song that's really closely

0:36:10.440 --> 0:36:13.399
<v Speaker 1>associated with her because she, you know, sang it over

0:36:13.440 --> 0:36:16.160
<v Speaker 1>and over in performances over the years. But it was

0:36:16.200 --> 0:36:20.320
<v Speaker 1>a number two hit in the US, number one in Britain,

0:36:20.960 --> 0:36:26.000
<v Speaker 1>and one best original song in X at the Oscars. Right,

0:36:26.120 --> 0:36:30.200
<v Speaker 1>So huge song. Why is it? Gibberish? Is the big

0:36:30.280 --> 0:36:33.840
<v Speaker 1>question that we face now, right, So the Earl of

0:36:33.920 --> 0:36:38.319
<v Speaker 1>Bedford the motto k sara sara c h E s

0:36:38.360 --> 0:36:41.480
<v Speaker 1>A r A s a r a. It is Italian

0:36:41.640 --> 0:36:47.799
<v Speaker 1>and it does mean in Italian what will be, will be? Okay,

0:36:47.840 --> 0:36:51.920
<v Speaker 1>so that's what the words mean, but it's not grammatically correct, right. No,

0:36:52.120 --> 0:36:55.240
<v Speaker 1>it should be kel k sara sara. And the reason

0:36:55.280 --> 0:37:00.680
<v Speaker 1>why is because k means what and sarah sarah means

0:37:00.680 --> 0:37:04.719
<v Speaker 1>will be, will be. But what is almost like if

0:37:04.840 --> 0:37:09.399
<v Speaker 1>if if you were saying what like in English as

0:37:09.400 --> 0:37:12.680
<v Speaker 1>a response to somebody calling your name, will be, will be,

0:37:12.840 --> 0:37:16.279
<v Speaker 1>it makes about that much sense grammatically, whereas if you

0:37:16.520 --> 0:37:19.080
<v Speaker 1>if you say kelk sara sara, you're saying the things

0:37:19.160 --> 0:37:23.040
<v Speaker 1>that will be will be, and that makes much more sense. Right.

0:37:23.120 --> 0:37:26.040
<v Speaker 1>But they changed it, Livingston and Evans changed it to

0:37:26.320 --> 0:37:29.200
<v Speaker 1>a more sort of Spanish sounding thing by spelling it

0:37:30.120 --> 0:37:33.880
<v Speaker 1>q u E s e r A s E r a.

0:37:34.640 --> 0:37:38.040
<v Speaker 1>But that's not grammatically correct either, right, so they still

0:37:38.080 --> 0:37:41.000
<v Speaker 1>mess it up. Yeah, for the same reason because Italian

0:37:41.040 --> 0:37:44.359
<v Speaker 1>and Spanish are both very closely related romance languages. Uh,

0:37:44.480 --> 0:37:47.640
<v Speaker 1>you should say lo k sara sara, same thing, the

0:37:47.719 --> 0:37:50.480
<v Speaker 1>things that will be will be it just doesn't make sense.

0:37:50.640 --> 0:37:53.640
<v Speaker 1>And again it makes sense, but it makes sense in

0:37:53.680 --> 0:37:56.920
<v Speaker 1>the way that like the Earl of Bedford probably hired

0:37:57.120 --> 0:37:59.480
<v Speaker 1>an English translator who got his hands on an Italian

0:37:59.520 --> 0:38:02.120
<v Speaker 1>dictionary looked up the word what and looked up the

0:38:02.160 --> 0:38:05.040
<v Speaker 1>word for what for what will be will be and

0:38:05.080 --> 0:38:08.480
<v Speaker 1>then said that didn't do any of his grammatical research,

0:38:08.640 --> 0:38:11.799
<v Speaker 1>and neither did Livingston and Evans. But it doesn't matter,

0:38:11.840 --> 0:38:15.040
<v Speaker 1>apparently agreed. Uh. And that along with our last one,

0:38:15.440 --> 0:38:17.720
<v Speaker 1>which we're gonna talk about, erna sec begs the question,

0:38:18.400 --> 0:38:22.040
<v Speaker 1>are two that I think are often begs. The question

0:38:22.120 --> 0:38:27.080
<v Speaker 1>certainly is often said incorrectly, and people often also jump

0:38:27.120 --> 0:38:30.520
<v Speaker 1>on it and say, you know, you really mean raises

0:38:30.560 --> 0:38:33.400
<v Speaker 1>the question that begs the question. I don't hear as

0:38:33.440 --> 0:38:36.880
<v Speaker 1>many people when someone says the case ras ra saying actually,

0:38:36.960 --> 0:38:40.120
<v Speaker 1>that's grammatically incorrect. It's true for sure. So just a

0:38:40.120 --> 0:38:43.239
<v Speaker 1>little word of friendly advice from your older friend here,

0:38:43.960 --> 0:38:48.279
<v Speaker 1>uh if like correcting someone isn't super cool, but but

0:38:48.560 --> 0:38:52.080
<v Speaker 1>telling someone a cool story about an origin is another

0:38:52.120 --> 0:38:54.880
<v Speaker 1>way to do it in a more tactful way. Like

0:38:55.400 --> 0:38:59.160
<v Speaker 1>instead of saying case rassaras and grammatically incorrect, what you

0:38:59.160 --> 0:39:01.520
<v Speaker 1>could say is like, yeah, Case Ross Rogers said, cool

0:39:01.520 --> 0:39:05.160
<v Speaker 1>story behind this. Uh, and you're still sort of correct him,

0:39:05.160 --> 0:39:07.800
<v Speaker 1>but in a gentler way. Yeah. And if you're starting

0:39:07.840 --> 0:39:11.680
<v Speaker 1>out with wrong like you really have some work to do. God,

0:39:11.880 --> 0:39:15.680
<v Speaker 1>go back to the drawing board. So thank you, By

0:39:15.719 --> 0:39:17.880
<v Speaker 1>the way, I needed to hear that as well, um,

0:39:17.960 --> 0:39:20.319
<v Speaker 1>along with the listeners you were speaking to, because we've

0:39:20.320 --> 0:39:23.359
<v Speaker 1>said begs the question before. Yeah, and I know that

0:39:23.400 --> 0:39:26.040
<v Speaker 1>you've even self corrected and said, I mean raises the question.

0:39:26.680 --> 0:39:28.359
<v Speaker 1>But it's sort of one of those things that over

0:39:28.400 --> 0:39:33.000
<v Speaker 1>the years people have tran you know, mistranslated begs the

0:39:33.080 --> 0:39:36.920
<v Speaker 1>question to where everyone gets it now. Yeah, but its

0:39:36.960 --> 0:39:40.280
<v Speaker 1>like the way that everybody uses it, which is wrong.

0:39:40.400 --> 0:39:43.520
<v Speaker 1>It makes sense, which is it's a statement that raises

0:39:43.520 --> 0:39:47.239
<v Speaker 1>a question. And an example is, um, everyone looking over

0:39:47.280 --> 0:39:51.560
<v Speaker 1>the menu begs the question what's everyone going to order? Right? Sure,

0:39:52.000 --> 0:39:55.000
<v Speaker 1>that is not at all what begs the question really means,

0:39:55.400 --> 0:39:58.120
<v Speaker 1>but because so many people use it that way, now,

0:39:58.360 --> 0:40:00.839
<v Speaker 1>that is what it means. But that there's also an

0:40:00.840 --> 0:40:04.680
<v Speaker 1>original meaning too that actually is closer to correct or

0:40:04.719 --> 0:40:07.880
<v Speaker 1>at the very least worth mentioning. Yeah, and also the

0:40:07.920 --> 0:40:10.520
<v Speaker 1>answer is always French onion soup, so people shouldn't even

0:40:10.560 --> 0:40:13.719
<v Speaker 1>be asking anything. I don't know. I've had some bad

0:40:13.760 --> 0:40:17.719
<v Speaker 1>French onion soup, man, Yeah, I love French onion soup.

0:40:17.800 --> 0:40:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Like you could put a salt like in some with

0:40:19.440 --> 0:40:22.000
<v Speaker 1>some beef bullion Cuban, I would probably like it. I've

0:40:22.040 --> 0:40:24.520
<v Speaker 1>still had bad French onion soup. Now what does that mean?

0:40:24.560 --> 0:40:26.960
<v Speaker 1>They just didn't get a good crust on that cheese

0:40:26.960 --> 0:40:30.040
<v Speaker 1>on top or what. No, like the taste was ranked

0:40:31.160 --> 0:40:33.960
<v Speaker 1>like something bad happened. But by the way, I've got

0:40:33.960 --> 0:40:37.560
<v Speaker 1>to shout somebody out chuck. We had a listener named

0:40:37.760 --> 0:40:41.799
<v Speaker 1>um Ryan I believe and Ryan is a chef who

0:40:41.880 --> 0:40:44.080
<v Speaker 1>rode in and said, hey, man, don't give up on

0:40:44.160 --> 0:40:48.239
<v Speaker 1>your homemade beef stock. You left out a step and

0:40:48.280 --> 0:40:51.840
<v Speaker 1>he he basically said, you want to reduce it by half.

0:40:52.640 --> 0:40:56.600
<v Speaker 1>And I was like, that's exactly right, the beef stock.

0:40:56.680 --> 0:40:59.040
<v Speaker 1>Don't you make the beef stock and you have it done.

0:40:59.440 --> 0:41:02.640
<v Speaker 1>I immediately frozen and he was super watery and tasteless.

0:41:02.680 --> 0:41:04.560
<v Speaker 1>And he said, no, you want to reduce it by

0:41:04.600 --> 0:41:08.600
<v Speaker 1>hashkey Johnson, trade it and then use that. And my

0:41:08.680 --> 0:41:10.560
<v Speaker 1>hats off to him for the rest of my life.

0:41:10.560 --> 0:41:12.960
<v Speaker 1>So thanks a lot, Ryan, I believe, who wrote in

0:41:13.000 --> 0:41:16.200
<v Speaker 1>and let me know about that. I had beef bone

0:41:16.239 --> 0:41:19.440
<v Speaker 1>broth for lunch. Oh yeah, from my friends at the

0:41:19.440 --> 0:41:21.840
<v Speaker 1>Oh So Good Company. I'm hoping to hear this and

0:41:21.920 --> 0:41:27.200
<v Speaker 1>send me free broth because it's expensive. Oh yeah, yeah,

0:41:27.360 --> 0:41:28.960
<v Speaker 1>for sure. What's it? What's the name of it? Oh

0:41:29.040 --> 0:41:32.160
<v Speaker 1>so good? Do you get it chipped frozen? And it's

0:41:32.200 --> 0:41:38.880
<v Speaker 1>really really good quality broth. I'll take some too, And

0:41:38.960 --> 0:41:41.400
<v Speaker 1>I was right. It was Ryan Thompson who wrote in

0:41:41.400 --> 0:41:44.080
<v Speaker 1>to let me know about that. Awesome, that's good especially well,

0:41:44.280 --> 0:41:47.920
<v Speaker 1>never mind, but we just missed. We just had Thanksgiving,

0:41:48.000 --> 0:41:49.640
<v Speaker 1>and I was gonna say, if you're gonna make your

0:41:49.640 --> 0:41:52.440
<v Speaker 1>turkey stock, but by this time, when when is this

0:41:52.520 --> 0:41:55.879
<v Speaker 1>going to come out? Mid December? All right? He might

0:41:55.880 --> 0:42:00.840
<v Speaker 1>make another turkey just sure, reduced by half? Yes, reduced

0:42:00.880 --> 0:42:03.640
<v Speaker 1>by half. We're gonna make t shirts that say that

0:42:04.120 --> 0:42:07.120
<v Speaker 1>can we get to Aristotle though? Yes? Excellent idea. So

0:42:07.280 --> 0:42:10.600
<v Speaker 1>we raise Aristotle because he was the one that that well,

0:42:10.640 --> 0:42:15.240
<v Speaker 1>I guess raised the original um meaning of begs the question.

0:42:15.560 --> 0:42:18.640
<v Speaker 1>And it's a little bit of circular logic that he

0:42:18.800 --> 0:42:22.560
<v Speaker 1>pointed out that sometimes people use right, that's right. He

0:42:22.680 --> 0:42:29.200
<v Speaker 1>called it petitio principe. Come on, that's close enough to

0:42:29.280 --> 0:42:33.560
<v Speaker 1>Italian that you could do it like that, princippi, which

0:42:33.600 --> 0:42:35.640
<v Speaker 1>is basically the use of an argument that uses the

0:42:35.760 --> 0:42:39.840
<v Speaker 1>endpoint as proof itself. And was this your example with

0:42:39.960 --> 0:42:43.120
<v Speaker 1>ice cream? How could you tell? Well, because I've never

0:42:43.160 --> 0:42:45.200
<v Speaker 1>heard of Superman ice cream, and I just sounds like

0:42:45.239 --> 0:42:49.680
<v Speaker 1>something you would say, apparently it's Midwestern, okay, Neopolitan. No,

0:42:50.280 --> 0:42:54.440
<v Speaker 1>it's very colorful. It's gaudy, it's in Garish, it's so colorful,

0:42:54.480 --> 0:42:57.759
<v Speaker 1>and flavors are not Neopolitan flavors. Okay, Okay, I thought

0:42:57.880 --> 0:42:59.760
<v Speaker 1>I thought it meant it was divided into three different

0:43:00.120 --> 0:43:03.799
<v Speaker 1>verse it's all swirled together and it's very pretty. Yeah,

0:43:03.880 --> 0:43:07.600
<v Speaker 1>so Superman ice cream, A good example would be Superman

0:43:07.680 --> 0:43:10.480
<v Speaker 1>ice cream is the best ice cream because it's the best.

0:43:11.719 --> 0:43:15.440
<v Speaker 1>That would be petitio principe, which is that you're using

0:43:15.520 --> 0:43:19.520
<v Speaker 1>the point you're trying to make as evidence of the point.

0:43:19.640 --> 0:43:22.319
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but people do that

0:43:22.400 --> 0:43:26.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot. And Aristotle said nine no more. Yeah. The

0:43:26.600 --> 0:43:28.600
<v Speaker 1>only time you can do that is if you're trying

0:43:28.640 --> 0:43:31.960
<v Speaker 1>to be funny and just say, like, you know, the

0:43:31.960 --> 0:43:36.120
<v Speaker 1>original Ghostbusters is the best because it's the best then,

0:43:36.719 --> 0:43:39.520
<v Speaker 1>and you're making a joke unless you're eight, and I

0:43:39.560 --> 0:43:43.440
<v Speaker 1>think that's who Aristotle was really targeting with this. So

0:43:43.800 --> 0:43:48.000
<v Speaker 1>here's where it gets somewhat interesting, although I also thought

0:43:48.040 --> 0:43:51.719
<v Speaker 1>the other was interesting. But in Latin, petitio principal means

0:43:51.760 --> 0:43:57.279
<v Speaker 1>request the principle, uh, which means Aristotle's use of it,

0:43:57.320 --> 0:44:02.000
<v Speaker 1>assuming the initial point. But apparently this was just like

0:44:02.040 --> 0:44:06.840
<v Speaker 1>a bad translation, right, yes, absolutely terrible bad translation by

0:44:06.960 --> 0:44:11.839
<v Speaker 1>some sixteenth century Europeans who said, oh, request the principle. Well,

0:44:11.880 --> 0:44:15.840
<v Speaker 1>request also kind of means beg in English sort of,

0:44:16.440 --> 0:44:20.080
<v Speaker 1>and the principle we could just substitute the question for that,

0:44:20.680 --> 0:44:25.440
<v Speaker 1>and so petitio principi in English now means beg the question,

0:44:25.560 --> 0:44:28.920
<v Speaker 1>even though it makes no sense, especially when you realize

0:44:28.920 --> 0:44:31.880
<v Speaker 1>that it's supposed to mean requests the principle or assuming

0:44:31.880 --> 0:44:35.160
<v Speaker 1>the initial point. That's right, and that's it. That it's

0:44:35.200 --> 0:44:37.400
<v Speaker 1>as easy as that, and as a matter of fact,

0:44:37.719 --> 0:44:41.360
<v Speaker 1>it's as easy to understand as the popular use of

0:44:41.400 --> 0:44:44.760
<v Speaker 1>beg begs the question as like a statement that raises

0:44:44.800 --> 0:44:48.800
<v Speaker 1>a question. It's just not explain like people don't explain

0:44:48.840 --> 0:44:50.799
<v Speaker 1>it unless you use it wrong and you just happen

0:44:50.840 --> 0:44:55.680
<v Speaker 1>to be near a prescriptivest who who's bonkers? Yeah, and

0:44:55.760 --> 0:45:00.279
<v Speaker 1>not to yuck the prescriptive ist yum m, because there

0:45:00.320 --> 0:45:02.920
<v Speaker 1>are people that are very defensive of words and language

0:45:03.000 --> 0:45:07.040
<v Speaker 1>is somewhat sacred. I'm not one of them, but you know,

0:45:08.320 --> 0:45:10.200
<v Speaker 1>if that's your thing, just don't be obnoxious about it.

0:45:10.640 --> 0:45:14.400
<v Speaker 1>We we need to do an episode on prescriptivists versus descriptivists.

0:45:14.520 --> 0:45:16.759
<v Speaker 1>I agree. So do you want to end with this

0:45:16.800 --> 0:45:20.240
<v Speaker 1>little anecdote about translations because you can make a case

0:45:20.280 --> 0:45:22.640
<v Speaker 1>that the translation of begs the question is one of

0:45:22.640 --> 0:45:25.759
<v Speaker 1>the worst of all time into English. Yeah, this is

0:45:25.800 --> 0:45:30.040
<v Speaker 1>pretty fun. Uh. The great Jimmy Carter, former US President,

0:45:30.920 --> 0:45:34.760
<v Speaker 1>went to Japan on a visit and was getting big laughs.

0:45:35.840 --> 0:45:40.400
<v Speaker 1>Uh this anecdote he told about it this small Methodist

0:45:40.440 --> 0:45:43.600
<v Speaker 1>college out in the country, and I think laughs so

0:45:43.719 --> 0:45:47.000
<v Speaker 1>much that he was like, what's going on here? And

0:45:47.080 --> 0:45:50.520
<v Speaker 1>so as a translator, like, why was everyone laughing so

0:45:50.560 --> 0:45:53.279
<v Speaker 1>hard at this story? That wasn't that funny? And what

0:45:53.280 --> 0:45:57.760
<v Speaker 1>did the translators say? The translator said that his exact

0:45:57.800 --> 0:46:00.840
<v Speaker 1>words to the public were President think Carter told a

0:46:00.880 --> 0:46:05.800
<v Speaker 1>funny story everyone must laugh and the Japanese went wild.

0:46:06.200 --> 0:46:08.880
<v Speaker 1>You could only do that to Jimmy Carter. I know,

0:46:09.680 --> 0:46:12.359
<v Speaker 1>I know, if I'm sure he thought that was hilarious too.

0:46:12.360 --> 0:46:14.399
<v Speaker 1>Of course he's what a what a great guy. He

0:46:14.520 --> 0:46:19.200
<v Speaker 1>was a great guy. Is he still around? He's still going? He? Uh?

0:46:20.040 --> 0:46:24.799
<v Speaker 1>I believe did Rosalind pass away? I think so? Yes? No,

0:46:24.960 --> 0:46:28.479
<v Speaker 1>she's still life too. Oh okay, yeah, sorry, guys, she's

0:46:28.600 --> 0:46:32.840
<v Speaker 1>nive and he's my lord. But yeah, they still go

0:46:32.880 --> 0:46:34.640
<v Speaker 1>to braids games and do stuff. I think he still

0:46:34.680 --> 0:46:37.520
<v Speaker 1>teaches Sunday school and all that stuff. Very cool. Yep.

0:46:38.040 --> 0:46:42.120
<v Speaker 1>So that's our episode on Jimmy Carter. Everybody, we should

0:46:42.120 --> 0:46:44.520
<v Speaker 1>do one on Jimmy Carter. Yeah, why not? He's definitely

0:46:44.560 --> 0:46:48.480
<v Speaker 1>worth an episode. Um, you got anything else about Jimmy

0:46:48.480 --> 0:46:51.880
<v Speaker 1>Carter or phrases? No, but a good listener mail that

0:46:51.960 --> 0:46:55.600
<v Speaker 1>kind of dovetails. Okay, well, hold on, hold on. Since

0:46:55.680 --> 0:46:58.680
<v Speaker 1>Chuck started talking about listener mail, obviously it's time for

0:46:59.080 --> 0:47:06.279
<v Speaker 1>listener mail. Um. Yeah, I didn't even play this. This

0:47:06.320 --> 0:47:09.319
<v Speaker 1>is perfect. Hey, guys, love the show. Uh. In the

0:47:09.360 --> 0:47:12.000
<v Speaker 1>Typewriter episode, you were making suggestions on license plates and

0:47:12.080 --> 0:47:15.640
<v Speaker 1>Chuck suggested balls out b a l z o U

0:47:15.719 --> 0:47:18.480
<v Speaker 1>t uh. That might be the right amount of vulgar,

0:47:19.000 --> 0:47:22.440
<v Speaker 1>but the assumption is that balls out refers to testicles.

0:47:23.080 --> 0:47:24.600
<v Speaker 1>That is not true at all. The true origin and

0:47:24.600 --> 0:47:26.840
<v Speaker 1>the saying is way more fun and not at all vulgar.

0:47:27.480 --> 0:47:32.080
<v Speaker 1>Many machines use a centrifugal I hate that word, governor

0:47:32.239 --> 0:47:35.440
<v Speaker 1>to regulate the speed that something is uh spinning and

0:47:35.600 --> 0:47:38.520
<v Speaker 1>old timy ones you had two weighted balls on the

0:47:38.600 --> 0:47:43.800
<v Speaker 1>end of sticks spinning around. You've probably seen this before, right, No, no,

0:47:44.040 --> 0:47:46.239
<v Speaker 1>you would if if you saw it, you'd recognize it.

0:47:47.480 --> 0:47:49.960
<v Speaker 1>It's like two balls like spinning in a circle. I mean,

0:47:50.000 --> 0:47:52.120
<v Speaker 1>I can imagine that, but I can't place it under

0:47:52.120 --> 0:47:54.480
<v Speaker 1>the hood of a car. It's not in a car.

0:47:55.200 --> 0:47:58.080
<v Speaker 1>This is more like a machine in a factory or something. Oh,

0:47:59.000 --> 0:48:04.200
<v Speaker 1>centriviing goal force. They're classic details to include on cartoon

0:48:04.280 --> 0:48:08.239
<v Speaker 1>machinery and you would know it if you saw it. There. Um,

0:48:08.280 --> 0:48:10.799
<v Speaker 1>the faster the machine is spinning, the further the two

0:48:10.840 --> 0:48:13.920
<v Speaker 1>balls stick out to the side. So when a machine

0:48:13.960 --> 0:48:16.520
<v Speaker 1>is running at a high speed, it's called running balls

0:48:16.560 --> 0:48:19.120
<v Speaker 1>out because the balls are sticking straight out from the

0:48:19.120 --> 0:48:21.920
<v Speaker 1>sides of the governor. That's awesome. So when my mind

0:48:22.000 --> 0:48:25.920
<v Speaker 1>balls out as a fantastic custom license plate, especially if

0:48:25.920 --> 0:48:28.440
<v Speaker 1>the driver tends to have a heavy foot. Again, love

0:48:28.480 --> 0:48:33.240
<v Speaker 1>the show, Keep the good stuff coming. Peace from Ben, Peace, Ben,

0:48:33.680 --> 0:48:36.240
<v Speaker 1>thank you for that. That's a great one. I still

0:48:36.280 --> 0:48:39.480
<v Speaker 1>cannot imagine it in any kind of machine. I don't

0:48:39.480 --> 0:48:42.480
<v Speaker 1>know what he's talking about, but I understand what he means. Right.

0:48:42.920 --> 0:48:47.200
<v Speaker 1>Just google Centrifugal governor. Okay, I will, And if you

0:48:47.239 --> 0:48:49.680
<v Speaker 1>want to be like Ben and say peace, you can

0:48:49.719 --> 0:48:53.400
<v Speaker 1>email us. Send it to Stuff Podcasts at iHeart radio

0:48:53.560 --> 0:48:58.840
<v Speaker 1>dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production of

0:48:58.880 --> 0:49:02.200
<v Speaker 1>I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio, visit

0:49:02.239 --> 0:49:05.080
<v Speaker 1>the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you

0:49:05.120 --> 0:49:09.239
<v Speaker 1>listen to your favorite shows. H