Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by hobbsyoyo, Mar 8, 2019.
Can you explain the ones in the second paragraph?
We have almost the same one. One of my relatives used to fix clocks professionally, and once I noticed that one of clocks in his house not working.
His wife said that most of them don't work, "the cobbler is without boots".
I had a paper assigned once on the proper use of cliches in writing. It was not a slice of shortbread but I did get the strawberry.
Has anyone ever seen someone hear a cliche for the first time? It can be startling.
Every architect and carpenter's home always seems like it's on year 10 of a 1 year remodel.
Aaaaahh I thought it meant they were incompetent
I can attest to this from personal experience. Dad was an architect.
I'm a big fan of "we'll burn that bridge when we get to it" from the recent Mission Impossible movie.
I like this one a lot too, but I think I've only ever heard Bill Simmons use it.
There are two possible interpretations.
On the one hand it can be read as an observation that a professional often doesn't maintain the same standards and practices at home as they do on the job. So for example, a mechanic whose tool bench at the shop/studio is meticulously organized and well-maintained: every tool has a place and every place has a tool, and whenever the professional uses those tools, he always finishes the job by cleaning and polishing every tool, and replacing those which are damaged. Contrast this with home, where the workbench is a morass of random tools all scattered about with no organizational paradigm, many of them rusted, duct-taped together, or covered in oil. In this case, the adage refers to the fact that when it's a matter of one's livelihood or a service performed for other people, a professional tends to be much more careful and concerned about quality and method; a sense of professional pride plays a major role, whereas at home they're only really accountable to themself and their spouse/children, and in this case the only real concern is "getting the job done."
The other interpretation is more of an economic critique: the profits earned from the practice of a service doesn't afford the professional the material capacity to enjoy those same services at home. On the job I earn wages by transforming the finest ingredients into intricate, sumptuous, artistically refined and expressive dishes to delight and satisfy clientele of the highest order. However, the money I come home with at the end of the day only grants me enough to purchase a stale loaf of bread and some low-quality cheddar cheese. I can spend months in the restaurant kitchen producing countless delicious variations of dishes using saffron, but I myself haven't a single thread of the stuff in my pantry. That sort of trope.
I like either interpretation, because they're essentially making the same structural argument/observation: that society has hewed a clear division between the economic and the domestic (pun fully intended) spheres of life, and that for the vast majority of people, that division is necessarily, lamentably, unequal.
I’ll give you a third that’s partially covered by the first which is that these products and services are not necessarily essential so that the craftier has no incentive to seek them for their home life, particularly if the draw is dispelled by continual exposure.
When I was selling cars one of the critical bits of wisdom that I absorbed and lived by was "they're all just rubber tin and glass, never fall in love with a car." Needless to say, that wasn't something we shared with customers.
In Britain, we would say that somebody "couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery".
It neatly expresses our twin national pastimes of alcohol-consumption and the unnecessary use of obscene words.
Actually, it's more like the finished goods are for the paying customers. The craftsman receives no money from his family for the goods he's selling, so his family does without.
For an example, take a skim through Isaac Asimov's autobiography (first volume). When his parents immigrated to the U.S. from Russia, they opened a candy store. As a child and teenager, young Isaac was expected to help run the place, and his friends envied him, thinking he had access to all the free candy, comics, and magazines he wanted.
The truth was that he was not allowed to have any of the candy, nor was he allowed to own any of the comics or magazines. He did read them, however, but had to make sure he was careful enough that his father wouldn't notice they had been read (in other words, they had to be returned to the shelf or stand in pristine-looking condition, ready for sale to a paying customer - which young Isaac was not).
It never occurred to him that this might be unfair, and his father never paid him for working there, either. It was simply expected that as the eldest child, he was supposed to help support the family.
It was while he was reading these pulp magazines in his father's store that he discovered his love of science fiction and a desire to become a writer like the people whose stories he enjoyed.
"icing on the cake"
I got a Polish one that I think has sort of made its way into English a bit maybe:
"Not my circus, not my monkeys"
Basically means "not my problem, I don't have to deal with it, cya"
Separate names with a comma.