![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 10:10:03
Dr Hsiung,
I am requesting that you write a determination as to the acceptablility or not in relation to the guidlines ofthe forum for the following:
The poster writes,[...Please, please take {anything} "dancingstar" says with a grain of salt....].
I feel that IMO this use if that idiom has the potential to be not acceptable here.
The idiom has an origin going back 200 years or so when salt was thought to have healing properties and also to be an antidote to poisons. Hence, when the idiom was originally used, it had the potential to mean that what the person was saying could be poisonous to you so you should {...take what is said with a grain if salt...].
Lou Pilder
http://www,dr-bob.org/babble/20050217/msga/460541.html
Posted by partlycloudy on February 21, 2005, at 10:48:30
In reply to Lou request to Dr. Hsiung-grnofnacl2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 10:10:03
Lou, in this case I'm pretty certain that the poster meant it as an expression of speech - to not take what we read here too seriously - which is generally how the phrase is used now. I had never heard of the origin of the phrase with reference to poison! Just shows how ghastly the roots of many modern expressions are. Still, I don't think the poster meant any ill will!
best wishes,
partlycloudy
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 11:07:27
In reply to Re: Lou request to Dr. Hsiung-grnofnacl2 » Lou Pilder, posted by partlycloudy on February 21, 2005, at 10:48:30
pc,
You wrote,[...I don't {think} that (the poster meant) any ill will!...].
Could you clarify what you used to make that assessment as to what the poster meant?
Lou
Posted by partlycloudy on February 21, 2005, at 11:53:31
In reply to Lou's reply to pc-potrmnt » partlycloudy, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 11:07:27
Lou,
I am making an assumption because I hear that expression, "take it with a grain of salt" used infrequently by people in my day to day interactions with them, and their intent is to say not to take something seriously. I am assuming (a dangerous thing, I know) that this ordinary modern usage of the phrase was the intention in the instance here too.
That's all.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 12:39:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to pc-potrmnt » Lou Pilder, posted by partlycloudy on February 21, 2005, at 11:53:31
Dr. Hsiung, I understand that the use of idioms have various meanings depending on local and time. The poster that used the idiom that I am requesting to you for a determination did not write what he/she thought to be the meaning of the idiom. It has been written here that one thinks that the useage of the idiom,[...take what someone says with a grain of salt...] could mean that what the person wrote could {not be taken seriously}.
Is that acceptable here then, to use the idiom if another here thinks that it could mean that what another wrote could not be taken seriously?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Minnie-Haha on February 21, 2005, at 15:18:20
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~takserus?, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 12:39:58
> ... I understand that the use of idioms have various meanings depending on local and time. The poster that used the idiom that I am requesting to you for a determination did not write what he/she thought to be the meaning of the idiom.
I did not use the phrase to mean that what someone said was "poisonous," nor to mean that someone COULD NOT be taken seriously (though should not be taken *TOO* seriously, as in authoritatively -- as I might say of many posting here, including myself -- might come closer, as suggested). I did some searches on this phrase (with a grain of salt) and found a number of meanings, which I won't try to copy here. I only mean that if someone said something like "I'm not convinced there's a shred of real proof that they [anti-depressants] work for most people" that that statement (or similar statements) does NOT mean that this person knows that there is no proof, or that one should assume that there is NO proof, and that in fact, there MIGHT be proof that ADs do work for most people (for whom they are indicated).
I'm sorry if I was unclear, and I don't know if this makes it any clearer, but it's the best I can do to try to explain what I meant.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 16:18:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-~takserus?, posted by Minnie-Haha on February 21, 2005, at 15:18:20
M-H,
You wrote,[...I did not use the phrase to mean that what someone said was "poisonous", nor to mean that someone COULD NOT be taken seriously...].
When someone uses an idiom, since there could be many different meanings that people think the idiom means, I had requested from Dr. Hsiung to write a determination as to if the use of the idiom that you used in your post in relation to dancingstar could have the potential to be considerd as unacceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum on the basis that what another poster here thought the idiom means, and what my understanding of the idiom means.
In your post , you wrote,[...Please,please take anything "dancingstar" says with a grain of salt...]. I am requesting that Dr. Hsiung use his thinking in determining if the gramattical structure , as he sees it, could have the potential to be unacceptable here since an idiom could have many understandings by different persons. I have a chemistry background and when I see that idiom, I think of the orginal use of it. Others could think that the idiom is saying other things, depending on their particular background and where they perhaps live.. But did not the poster, dancingstar, write that she felt that the idiom used toward her was in some way inappropriate?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 17:24:25
In reply to Lou request to Dr. Hsiung-grnofnacl2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 10:10:03
Friend,
In the first post in this thread I wrote [...going back {200} years. That is corrected to {2000} years, for I left out a zero. My apologies.
The original expression[...take with a grain of salt...], was used by those in the Roman Period time when people were afriad of being poisoned. So there was a chemists in that time that took small amounts of different poisons with "a grain" of salt and he thought that the grain of salt was an antidote to the poison. Now a grain was a measurable amount, not what we sometimes think of as like a grain of sand on the beach. I am not familiar with the size of a grain in that time though, for a grain in the weight of gold, for instance, may not be the same as the "grain" in Roman times.
Lou
Posted by Maximus on February 21, 2005, at 19:33:03
In reply to Lou request to Dr. Hsiung-grnofnacl2, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 10:10:03
And it means:<prendre cela avec un grain de sel>.
We use it a lot in French. It is not offensive at all.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 20:06:35
In reply to Re: It is in french! » Lou Pilder, posted by Maximus on February 21, 2005, at 19:33:03
Maximus,
You wrote,[...We use it a lot in French...].
Could you write an example of how you use it?
Lou
Posted by Maximus on February 21, 2005, at 20:29:36
In reply to Lou's response to Maximus' post-frnchex » Maximus, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 20:06:35
> You wrote,[...We use it a lot in French...].
> Could you write an example of how you use it?
> LouOf course,
We use it (expression) to diminish the context's intensity. Example:
<Tu te fais trop de soucis avec ce qu'elle a dit, prend cela avec un grain de sel...>
And here is my "pseudo-translation" because english is not my native language.
<Don't be worried about what she said and take this with a grain of salt>.
Hope this helps a bit.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 20:38:56
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Maximus' post-frnchex » Lou Pilder, posted by Maximus on February 21, 2005, at 20:29:36
Maximus,
You wrote an example ,[...don't be worried about what she said and take this with a grain of salt...].
I think that that is different from,[...Please, please take anything that she said with a grain of salt...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 21:21:06
In reply to Lou's response to Maximus' post-difrnt » Maximus, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 20:38:56
The correction is that I wrote,[....Please, please take anything that she {said}with a grain of salt...].
I am correcting this to,[...Please, please take (anything) that she {says} with a grain of salt...].
The difference , IMO, is that I feel that there is the potential for one to think that {anything} that the poster {says} could have the potential to be in the catagory of the idiom, not just what is written in the post, but that there is the potential IMO for others to possibly think that anything , even in the future or what she wrote previously.
Lou
Posted by Maximus on February 22, 2005, at 0:22:35
In reply to Lou's response to Maximus' post-difrnt-correction » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2005, at 21:21:06
> The difference , IMO, is that I feel that there is the potential for one to think that {anything} that the poster {says} could have the potential to be in the catagory of the idiom,
Yes c'est un idiome. And you can only and adquately use it in its original language. The nature of an idiom.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 22, 2005, at 8:06:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Maximus' post-difrnt-correction » Lou Pilder, posted by Maximus on February 22, 2005, at 0:22:35
Maximus,
You wrote,[...you can {only}...use it in its original language...].
Could you clarify if you mean:
A. The idiom in question can {only} be understood if it is written in the original language of the ancient Romans
B. The idiom can {only} be understood in the French language
C. Something else
Lou
Posted by Maximus on February 22, 2005, at 8:29:10
In reply to Lou's reply to Maximus-origlang » Maximus, posted by Lou Pilder on February 22, 2005, at 8:06:09
> You wrote,[...you can {only}...use it in its original language...].
> Could you clarify if you mean:
> A. The idiom in question can {only} be understood if it is written in the original language of the ancient Romans
> B. The idiom can {only} be understood in the French language
> C. Something else
> LouC. An idiom can only be fully understood in its original language.
Bonne journée!
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.