• The_Lurker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Just one bad apple!” One bad apple spoils the entire barrel/bunch.

    “Jack of all trades, master of none.” Jack of all trades, master of none, oft times better than a master of one.

    “Great minds think alike.” Great minds think alike, but fools never differ.

    • misspelledusernme@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Fun fact. The jack of all trades idiom has evolved and been added to over the centuries. Here the conclusion of an analysis from stack exchange

      Conclusions

      To sum up, I offer this timeline of the earliest occurrences I could find for the various forms of jack of all trades and the proverbial phrases built up around it:

      1618 Jack-of-all-trades
      
      1631 Tom of all Trades
      
      1639 John-of-all-trades
      
      1721 Jack of all trades, and it would seem, Good at none
      
      1732 Jack of all Trades is of no Trade
      
      1741 Jack of all trades, and in truth, master of none
      
      1785 a Jack of all trades, but master of none
      
      1930 a Jack of all trades and a master of one
      
      2007 Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one
      

      The extra-long version of the expression may be considerably older than the 2007 earliest established occurrence might suggest—perhaps even a decade or two older. But it isn’t the original form of the expression; and in comparison with the forms that arose during the 1700s, it is quite young.

    • Protoknuckles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Blood is thicker than water” is actually “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”

      • ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        This is one of my favorites because the shortened version is the actual opposite of the original. My family used the short version a lot. Hearing the long version for the first time felt kind of liberating :D

        • MrConfusion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          1 day ago

          If you read the Wikipedia article on the matter though, the long form given here does not seem to be “the original” by any means.

          The “short” proverb is many hundred years old. The “long form” first appeared in the 1990s by a specific author.

          It’s more an interpretation to negate an old proverb that the author disagreed with than anything.

        • wieson@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Some time ago I looked it up, because I feared the same. There’s actually medieval examples of the full phrase.

          • FishFace@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 day ago

            There is a good writeup on the English Language stack exchange and on Wikipedia all of whose early sources are for the normal version or things like it https://english.stackexchange.com/a/508940

            If you have a better citation, please share, but since they only find the Tumblr version from the 1990s I’m saying it’s bollocks.

              • FishFace@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                No, but to me it’s a stereotype of Tumblr users that they go fucking nuts for any of that kind of “counter-cultural secret knowledge” stuff even if it’s straight up lies.

                So I’m not saying “Tumblr version” to mean they invented it but to mean they love it and (helped) popularise it.

  • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    Actually, that is a myth. “In matters of taste” was never part of the original saying. One theory was that it was coined as an alternative to the “buyer beware” mentality.

  • Embargo@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Imagine “well actuallying” someone with a lie then posting it as a fact for everyone to repeat all over the internet for years. There is no direct origin and no proof that Selfridge even said it at all.

    • kindred@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Even if Selfridge’s entire existence were a collective fever dream*, the “full quote” is the better quote.

      I can’t imagine anyone who has worked in direct sales, at any amount of money, who genuinely believes “the customer is always right” is more correct of a saying without “in matters of taste”.

      *

      If everyone born before 1925 was a fever dream, it changes literally nothing about the state of the world today.

  • FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s not the full quote and before internet smart arses decided that every single idiom needed a fake “original full version” it didn’t exist.

    The point of the phrase is not literal though. Customer service means pleasing the customer, which means you sometimes have to act like they’re right even if they’re wrong.

    • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Seems like the actual quote was:

      Assume that the customer is right until it is plain beyond all question he is not.

      But “the customer is always right” (by itself) was even their ad slogan.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    And it’s really about what you stock in a store.

    If a bunch of customers want to buy an ugly hat, you should keep that hat in inventory.

  • Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Also the ‘in matters of taste’ does not fit in every occasion.

    If you order an expensive bottle of wine you can’t return it because you don’t like it. The trading ritual exists to make sure the wine doesn’t have a defect. If the wine is fine but not too your taste, well then that’s bad luck.

    • bomberesque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I thought that until the day a french friend of mine sent a bottle back because he didn’t like it. I’m still not over the audacity of that moment

      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Depends a bit in how often they sell the particular bottle and if they do wine by the glass.

        But if you order a Romanée Conti you will pay for it.