Forum Moderators: open
The correct saying is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
All you misquoters out there stop it or I'll revoke your pudding privileges.
lawman
BTW, lawman, you wouldn't like the googlefight results. :)
Who's to say which is correct? The phrase's origin is Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, isn't it? So it was originally written in Spanish; the English versions here could be explained as variations in the translation.
You gave me pause, JayC. Your sophistry and non-sequiturs caused me to do some actual research. :)
Your conclusion that "the English versions here could be explained as varaiations in the translation" rests upon the assumption that it was originated by Cervantes in the 17th century. This is a commonly held belief.
However, some have traced the origin to the early 14th century, over two hundred years before Cervantes drew his first breath.
Besides, nothing I read supports your conclusion of significant variations in translation from Don Quixote.
Nevertheless, I am just a blind man groping in the darkness hoping to be enlightened.
lawman
(which, by the way is also commonly misquoted as "Here, Here!". The quote is supposedly an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!")
But I can't wait to see if the proof is in the pudding or in the eating of aforesaid pudding. If it's in the pudding how can this be verified without first destroying the errant pudding concealing such proof? The important question would then arise: Who hid it there?
My aunt, Miss M. Alprops, may have the answer but the one who laughs last will laugh loud. Or doesn't get the joke. Now I have many miles to go before i snore so I shall depart and wish you God speeding (may He not get a speeding ticket).
For interested party's the Telegraph (UK) has, since yesterday, been currently waging war on mis-used apostrophes'.
OTOH, if the proof is in the eating, which specific part of the eating is it in? Is it in the "general eating" or in some specific (person's) eating? Is it the joys of such eating or is it just the fact that "an eating" is taking place? And is it just the intake and not the digestion or nutritional value? If so, how large an amount of eating has to take place before the proof is made?
What a mystery... perhaps i should be glad i'm not British..
/claus
Practical example:
"Can a horse walk upside down?" -- "The proof is in the pudding."
This can be taken one of two ways:
1. The proof is in testing to see if the horse can walk upside down.
Rejoinder: This is just a tautology as "proof" is defined as demonstration (which in this case would be testing to see)--the proof, by definition, wouldn't be anywhere else.
2. The proof is in that fact that horses can walk upside down.
Rejoinder: This begs the question. (Not to mention it misuses to term "proof" -- facts, in and of themselves, [bruta factii] cannot be "proof" of anything because they have no context -- they are brute).
That's my gross over-analysis of the idiom. ;)
Jordan
I'll revoke your pudding privileges.
I'd take Lawman's threat seriously. Because, if we don't eat our pudding, we can't have any meat! How can we have any meat if we don't eat our pudding?!
Thanks for the correction on the phrase. Had no idea what was the right way to say it.
What a mystery... perhaps i should be glad i'm not British..
I'm not British either but I do live here and when in Britain I do as the Romans do.
But I can't wait to see if the proof is in the pudding or in the eating of aforesaid pudding. If it's in the pudding how can this be verified without first destroying the errant pudding concealing such proof? The important question would then arise: Who hid it there?
Good points all. But I contend if you eat your pudding carefully (regardless of which of the dozen food items referred to as "pudding" in the UK you are actually eating), not only would you would discover the proof of the pudding itself in the eating thereof, you would also naturally discover if proof of anything else had been hidden in said pudding.
...when in Britain I do as the Romans do.
It takes some doing, but it's rewarding to learn what was meant by somoeone saying, "I'll be there with bells on" or, "she can't hold a candle to so and so..."
"The proof is in the pudding" simply doesn't make any sense, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" does makes sense.
The next time you hear someone say that a woman was "dressed to the nines", look up the origin, it might surprise you.
"dressed to the nines"
"Wrong, Do it again!
If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?
You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy"
...at least that's what my guitar tab book says.
Lawman... I wish you'd been around here Christmas 1980 or so. My grandfather used to use that misquote, and at all of about ten years old I knew he had it wrong.. and told him so when he used it while we curled up on the couch late at night with steaming bowls of leftover christmas pudding in hand. In response to my correction... he looked at me.. blinked.. grinned.. dove his fingers into his plate of pudding.. and pulled forth a sixpence.
I never bothered to correct him again... but I always chewed grandma's cooking a bit more carefully.
So what's your take on Hadrian's Wall? Not quite the Great Wall of China
You may be able to see the GW of C from space but you can see space when standing on the top of Hadrian's wall. Put that in your hat and eat it you Chinese!
>> discover if proof of anything else had been hidden in said pudding.
And at the same time you tell me that there are actually dozens of different edibles referred to as pudding and that they should (all?) be eaten carefully?
Now, wouldn't chemistry provide a better, faster, and more efficient method of proof gathering after all? otoh.. "the proof of the pudding is in the tube"... doesn't sound right, does it?
/claus
dove his fingers into his plate of pudding.. and pulled forth a sixpence.
Ah, proof once again -- "All that glisters is not gold."
And at the same time you tell me that there are actually dozens of different edibles referred to as pudding and that they should (all?) be eaten carefully?
Absolutely. Some more carefully than others.
Although you can stop worrying about Pink Floyd lyrics if you happen to be eating one of the meat-type puddings... Two birds with one stone and all that (...or would it be two birds with one sixpence? Or would it be sixpence, a pocket full of rye and four-and-twenty blackbirds, in which case we'd be talking about pie instead of pudding?).
As far as "the proof is in the pudding" goes, I suppose it's just shorter and punchier. Like many cliches, people know what you mean by it without understanding the actual phrase at all... I didn't know what the "when in rome..." phrase meant for the longest time.
"want's to have his/her cake and eat it too" is also a common one. Implied is a disdain for one wanting to both have and eat.
Well, what's the use of having cake if one isn't to eat any of it? Kind of like gaining pagerank only to not pass it to one's other sites...
;-)
He could care less what I'm wearing.
"Couldn't care less" is correct. :)
lawman
Now we're down from eating dozens of unspecified items to finding one that is correct albeit not necessarily the precise one, and eating that it seems.
/claus
