TheDarkEricDraven said:
"The exception that proves the rule". What the fuck does that mean? If its an exception, it doesn't prove anything!
There is the old saying that every rule has an exception. No broad rule is completely infallible. So once you start finding a few exceptions to a rule, it shows that the rule has been critically examined, weaknesses acknowledged, and still deemed to be fairly reliable. Once you know that there are exceptions, but that they are very rare, you can more safely assume that the rule is a strong one that people have tried to poke holes in, but only has a few minor leaks.
EverythingIncredible said:
Because the bottom if your heart is supposedly deeper down into it.
Then again, that might have made more sense if it was the center and not the bottom. But back when that was invented, everything was measured in up/down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor
Basically, people understand things as metaphors, and certain concepts imply very fundamental concepts. As we understand basic objects and structures as being strong and solid on the bottom, we understand the idea of bottom to be on a more basic, fundemental, and integral level. You understand the idea of center being this, even though from a definition standpoint, this is irrational. "Bottom" carries similar connotations to "Center". Possibly you are thinking of the metaphor of heart slightly less abstractly? If you think of the heart as a real, physical structure, center makes more sense, while bottom is more easily understood in this case when applied to an abstract concept.
supersupersuperguy said:
I've never understood what it meant to "have one's cake and eat it too". I mean, what else are you going to do with a cake? A cake is functionally useless if you can't eat it. Unless, of course, you're going to throw it at someone, and I'm sure not going to do that. It's my cake! I have it and I'm going to eat it, too!
It's a simplification of an older phrase that stated the intent more clearly. Basically what it is saying is, "To both eat your cake and also to have it AFTER YOU EAT IT. If you eat it it is gone, and you no longer have it. So the idea here is a person who wants to benefit from something more then is realistic.
Shreder55 said:
"At the wrong place at the wrong time"
Never really got it. If your at the wrong place at the wrong time then you should be fine because its the wrong time. What it should be is,
Wrong place at the right time.
or
Right place at the wrong time.
If you are on a firing range right in front of the target, that is a wrong place. But if it is the right time, say, when no one is shooting, you are fine. But if it is also the wrong time, such as when people are shooting at the targets, you are in trouble, and might get shot. Anyone who happens to be in that target range/wrong place and gets shot will certainly call it the wrong time to be there.
chach_face said:
"Made to order"
It is meant to imply that the food is only cooked after you order it. Made to order, literally, means it is already made and then you can order it.
"Not made until you order it" would be a more apt saying
Or, a logical expanding of this phrase would be, "Made to fit your order" or "Made to your orders specifications". Personally, I think that that is the more natural interpretation, and I had to do some serious stretching to understand your interpretation.
OutcastBOS said:
"Paying through the nose". I know it means to pay a lot of money, but still!
This one I had to research a tad. Theres a theory about slitting noses being a punishment for tax evaders. More reasonable seems to be the theory that a punch in the nose is a good tactic for collecting outstanding debts. But the best explanation seems to be a pun on the use of the word, "Rhino" being used as slang for money. Also, think Rhinoplasty, and you will see the nose/money connection. Im not sure there is any certainty on this, however.
Mr.PlanetEater said:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I have never been able to grasp this concept, I mean its sound on paper I suppose. But when you apply it in real life its really flawed logic, just because you have an enemy that has another enemy doesn't mean you and enemy of your enemy should be buddies. For all you know enemy of your enemy is also your enemy, but you guys both just happen to have a common enemy.
You're not being sufficiently Machiavellian
An enemy to your enemy can at least be manipulated into furthering your goals. It doesn't always work in practice, but thats why you don't always have to use the saying.
shadyh8er said:
"It's better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all."
Sorry hon, but I've seen what happens to people who love and lose. It ain't pretty!
How many of them then wish they never loved in the first place? Its more of a philosophical disagreement, but certainly is, say, your mother died, you wouldn't wish that you had grown up an orphan.
King Toasty said:
"A bird in the bush is worth two in the hand."
What?
If you want to eat a bird, you can either take 1 dead bird you already have and cook it up, or you can go outside, find a bush where theses a partridge after hours of hunting, take out your gun, and hope that you can kill 1 of those 2 birds. 1 bird already on hand is a lot easier, and probably worth equal to or more then 2 potentially, after a lot of work, birds in the bush.
I think I enjoy trying to explain these too much...
