Strange sayings

[SimuLord]

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit, it's my old friend from Goodsprings!

 

[Xojins]

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Doesn't really make sense to me.

A bird in the hand is a bird that you have caught for sure.
You might have a chance of catching those two birds in the bush, but you shouldn't let go of the bird in your hand to do that.

I know what it means, it's just a weird saying that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me; why couldn't you try getting two birds? You don't have to let the one you have go. And why is a bird in your hand in the first place?

"A bird in your hand" implies that you have the bird for sure. You have managed to catch this bird. Do you not agree that it is better to have caught a bird for sure than to have the possibility to catch to others?

Ask yourself what situation you would rather be in:
The one where you're holding a tasty treat for dinner in your hand, or the one where two tasty, but very jumpy dinner-treats are hiding in a bush nearby?

Edit: We're not talking about a scenario where you have a bird in the hand and there are two in the bush. There are two different scenarios, and the saying is asking which one you'd rather be in.

Sigh, yes I know what this saying means, I know what it implies etc. My point was that it doesn't make sense to me because of what I said in my previous post.

And I explained that your reason for it not making sense is faulty. You can't chase after the two birds in the bush without losing the bird in your hand.

The saying contains two different universes: One where you have a bird in you hand, and one where there are two in a nearby bush. You can't have both.

Alright, well why couldn't you? Clearly it only takes one hand to hold a bird (especially the kind that hide in bushes), so you could have one in each hand.

 

[Geekosaurus]

My granddad has the best sayings: 'you pick flowers and your nose; everything else you choose' or 'better to have an empty let than a rowdy tenant.*'

*[small]He is, of course, talking about farting.[/small]

 

[Jonluw]

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Doesn't really make sense to me.

A bird in the hand is a bird that you have caught for sure.
You might have a chance of catching those two birds in the bush, but you shouldn't let go of the bird in your hand to do that.

I know what it means, it's just a weird saying that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me; why couldn't you try getting two birds? You don't have to let the one you have go. And why is a bird in your hand in the first place?

"A bird in your hand" implies that you have the bird for sure. You have managed to catch this bird. Do you not agree that it is better to have caught a bird for sure than to have the possibility to catch to others?

Ask yourself what situation you would rather be in:
The one where you're holding a tasty treat for dinner in your hand, or the one where two tasty, but very jumpy dinner-treats are hiding in a bush nearby?

Edit: We're not talking about a scenario where you have a bird in the hand and there are two in the bush. There are two different scenarios, and the saying is asking which one you'd rather be in.

Sigh, yes I know what this saying means, I know what it implies etc. My point was that it doesn't make sense to me because of what I said in my previous post.

And I explained that your reason for it not making sense is faulty. You can't chase after the two birds in the bush without losing the bird in your hand.

The saying contains two different universes: One where you have a bird in you hand, and one where there are two in a nearby bush. You can't have both.

Alright, well why couldn't you? Clearly it only takes one hand to hold a bird (especially the kind that hide in bushes), so you could have one in each hand.

Because: The scenario the saying presents isn't one where you have one bird in your hand and two in the bush. You either have one bird in your hand or you have two in the bush. These are two different scenarios. You can't have both, and what the saying is telling you is that the former scenario is the preferrable one.

 

[Squidden]

the expression "wouldn't say boo to a goose" meaning someone who is timid/shy is confusing to me. what does a goose have to do with being shy? :s

I think I read the goose saying was from a children's book that I read in Kindergarten...

 

[Jonluw]

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Doesn't really make sense to me.

A bird in the hand is a bird that you have caught for sure.
You might have a chance of catching those two birds in the bush, but you shouldn't let go of the bird in your hand to do that.

I know what it means, it's just a weird saying that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me; why couldn't you try getting two birds? You don't have to let the one you have go. And why is a bird in your hand in the first place?

"A bird in your hand" implies that you have the bird for sure. You have managed to catch this bird. Do you not agree that it is better to have caught a bird for sure than to have the possibility to catch to others?

Ask yourself what situation you would rather be in:
The one where you're holding a tasty treat for dinner in your hand, or the one where two tasty, but very jumpy dinner-treats are hiding in a bush nearby?

Edit: We're not talking about a scenario where you have a bird in the hand and there are two in the bush. There are two different scenarios, and the saying is asking which one you'd rather be in.

Sigh, yes I know what this saying means, I know what it implies etc. My point was that it doesn't make sense to me because of what I said in my previous post.

And I explained that your reason for it not making sense is faulty. You can't chase after the two birds in the bush without losing the bird in your hand.

The saying contains two different universes: One where you have a bird in you hand, and one where there are two in a nearby bush. You can't have both.

Alright, well why couldn't you? Clearly it only takes one hand to hold a bird (especially the kind that hide in bushes), so you could have one in each hand.

Because: The scenario the saying presents isn't one where you have one bird in your hand and two in the bush. You either have one bird in your hand or you have two in the bush. These are two different scenarios. You can't have both, and what the saying is telling you is that the former scenario is the preferrable one.

Both of you are facepalming like crazy right about now.

I don't understand how you couldn't fathom choosing between something you already have and will keep until you decide to get rid of it, or giving that up so that you can have a slight chance at getting something better. You'll probably lose the something better and then you'll have nothing. Hence, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I know you get the meaning, so why don't you get the scenario?

Now I'm betting that I'm in the facepalming, too.

EDIT: OH! I see what both of you are saying. The original guy is saying the scenario I wrote above; the other one is talking about two different universes. Both mean the same thing, it's just that most people would think of the one I wrote and the original fellow.

What Xojins is saying is that in the case that he has a bird in the hand and two in the bush, he doesn't get why he can't go after the birds in the bush while keeping the first bird. So I'm trying to explain that you don't necessarily have both a bird in your hand and two birds in the bush.
I was calling the scenarios universes to explain that they are completely separate.