Grice to the Mill -- English Proverbs Revisited

One of the Club's most prolific members (in terms of posts, not necessarily children -- is 'prolific' ambiguous or are people stupid?) writes:

"Are you saying that the idiom

in Castilian Spanish,
a buen puerto vas por agua
a buen bosque vas por lena

is best used ironically to mean "How should I know?" or maybe "Don't ask me to defend it - I disagree with it."? (I like to learn this stuff.)"

Well, let me check.

The site I first looked up to get the spelling for 'lena' with the tilde on the 'n' does NOT give the meaning.

The google hits features one hit only (as per first page) where the thing is actually used rather than mentioned, to wit:

"Con respecto a lo que afirmás del papa, que querés que te diga, ¡a buen bosque vas por leña!"

This is from the Argentine Association of Atheists (AAA). So I suppose it _is_ ironic:

"Dear Mimi,
I loved your letter. I agree with
all you say. As for what you say
about the Pope, you are going to
a good bush for timber.
Yours, etc."

--- seeing that he is an atheist, I would think that he agrees that what the Pope says is usually a bull.

--

But Roach, I think his name is, and Ridout, have expressed Gricean thoughts about proverbs.

First, the label, pro-verb, is otiose. It's not like you're going to learn a post-verb after this.
A pro-verb is all you get.

Second, the idea is that they were Literally Once

"Too many cooks spoil the broth"

This was said, apparently for the first time, by the lady of the manor.

This works for me.

I hate, for example the recent fashionable thing in serious things like CFP Call for Papers, Early bird registration.

"Are we into worms" or something? I think that's cheap.

The third problem is that if there is such a thing as Folk Wisdom, as Grice thought there was, how come two proverbs may be contradictory:

early to bed, early to rise

etc. Surely there is a proverb that refutes that.

But back to the literal meaning. The problem also is collocational. Try to see if you know your proverbs SO WELL (as to what they MEAN rather than what they SAY) by trying any of these on your prolific offspring -- and perhaps fail:

I have to look for the right post, so I'll post this and later will find out.

I found it. The blog post is titled, "Pulchritude possesses solely cutaneous profundity" -- a good exercise in utterer's occasion-timeless meaning, or something.

JLS


* * * *
1.Pulchritude possesses solely cutaneous profundity.
2.Members of an avian species of identical plumage congregate.
3.Scintillate, scintillate, asteroid minuscule.
4.It is fruitless to become alachrymose over precipitately departed lacteal
fluid.
5.Surveillance should precede saltation.
6.The stylus is more potent than the claymore.
7.Freedom from incrustations or grime is contiguous to divinity.
8.It is fruitless to attempt to indoctrinate a superannuated canine with
innovative manoeuvres.
9.Eschew the implement of corruption and vitiate the scion.
10.The temperature of the aqueous content of an unremittingly ogled saucepan
does not reach 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
11.Neophyte's serendipity.
12.Male cadavers are incapable of yielding any testimony.
13.Individuals who make their abode in vitreous edifices would be advised to
refrain from catapulting petrons projectiles.
14.Where there are visible vapours having their provenance in ignited
carbonaceous material there is conflagration.
15.All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.
16.Sorting, on the part of mendicants, must be interdicted.
17.Exclusive dedication to necessary chores without interlude of hedonistic
diversion render John a hebetudinous fellow.
18.A plethora of individuals with expertise in culinary techniques vitiates
the potable concotion produced by steeping comestibles.
19.The person presenting the ultimate cachinnation possesses, thereby, the
optimal cachinnation.
20.Missiles of ligneous or petrous consistency have the potential of
fracturing my osseeous structure but appellations will eternally be benign.