Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674178 > unrolled thread

Re: The proof is in the pudding, or where to get physical dictionaries of idioms?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The proof is in the pudding, or where to get physical dictionaries of idioms? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-04 11:11 -0700
    Re: The proof is in the pudding, or where to get physical dictionaries of idioms? x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-10-07 03:15 -0700
      Re: The proof is in the pudding, or where to get physical dictionaries of idioms? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 09:41 -0700
      Re: The proof is in the pudding, or where to get physical  dictionaries of idioms? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 12:54 -0700

#674178 — Re: The proof is in the pudding, or where to get physical dictionaries of idioms?

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> 
> Dear alt.usage.english,
> 
> Thinking of /the proof is in the pudding/ for a context outside the
> scope of Usenet, I am now wondering how one would increase his or her
> knowledge of idioms, without having to know each and every one before
> hand?
> 
> For instance, I have no particular interest in looking at
> 
>    https://www.theidioms.com/
> 
> every day, even though that's probably both free and useful.
> 
> I know books of idioms have been published in Iceland, but as far as I'm
> aware, nobody has suggested one for English.  Where did the Englishmen
> of ages past learn their idioms and expressions?  I certainly hope they
> didn't start with regular expressions in the 15th century.  But that
> would probably have been Chauserian English, of which I don't know much,
> sadly.
> 
> Maybe I'll pick up Chauserian English one of these days, but not today.
> Today I thought to pick up a few more unknown-to-me idioms and express-
> ions of more recent usage.
> 
> So, what do posters of alt.usage.english suggest?

you are soooo narrow minded...

"idioms" is soo passeeeee  

It's called catchphrases, English phrases...certaintly not "idioms".

Learn English first.



https://www.ef.edu/english-resources/english-idioms/

https://www.google.com/search?q=english+phrases+books&rlz=1C1AJCO_enUS1195US1195&oq=English+idioms+books&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i22i30l7j0i10i22i30j0i22i30.19326j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Or look in Google Books

"English phrases"

https://www.google.com/search?q=English+phrases&sca_esv=fa8fc3aacbaacd94&rlz=1C1AJCO_enUS1195US1195&udm=36&biw=1920&bih=1085&sxsrf=APpeQntOO0Pb-SF7wIecIGiMJahs9byrHg%3A1791134925605&ei=zYzCasbLJIKikPIPz6PdqAM&ved=2ahUKEwiG5vDH8aCXAxUCEUQIHc9RFzUQ4dUDegQIBBAM&oq=English+phrases&gs_lp=EhBnd3Mtd2l6LW1vZGVsZXNzIg9FbmdsaXNoIHBocmFzZXMyDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjILEAAYgAQYigUYkQIyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESIoYUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAVygAVyqAQExuAEMyAEA-AEC-AEBmAIBoAJ3mAMAkgcDMC4xoAehBbIHAzAuMbgHd8IHAzMtMcgHEoAIAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-modeless

physical books (besides your library near you)
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=English%20Phrases&sts=t&ref_=ds_ac_d_19

or free books (just copy and paste in Google)

site:https://dokumen.pub/ Essential English Phrases
 

Here's an idioms

Fuck it!





















> --
> Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
> I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
> https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
> Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#674221

On 10/4/26 11:11, The Starmaker wrote:

> 
> Fuck it!
> 
>

Yup,

You are controlled by machines called television
sets and radios which you worship as gods.

There is no right or wrong with you.  All the
machines say are good is 'good'.  All the machines
say to be 'evil' is evil.  There is no right or
wrong with you because the machines create all
perception of right or wrong for you.  Nothing
has to correspond with anything true or not at all.

In theory I could pity you.  But perhaps it is
not worth it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674226

On 10/07/2026 03:15 AM, x3 wrote:
> On 10/4/26 11:11, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>>
>> Fuck it!
>>
>>
>
> Yup,
>
> You are controlled by machines called television
> sets and radios which you worship as gods.
>
> There is no right or wrong with you.  All the
> machines say are good is 'good'.  All the machines
> say to be 'evil' is evil.  There is no right or
> wrong with you because the machines create all
> perception of right or wrong for you.  Nothing
> has to correspond with anything true or not at all.
>
> In theory I could pity you.  But perhaps it is
> not worth it.
>
>

Perhaps a bit more generously the constant scanning
is science in experiment itself, since the whole
inconstancy there's been, and they're not necessarily
as immersed as your model of rodents presumes.

Then there are idiots and the invincibly ignorant,
the naive or the narcissist, no difference.


Perhaps a more "open" ecosystem would help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674237 — Re: The proof is in the pudding, or where to get physical dictionaries of idioms?

x3 wrote:
> 
> On 10/4/26 11:11, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> >
> > Fuck it!
> >
> >
> 
> Yup,
> 
> You are controlled by machines called television
> sets and radios which you worship as gods.


"radios"??? wats dat?

> 
> There is no right or wrong with you.  All the
> machines say are good is 'good'.  All the machines
> say to be 'evil' is evil.  There is no right or
> wrong with you because the machines create all
> perception of right or wrong for you.  Nothing
> has to correspond with anything true or not at all.
> 
> In theory I could pity you.  But perhaps it is
> not worth it.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web