Posted by R. Berg on October 16, 2001
In Reply to: R.Berg - Please post again posted by Paul Guthrie on October 15, 2001
: Apparently the server disk drive was full and so your message did not get saved.
Here's a similar one:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), both senses of "wood"--a collection of trees growing together (but smaller than a forest, it says) and the substance--are very old. The OED's earliest quotations for both words are dated in the ninth century. But the OED gives only one meaning for "not to see the wood for the trees": "to lose the whole in the multitude of details."
"Plenty (abundance) is no dainty (luxury, sought-after item, source
of pleasure); you don't appreciate your comfort." In modern terms,
wealth doesn't make you happy, or an abundance of something doesn't
produce joy. The OED has some variant proverbs that point to a related
idea: familiarity breeds contempt.
"Experience wole weel schewe that plente is no deinte, and ouermyche homelines with a thing gendrith dispising toward the same thing" (c. 1449). [Ouermyche = overmuch. Homelines = homeliness = familiarity.]
"Plente generis contemptioun" .
"Plentie is no deintie, as the common saieyng is" .
"But plentie, as the manner is, soone caused lothing" .