Re: Morris explanation
Posted by The Silver Surfer on January 21, 2000
In Reply to: Re: Morris explanation posted
by Joe Pessell on January 20, 2000
: : : : : It's clear that "the pot calling the kettle black" refers
to criticism that could equally apply to the critic. But why is
"black" a criticism in this phrase? I am specifically wondering
if this is one of those nasty ethnic slurs that is left over from
a time when such things were more commonly spoken, or if some other
interpretation might apply. Any ideas or information? Please send
an e-mail. Thanks. : : : : POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK - The "Morris Dictionary of
Word and Phrase Origins" by William and Mary Morris has more detail
about this phrase than other reference books. (Note: iron pots and
kettles are already black, even when new.) Judge for yourself whether
the phrase has racial connotations. I guess that issue hinges on
whether the color black being associated with "evil" has a connection
to racial prejudice towards dark-skinned people: : : : : "There are two slightly varying interpretations of this
phrase, which is used figuratively to apply to persons. One theory
is that such action is ridiculous because they are both black, presumably
from standing for years on a wood-burning stove or in a fireplace.
So the pot as well as the kettle is black (evil) and neither one
is better than the other. This supports the explanation of the phrase
as given in 'Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable': 'Said of
one accusing another of faults similar to those committed by himself.' : : : : The other theory is that the pot was black but the kettle
polished copper and the pot, seeing its own blackness reflected
in the shiny surface of the kettle, maintained that the kettle,
not it, was actually black. In any event, it seems that the best,
if slangy, retort by the kettle may have been: 'Look who's talking!' : : : : Usually the source of the phrase is given as Cervantes'
'Don Quixote' and simply as 'The pot calls the kettle black,' but
another version of Don Quixote comes out as: 'Said the pot to the
kettle, get away black-face!' Henry Fielding, eighteenth century
writer, reverses the roles in 'Covent Garden Tragedy': 'Dares thus
the kettle to rebuke our sin!/Dares thus the kettle say the pot
is black!' Even Shakespeare used the idea in 'Troilus and Cressida':
'The raven chides blackness.'" : : : To use a technical term, I fear you're guilty of 'Churning'.
And another point, can you really be posting the transcript of a
conversation between a copper kettle and a pot and expecting to
be considered serious. Methinks you're still influenced by overindulgence
in the the kind of festive cheer that comes from bottles marked
"100% Proof" - and that's the kindest explanation I've got. : : You can't use the phrase "100% Proof" to describe liquor. Proof
is a measure of relative alcohol content and is equal to 1/2% per
proof. Thus, 100% alcohol is 200 proof, just as 100 proof is 40%
alcohol (by volume). "100% Proof" is therefore nonsensical.
: excuse me: 100 proof is 50%, not 40%... I can see you searched hard to find another hook to hang a 'put
down' on. Perhaps what you should have pointed out was that the
% symbol could have legitimately been replaced by the 'degree' symbol.
The Proof system is not international and the British - who devised
a scheme to define the standard - defined 100 degree proof a couple
of centuries ago as that mixture of alcohol and water which would
allow Naval Gunpowder to ignite. The mixture was found to be 40%
alcohol. More sophisticated, and less explosive, tests are now used
but I'm sure there is a British office of State which retains responsibility
for the gunpowder test. I have found, to my cost, that a little learning is a dangerous
thing and to join a crowd baying for the blood of a victim you don't
even know is a shameful thing.
|