Commonly misused quotes

by Steve Gruenwald

A pet peeve of mine is the common syndrome of people using famous expressions wrongly. I am not referring to people simply getting the words of a quote slightly wrong, but using the phrase without really understanding its meaning (or at least the author's original meaning) – usually because they do not know, or have not thought about, exactly what some of the words themselves mean. Often this is perfectly harmless, in that the words they use are reasonably close to what they mean to convey, but it bothers me in so far as the finer turns of phrase in our literary and linguistic history are being slowly lost or, worse, cheapened.

Here's a short collection of examples. Not surprisingly, many are from Shakespeare, our favorite misquoted author. (The Bible, the other greatest source of quotes, is not a major source of these errors, because it is less often quoted by those who read it carelessly – or only see the movie version.) Examples are given roughly in chronological order, by earliest known source.

Expression	Explanation
The exception proves the rule.	Misused/misunderstood: as a general statement of logic that a rule is proven true if it has an exception. Explanation: This obviously makes no sense. The original context was a legal one, from Roman law of ca. 50 BC: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis; or exceptio probat regulam de rebus non exceptis: "the [existence of an] exception proves the [existence of a] rule in the cases [or things] that are not excepted." This remains a (sometimes) valid principle of legal interpretation today; for instance, if a law or regulation provides that a certain act is permitted (or required) when a given condition is true, it may imply that it is not permitted (or required) when that condition isn't true.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.	Misused/misunderstood: as implying "don't trust people (or a specific group of people) if they try to give you gifts," i.e., that it is the act of giving gifts itself that should make you suspicious. Explanation: The original is spoken in Virgil's Aeneid (ca. 19 BC), Book II: "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes," "I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts." (The word "et" in "et dona ferentes" was acceptable poetic shorthand for "etiam," a compound of et and iam meaning "even" or "even though.") This was spoken by the seer Laocoön of Troy, regarding the Trojan Horse apparently left behind as an offering by the enemy Greek army. The point is not "I don't trust the Greeks because they are bringing gifts," but rather "I don't trust the Greeks because they are the enemy, even if they seem to be making a friendly gesture." Incidentally, Laocoön is known by the famous statue in which he is shown (with his two sons) struggling with serpents, sent by Apollo to strangle him – because he tried to warn the Trojans as described above. Cassandra also issued a warning, but she had been cursed by Apollo to prophesy the truth but never be believed.
Money is the root of all evil.	Misused: as quoted here (incompletely) Explanation: The original (in the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, 6:10) is "the love of money is the root of all evil." The difference is obvious.
the powers that be	Not badly misused, but under-appreciated Explanation: The rest of the line is "are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1) People referring to "the powers that be" rarely intend to show such respect.
devil's advocate	Not badly misused, but under-appreciated. Explanation: In Roman Catholic beatification proceedings, the advocatus diaboli is the church official assigned to argue against declaring the individual a saint, specifically so as to require a rigorous argument in favor. A Devil's Advocate is not someone who is merely contrary but who assists in the development of a healthy and productive debate.
get off scot free	Misused: meaning "completely free" or "in the clear" Explanation: The Scot was a Scandinavian social welfare tax, probably imported by the Danes and adopted in England not later than the 13th century. (It has nothing to do with Scotland, whose name is first found as Scotia in Latin.) Thus to "get off scot free" was to avoid paying taxes.
You can't have your cake and it eat too.	Often not understood Explanation: Widely understood (correctly) to mean "you can't have it both ways"; but often not quite understood why it means that. The word order is a bit confusing, but the simple meaning is that if you eat your cake, then you will no longer have it. The earliest known usage is in dramatist John Heywood's "A dialogue Containing the Number in Effect of All the Proverbs in the English Tongue," compiled in 1546. At that time the phrasing was "Would you both eat your cake, and have your cake?" (Modern spelling used here.)
his just desserts	Misused/misunderstood: as spelled here, and related to the last course at dinner Explanation: The correct phrase is "his just deserts." "Desert" (with the accent on the second syllable) is an obsolete past participle of "deserve"; the phrase means "the things that he justly deserves." "Dessert" is an unrelated word, from French des (un-) + sert (served). (The verb "desservir" means "to clear the table.") "Desert" meaning "a deserted place" (with the accent on the first syllable) is unrelated to both. Upon a pillory – that al may see, A just desert for such impiety. A Warning for Faire Women, anon., ca. 1598.
star-crossed lovers	Misused/misunderstood: as describing lovers who are linked to each other ("crossed") in some mysterious way, as by the stars Explanation: From Romeo and Juliet, Prologue. The two lovers are opposed ("crossed") by the stars, which rule their fates; their love cannot succeed because the stars are against them.
Wherefore art thou, Romeo?	Badly misused/misunderstood: punctuated as given here, and understood to mean "Where are you, Romeo?" Explanation: From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene ii. The original reads "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" with no comma; of course "wherefore" means "why." Juliet Capulet knows exactly where Romeo is; she is looking at him. She is rhetorically asking why he is Romeo, i.e., why she has fallen in love with one of the Montague family, with whom the Capulets are feuding. The whole speech is: O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love And I'll no longer be a Capulet. (– and after Romeo speaks:) 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
The fault, dear Brutus, in not in our stars	Misunderstood: as rejecting the influence of astrology Explanation: From Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act I, scene ii. Cassius is goading on Brutus to resentment of Caesar, with this speech: Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men Walk under his huge legs and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable graves. Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings. Cassius is not saying that the stars do not have influence, but (with the last line) that a real man owes it to himself to resist domination by others, even by the stars.
Et tu, Brute?	Slightly misunderstood: as meaning "and you, Brutus?" Explanation: From Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act III, scene i, when Caesar's known critics and enemies and then even his supporter Brutus stab him; "even you, Brutus?" (See comment on et and etiam, in entry for "beware of Greeks bearing gifts.")
let slip the dogs of war	Slightly misused/misunderstood: as referring figuratively to attack dogs, as a symbol of war Explanation: From Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act III, scene i; Antony foreseeing civil war. "Dogs of war" was Shakespearean slang for common foot-soldiers; in context this is akin to saying he will "call out the troops." (However, as a double entendre, "let slip" did refer to letting animals off a leash.)
give short shrift	Badly misused/misunderstood: meaning to pay little attention, give lip-service Explanation: To shrive is to give absolution, as a Catholic priest does after hearing confession and penance, and especially final absolution before death. Shrift is the noun form, the giving or receiving of absolution. In the middle ages and Renaissance, when a criminal was convicted he might go straight to execution and have only a limited time to confess and receive absolution. In Shakespeare's Richard III, Act III, scene iv, Sir Richard Ratcliff tells the condemned Lord Hastings: Dispatch, my lord; the duke would be at dinner: Make a short shrift; he longs to see your head. Thus the more correct meaning is to deprive someone of a basic consideration rather than to pay little attention.
to the manor born	Misused: as spelled here Explanation: The original line (Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act I, scene iv) is "though I am native here / And to the manner born," meaning "though I was born and raised here, and this is a kind of behavior I should be used to." It has nothing to do with being born on a manor, literally or figuratively.
more honoured in the breach [than in the observance]	Misused/misunderstood: meaning "people really violate this custom more often than they follow it" Explanation: The phrase "it is a custom more honoured in the breach than in the observance" directly follows the one above ("to the manner born") in Hamlet, Act I, scene iv, and refers to his uncle's custom of drunken parties. Hamlet has been away at school and has seen the customs of other countries, and on returning sees that it is more respectable – not more usual – to breach his uncle's custom than it is to follow it.
[the engineer] hoist by his own petard	Misunderstood: as originally meaning the engineer is lifted on his own derrick or scaffold or something of the sort Explanation: From Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene iv. A petard (petar in the original) was a small bomb, used for breaching walls. One "hoist" by a petar was thrown in the air by the explosion.
like the dickens what the dickens	Not significantly misused but under-appreciated Explanation: Means "like the Devil." "Dickens" was a euphemism in Renaissance England for the Devil (along with "the Deuce"), used to avoid speaking blasphemously; used in Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor and elsewhere, long before Charles Dickens.
at one fell swoop	Misused: meaning anything that happens suddenly or "all at once" Explanation: From Shakespeare's Macbeth, Act IV, scene iii. Macduff has just received the word that his entire family has been slaughtered in a ruthless attack by Macbeth. The full tragic speech is: All my pretty ones? Did you say all? O hell-kite! All? What! All my pretty chickens and their dam At one fell swoop? "Fell" means "terrible" or "deadly"; a "swoop" (also "stoop") is the attack dive of a hawk or falcon. Macduff, grief-stricken and enraged, is referring to Macbeth as a bird of prey from Hell. Thus the phrase properly refers only to a ruthless (as well as sudden) act of violence.
sound and fury	Misused (by inference): to simply describe a lot of excitement, especially when in a favorable way; for instance, in a book review describing an adventure novel as having "plenty of sound and fury," indicating that it will be an exciting read. Explanation: This use is not wrong but badly misses the point. The well-known original is from Shakespeare's Macbeth, Act V, scene v, Macbeth's soliloquy on his wife's death: Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. It is hardly a compliment to an author to say his book is "a tale told by an idiot" and "signifying nothing." (See www.soundandfuryproductions.com.) (But this one is also used correctly, surprisingly often – probably because so many students have had to memorize the speech.)
Lead on, Macduff	Misused: as misquoted here, and implying "lead, and I'll follow." Explanation: From Shakespeare's Macbeth, Act V, scene viii. Macbeth and Macduff are fighting. The actual line is: Yet I will try the last: before my body I throw my warlike shield; lay on, Macduff, And damn'd be him that first cries "Hold, enough!" "Lay on" here means, more or less, "give me your best shot." It is a challenge to a fight to the death, not to "lead."
I wouldn't give him the time of day.	Misunderstood: meaning "I wouldn't tell him what time it is" Explanation: To give (or pass) the time of day has two well-established meanings that appear to have long been essentially interchangeable: (a) to spend time with, i.e. to pass the time that is available in the day; or (b) to exchange greetings or salutations (see Oxford English Dictionary, Time, 28b), and especially the traditional greetings that are based on the time of day, such as "good morning," "good evening," etc. (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1913). It is often incorrectly assumed to be a recent American usage; but see: The good time of day to you, sir. - Shakespeare, Timon of Athens, Act III, Scene vi She did disdain my child, and stood between Her and her fortunes: none would look on her, But cast their gazes on Marina's face; Whilst ours was blurted at and held a malkin Not worth the time of day. - Shakespeare, Pericles, Prince of Tyre, Act IV, scene iii But meet him now, and, be it in the morn, When every one will give the time of day - Shakespeare, Second part of King Henry the Sixth, Act III, Scene i In Radnorshire a clergyman told me the other day that 'there was not one in the parish who would not give him the time of day'. He meant, say 'How do' or 'A fine day, Sir'. Letter to Editor, 1864, as quoted in Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, Time, 28b. Thus the correct meaning of "I wouldn't give him the time of day" appears to be closest to "I wouldn't do him the courtesy of greeting or speaking to him if we passed each other in the street."
a sea-change	Misused: meaning any drastic or fundamental change Explanation: From Shakespeare's The Tempest, Act I, scene ii, in the speech beginning "full fathom five thy father lies": Nothing of him that doth fade But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange. The focus is on the particular kind of change that is caused by the sea, and on the sea as a force having the power to transform.
the quick and the dead	Misused: referring to quickness, i.e., speed, and often implying that those who are not quick enough in reacting to danger wind up dead. Explanation: "Quick" means "alive"; compare "quickening" as describing the first noticeable signs of life in a developing fetus. The misuse is particularly egregious in view of the most famous use of the phrase: "From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." – Apostles' Creed, from the Book of Common Prayer (1662). (Modern versions usually say "the living and the dead.")
the light fantastic	Misused: as a reference to various kinds of light, esp. laser light. Explanation: The known origin is a couplet in John Milton's poem L'Allegro (1631), "Come, and trip it, as you go, / On the light fantastic toe." This is an invitation to dance, poetically describing the movement as "tripping" but on "fantastic" (i.e. reminiscent of fantasy) steps of the feet. The word "light" is an adjective, not a noun. Assuming it was original to Milton, this saying was well-understood from 1631 until the mid-20th century at least, with or without the final noun "toe" (or sometimes "step"). It was popular slang by the late 19th century at the latest, when (1894) the song "The Sidewalks of New York" ended with "tripped the light fantastic / On the sidewalks of New York." The phrase still is understood by those interested in dance, and often seen in advertising and reviews of dance music. Some time in the last 20-30 years, I believe, a magazine used the title "the light fantastic" for an article about lasers, and since then (as far as I can tell) many people have assumed this is the correct usage, meaning "the amazing light" rather than describing something that is light (or weightless) and has characteristics of fantasy.
I think, therefore I am.	Misunderstood: as a statement of moral philosophy, i.e., "I exist to think" or "my life is important to the extent that I think." Explanation: This is an important statement of pure logic in René Descartes' Discourse on Method (1637). Confronted with the concept that one can logically doubt everything, even one's own existence, Descartes notes that "there is a contradiction in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks"; if "I" think, then "I" must exist; thus there is a basis for constructive reasoning starting from the proposition that thought implies existence.
Music hath charms to soothe the savage beast.	Misused: as quoted Explanation: The original is "Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast, / To soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak," from The Mourning Bride by William Congreve (1697). The meaning is similar, but it is not a statement about lower animals.
All men have their price.	Misunderstood: as a general statement about humanity Explanation: Of course the saying can reasonably be used in this way, but the original was "all those men have their price." It was a remark by Sir Robert Walpole, ca. 1740, about his particular political opponents, who (in his view) were only pretending to act from purely patriotic motives.
cruel and unusual punishment	Slightly but importantly misunderstood: as referring to punishments that are carried out infrequently or only in some cases Explanation: From the United States Constitution, Amendment VIII. The prohibition on "cruel" punishments is easily understood, but the "unusual" part is a bit misleading. In the speech of 1789, "unusual" had the same meaning as today but also a secondary one: what was "usual" was "the common use [or usage]," what people were used to, i.e., traditional; "unusual" described departures from traditional practices. Thus the prohibition was on imposing novel punishments, ones that differed significantly from the time-honored standards of society for appropriate legal punishment. A punishment that is very rarely imposed might still be "usual" in the relevant sense that society has long accepted it.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.	Misunderstood: as a condemnation of all consistency Explanation: From Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Self-Reliance, 1841. The full quote is: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." His key complaint is against consistency when taken to excess, so that it inhibits the individual from speaking his mind. The passage begins: "The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them."
God is dead.	Misunderstood: as a literal statement that God, if He once existed, has died. Explanation: Generally correctly attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche, in Also sprach Zarathustra and elsewhere; but his full meaning is not an expression of atheism, but more nearly one of regret for the usual ramifications of atheism. He rants (originally in The Gay Science, 1882) that God is dead in effect, in so far as humans no longer recognize the moral implications of God, and have no substitute source of moral values. (Thus the modern quip "God is dead – Nietzsche / Nietzsche is dead – God" makes no sense, since neither Nietzsche nor anyone else set him up as a competitor with God in the morality or ultimate truth business.)
quantum leap	Misused and unappreciated: referring to any large or dramatic movement or change Explanation: In quantum physics, the expression describes a jump of a subatomic particle (generally an electron) from one energy state to another, a shift that can only occur in steps equal to fixed, indivisible quanta or units of energy, and never gradually. There is no particular application of this principle except at the subatomic level. Thus a "quantum leap" is sudden and must be an integral amount, skipping over any intervening gradations. In its technically correct use it is also the smallest possible leap for the particle.
Everything is relative.	Misuse: as a description of Einstein's theory of relativity, while stating as a philosophical proposition that nothing has meaning except in relation to the observer Explanation: Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity actually distinguished between (a) measures that have meaning only with reference to the motion in space and time (the frame of reference) of the observer, such as the measurement of velocity of a car driving past when the observer is on a moving train; and (b) other measures that do not have this relationship with the observer. The most striking point was that at least one measure, the speed of light, is unlike others in that it is not relative to the velocity of the observer. The worst misuse of the expression is as having a bearing on moral values; Einstein meant nothing of the sort.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle	Misuse: correctly attributed to Werner Heisenberg but used vaguely, often as a comment that something or other – or things in general – can't be known for certain. Explanation: There is nothing vague about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and it only applies to quantum physics. Simply (perhaps simplistically) stated, it says that there are measurements which are linked to each other in such a way that there is a bottom limit to the combined accuracy with which they can be measured – i.e., that nearing that limit, if one can be measured with greater accuracy, the accuracy of measure of the other must decrease correspondingly. The lower limit is represented by Planck's "reduced" constant, or Planck's constant divided by 2p, which is about 1.054 x 10^-34 Joule-seconds – a very small number indeed. The best-known example is that below a certain limit, the position and the momentum of a particle cannot both be measured with arbitrarily great accuracy at one time; so that if one is theoretically measured with 100% accuracy, the other can't be. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle therefore has no meaningful application to anything in the visible world!
"Morning Becomes Electra"	Misspelling and misconception of the title Explanation: "Mourning* Becomes Electra"* is the correct title of the series of three plays by Eugene O'Neill (1931). In them O'Neill updates the Oresteia trilogy by Aeschylus, the story of Orestes and Electra, the children of Agamemnon, telling the story using US Civil War-era characters. In this context, "Mourning" refers to Electra's display of grief for her father, or mourning clothes; and "becomes" means "makes beautiful" (related to Latin comes and English comely). The title could be loosely paraphrased as "Electra is more attractive in grief and black clothes."