Timeline for "like a duck takes to water" vs "like a fish takes to water"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2014 at 18:44 | vote | accept | Misti | ||
| Oct 2, 2014 at 11:44 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @Janus: I should have added a smiley! :) Yes, I was deliberately mixing my metaphors to reflect what Blessed Geek calls "compounded malapropism" in the original. Without detailed knowledge of the context, we can't know for sure if it's deliberate or not, but it certainly sounds like a non-native speaker "error" to me. | |
| Oct 2, 2014 at 7:55 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @Fumble Interesting. I don't know if this was the point of your phrasing/link, but I've only ever heard “like a fish needs a bicycle”. More mixing up of ducks and fishes. Also, “like a fish without a bicycle”. | |
| Oct 2, 2014 at 0:43 | comment | added | Patrick M | Said the fish to the duck: “Ah you think water is your ally? You merely adopted the wet. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the air until I was already a smolt, by then it was nothing to me but suffocating!” | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 23:24 | answer | added | Sven Yargs | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 19:42 | comment | added | Robusto | @JohnLawler: I disagree that it is "not quite right." The writer is presumably inverting (or otherwise altering) the trope, which is certainly fair game. He means to disturb your ear, which is why you find it odd. | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 19:42 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 2, 2014 at 22:50 | |||||
| Oct 1, 2014 at 19:38 | comment | added | Marthaª | @TRiG: I disagree. In this case, the particular source of the quote is totally irrelevant, and linking to it could be seen as impolite: it would be the internet equivalent of pointing and laughing. | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 19:22 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | I think ELU needs this question like a duck needs a bicycle. | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 19:05 | comment | added | Blessed Geek | I think the phrase you read is a compounded malapropism of Like fish out of water and Like duck takes to water. If you have the opportunity, you should write to the editorial contact of the article to point out their misconception. | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:44 | answer | added | anongoodnurse | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:41 | comment | added | TRiG | Please don't quote articles without saying what you're quoting. | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:41 | answer | added | user66974 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:40 | history | edited | TRiG | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body; edited title
|
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:37 | answer | added | weakphoneme | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:29 | history | edited | Misti | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:28 | comment | added | John Lawler |
It's a valid usage, but it's out of tune; it sounds like it was composed by a non-native English speaker. Fish don't take to water, any more than humans take to air. Take to X is an idiom that means 'adapt to a new X environment'. Fish live in water by definition; nothing new.
|
|
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:26 | answer | added | Tim | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 1, 2014 at 18:23 | history | asked | Misti | CC BY-SA 3.0 |