Timeline for What does "... which is somewhat long in tooth" mean, and what is the source of the phrase?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 27, 2015 at 21:39 | comment | added | Avon | Good point! All the Persons are female too. Of course it's a very small sample, far too small to draw inferences from, but I will: it would undermine a Person origin if its not being used at that time to describe men. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 21:30 | comment | added | Sven Yargs | I would amend your list slightly to read as follows: 1836-Horse; 1841-Person-as-Horse; 1841-Person; 1845-Horse; 1846-Horse; 1852-Person. Descriptions of a person-as-person rarely take special note of the subject's "paces" and "fetlock-joints." | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 21:20 | comment | added | Avon | Indeed but: 1836-Horse; 1841-Person; 1841-Person; 1845-Horse; 1846-Horse; 1852-Person. Nevertheless, that it should be used so commonly for horses and that there is a sound logic to it leaves me in no doubt from whence it came. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 21:09 | comment | added | Sven Yargs | @Avon: Yep—and as you can see from the Google Books examples I've added to my answer, the earliest matches have a very horsey aspect. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 21:08 | history | edited | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a section on Google Books matches for "long in the tooth."
|
| Jun 27, 2015 at 20:35 | comment | added | Avon | Interesting. So there does seem to be a weight of consensus behind the phrase initially referring to horses. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 19:51 | history | answered | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |