The odd origins of some familiar idioms

When the idiom “small potatoes” first appeared in 1836, its meaning was clear. Today, some children haven’t even heard it before.

Staff

At the end of May, President Donald Trump tweeted that he knew about a scandal that would make Watergate “LOOK LIKE SMALL POTATOES!” When my teenage children saw it, they were confused. They thought “potatoes” was some sort of autocorrect.  

According to a totally scientific survey of my friends’ children, zero out of 11 kids have heard small potatoes, and, without context, cannot guess that it means “insignificant or unimportant.” 

Today, we love small potatoes. At my local supermarket, little fingerlings cost around four times as much per pound as larger russets. If you didn’t already know that small potatoes was disparaging, you wouldn’t be able to figure it out. When the idiom first appeared in 1836, however, its meaning was clear. Potatoes were a staple food, keeping millions of people from starvation, and it was obvious that bigger was better.  

English has many other idioms that have likewise lost their original context. To me, a chip on one’s shoulder is a prime example. I knew that the idiom described “a sense of inferiority characterized by a quickness to take offence,” as Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang puts it. But before I did some research, I had no idea what kind of “chip” is referred to here, or what it would be doing on anyone’s shoulder.

It turns out that in 19th-century America, a person who wanted to start a fight would put a chip of wood on his shoulder and challenge others to knock it off. Such scenes do occur in 19th-century fiction. In an 1871 novel for example, one schoolboy goads another: “Lon looked around till he found a small chip, which he placed on his shoulder. … ‘You don’t dare to knock that chip off my shoulder!’ he said tauntingly.” With this context, it’s easy to see how the idiom acquired its meaning.   

To get a person’s goat – to annoy or upset someone – has an even more fantastical-sounding origin. Goats are often kept with high-strung horses to calm them down. According to longtime trainer Richard Mandella, “They can really help a nervous horse; make a night-and-day difference.” This is well attested, but now the story gets a bit dodgier – an unscrupulous competitor might steal a horse’s goat before a race, making it too upset to run well. 

Other etymologists link the idiom instead to the U.S. Navy. The mascot of the Naval Academy is a goat, an animal often brought aboard ships. In a 1908 collection of naval terms, “got his goat” appears as slang for a successful prank, which might be taken as “a friendly josh” or make its “victim” genuinely angry. 

Some idioms are obvious: A needle in a haystack needs no explanation. Next week, we’ll take a look at a few more of the mysterious ones.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.