Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 March 26

= March 26 =

Like a red thread ?
What is the meaning and/or source of the saying, 'like a red thread'? I can find many examples, but haven't uncovered the essence of the metaphor. Thanks if you can help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.41.211 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


 * A little googling shows that this expression has gotten to be used very vaguely and (to be charitable) allusively. So it may be helpful to convey my unscientific impression that the original & most standard expression is "A runs like a red thread through B."  This means that some salient feature or organizing principle A can be seen as giving unity and order to the mass of facts or examples B.  It is often used rhetorically to expose some hidden or corrupt motive A that explains B.  The first Google result is Goebbels on Bolshevism.  I'd always assumed that the metaphor simply has in mind the striking visibility of the red thread (thus A is the feature embedded in the mess of history that makes you say "aha! I see the logic and sequence!").  But the predominance among the examples of very negative and pernicious "red threads" makes me wonder if there isn't some more interesting history I don't know here.  Wareh 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Googling "Red thread" China or "Red thread" Chinese nets thousands upo thousands of pretty consistent references to an ancient Chinese belief that when a child is born, invisible red threads reach out from her to connect her to all the important people that bind her to life, including those who she is destined to meet but has not yet met. Red is the color of luck in Chinese custon; many children are banded with red thread upon birth as part of this custom.  (I suspect adding "runs like" to the search term nets too much metaphor BASED on that belief, which seems to have stretched the "thread" of interpersonal connection so far that is causes the metaphoric vagueness Wareh finds, but the Chinese belief still seems to be at the origin/source of the saying).  Jfarber 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Invisible and yet red ? That oxymoron deserves silent applause.  The Invisible Pink Unicorn will be pleased. :-) StuRat 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not an oxymoron, but rather figurative usage (or at worst a contradiction in terms). -- Deborahjay 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to our article, an oxymoron "combines two normally contradictory terms", so this would seem to qualify. StuRat 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Jfarber's suggestion, the next question is, how and when did it make such early entry from Chinese into English? Was there a widely read reference to the Chinese belief in the 19th century or before?  A really quick search shows the idiom as least as early as Bodenstedt's 1867 edition of Macbeth ("the word 'bloody' reappears on almost every page, and runs like a red thread through the whole piece").  Not particularly close to the Chinese idea; I guess I'm skeptical.  Wareh 00:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...or it may be nothing more than a fairly straightforward simile taken from the eyecatching nature of a bright-colored thread in a tapestry or other fabric, red (and yellow) being a visually dominant color — the latter fact culled from a local (Hebrew-language, Israeli) field guide to wildflowers. -- Deborahjay 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've come up with an alternative theory. From Goethe's Elective Affinities (1809): "...we cannot find a fitter transition than through a simile which suggested itself to us on contemplating her exquisite pages. There is, we are told, a curious contrivance in the service of the English marine. The ropes in use in the royal navy, from the largest to the smallest, are so twisted that a red thread runs through them from end to end, which cannot be extracted without undoing the whole; and by which the smallest pieces may be recognized as belonging to the crown.  Just so is there drawn through Ottilie's diary, a thread of attachment and affection which connects it all together, and characterizes the whole. And thus these remarks, these observations, these extracted sentences, and whatever else it may contain, were, to the writer, of peculiar meaning."  I'm quite convinced that this Goethean usage is key to our reception of the idiom.  E. T. A. Hoffmann was already referring to it as a famous Goethean idea, and a German collection of famous phrases confirms that der rote Faden is famous and dates to Goethe 1809 (so too German wiktionary).  The earliest Chinese connection I've found is in this mention (1865) and this mention (1868) of a red thread symbolizing matrimonial connection in Chinese (can't find any Chinese ref. pre-1900 in German). (Earlier English usages include Shakespeare criticism of 1863 and this mention of 1852.)  The interesting outstanding question, to me, is whether Goethe had encountered the Chinese marriage custom & was influenced by it, despite the fact that he explicitly cites the English maritime usage as his inspiration. Wareh 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Further: . Wareh 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want a Western, i.e. Judeo-Christian source: In Hebrew there's an expression "like a scarlet thread (חוט השני) [running through, e.g. a woven fabric]" that might be related. In contemporary usage, I've understood that to mean something prominent and visible that's nevertheless intrinsic to the weave. However, my Hebrew-language textile expert (whom I'm coaxing to open a Wikipedia account) tells me this well-known term originated with the biblical story of Rahab the Harlot (Joshua 2:18), "...thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window..." to indicate that her house was to be spared destruction (for having protected Joshua's two spies, in defiance of the order of the king of Jericho). There's a current practice of tying a red thread around one's wrist, popular among Kabbalah enthusiasts, but I don't have particular knowledge of that. -- Deborahjay 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The best answer to this is probably as mundane as an inaccurate translation from German. Both the given examples are from German speakers/writers, Goebbels and Goethe. In German, "roter Faden" (literally red thread) means central or recurrent theme. Hope this helps


 * I feel the last contribution above is the most helpful one. In English it's the "golden thread": the golden thread of English law is the presumption of innocence. In Russian, by the way, it's "krasnaia nit'" (literally red thread). - EAH (Edward Hansen)

I haven't heard this saying, but Ariadne gave Theseus red thread, with which he found his way out of the Labyrinth after killing the Minotaur.

A of B's
I've often wondered, is it grammatically correct to use the preposition of and the possessive marker 's in the form A of B's, for example that hat of John's? Thanks.--Domitius 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds perfectly OK to me. --Richardrj talkemail 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "That hat of Johns" sounds more like a head covering shared by several men who support poor women living in undesirable circumstances, in exchange for certain considerations. :-) StuRat 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, it's a double possessive, but it's well established in idiom, e.g. "A friend of mine", not "A friend of me". JackofOz 01:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, a friend of me sounds wrong, you have to use mine here. But when is this double possessive required, and when is it optional, or wrong? The disappearance of Ambrose Bierce's?? A collar of my dog's?? The dress of a child's?? --Lambiam Talk  06:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure Possessive adjective will answer the question, but it's a start. Confusingly, it quotes the example "a book of mine", yet mine is a possessive pronoun, not a possessive adjective.  I think it might have to do with definiteness - you could say A friend of Ambrose Bierce's because friend is a concrete noun, whereas you wouldn't say The disappearance of Ambrose Bierce's because disappearance is an abstract noun.  I could be completely on the wrong track, though.  JackofOz 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about definiteness too, except that the first example in this thread, That hat of John's, is definite. —Angr 06:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're in agreement. Maybe re-read my post.  JackofOz 06:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to work only when it's actually a possessive, rather than where the possessee/head is a nominalisation, as in The disappearance of Ambrose Bierce's: this would only work if disappearance were something that Ambrose could own. I think it must stem from when 's was a genitive case marker. It also only seems to work when there's not a more natural way of saying it; e.g. a child's dress, one of my dog's collars. But then why is the latter more natural, but not one of my friends more natural than a friend of mine? Focus possibly? With that hat of John's there's no good alternative construction, as against the hat of John's which is better expressed by John's hat, as 's possessives generally signal definiteness anyway. Drmaik 07:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Try this.--Estrellador* 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Double possessive" was the first thing I looked for in Wikipedia, and was rather surprised when we had no article about this construction. JackofOz 22:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Talking
Talk with you or Talk to you; which is grammatically/linguistically correct ? 125.23.36.83 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are correct, but they mean two different things. Note the prepositions. -- Deborahjay 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, talking "with" someone implies a two-way conversation, while talking "to" someone implies a one-way conversation. However, people tend to use the terms interchangeably.  StuRat 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See American and British English differences. "talk with you" is the default (unmarked) form in the U.S., "talk to you" is in the UK.  The shade of meaning between "with" and "to" differs as StuRat suggests in either region. jnestorius(talk) 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As an Englishman, I find 'talk with' sounds unnatural - I doubt I would use it for anything. I would use 'to' by default and 'talk at' for a deeply one-sided conversation. Algebraist 00:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As an American-educated speaker of English, I would only say "talk to" in referring to a speech event initiated by one person; "talk at" doesn't indicate a mutual conversation or discussion as would be the case in "talk with." It's quite likely there's a sociocultural element at play here, generated by some inherent differences between the US and UK. (NB: Yet another example of "two peoples divided by their common language" or whatever that apocryphal [?] quotation is...!) -- Deborahjay 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, "talk at" sounds unnatural in American English, only being occasionally used to mean not only a one-sided conversation, but with an element of contempt, as in "I don't care what you have to say, your opinion is worthless". StuRat 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In Australia too, "talk to" is the standard phrase in everyday conversation. To "talk with" someone implies some sort of bargaining or negotiation.  "Talk at", as Stu says, sounds unnatural and would only be used facetiously (did Suzi talk to you?  Talked AT me more like!). FiggyBee 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)