OK, looks like it’s time for me to school some fools who think that colloquial idioms are universal law and not just catchy sayings.
“Curiosity killed the cat (but satisfaction brought it back.)”
This phrase in its popular abbreviated form is often used to mean that sticking one’s nose in other people’s business can have harmful consequences, but can also be a warning about how one goes about satisfying their curiosity; for example, if you’re curious as to whether the stove is hot, you should not simply place your entire hand on the burner. The addendum which the OP claims is part of “the full phrase” appears to mean that it’s okay to be curious about anything and everything in any way so long as that curiosity is sated in the end. Not only does this bear a striking resemblance to “the ends justify the means,” a particularly malignant idiom, the original phrase warned of “care” (meaning something like worry) instead of curiosity, and that bit about satisfaction appears to be an even more recent change. I recommend this article for some history: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/curiosity-killed-the-cat.html
As something of a side note, I would like to point out OP’s use of the phrase “curious little baby” as an archetype for acceptable behavior, as curious little babies are the reason so many things are labeled with some variation of “Choking Hazard: Small Parts. Keep away from small children.” If anything, curious little babies are a prime example of how curiosity is at least as dangerous as one’s method of investigation.
“Blood is thicker than water” vs. “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.”
While this phrase’s abbreviated form is often cited when claiming that familial ties are more important than friendly and romantic ones, it’s “full” form is sometimes used to justify the reverse claim. However, in its earliest printed form in a German manuscript (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water#History) it translates to “I also hear it said, kin-blood is not spoiled by water.” While some claim it actually means that blood covenants are stronger than familial relations, the oldest form of the phrase does not state so literally.
“Jack of all trades, master of none, / though oftentimes better than a master of one.”
This is an extension of an extension of an anglicized “Johannes Factotum,” an Elizabethan phrase which has since been modernized to “Jack of all trades.” The addition of “master of none” is a product of the negative connotation that even “Johannes Factotum” carried in its day. The rhyming couplet claimed to be the true origin of “Jack of all trades” appears to be the latest variation on the original, and is yet another example of how modern authors and the use of irony can turn a phrase against itself. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_none)
“Great minds think alike (but fools seldom differ.)”
To quote Wiktionary, “[the] ‘Fools seldom differ’ part is found in British English only.” (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/great_minds_think_alike) As such, both versions appear to have valid claim to being the “real” one. However, it is worth noting that “fools seldom differ” is not commonly used as a sage warning against conformity, but rather as a comic dismissal of a perceived foolish idea. (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/295406/what-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-great-minds-think-alike)
“Birds of a feather flock together (until the cat comes”
The supposedly abbreviated version of this idiom has old English roots, and possibly dates back to even Plato’s “The Republic.” (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/birds_of_a_feather_flock_together) On the other hand, googling the “real” version only leads to unsourced blog post after unsourced blog post (and even another reblog by @gayspacejew of this very post debunking it in the same way I am now. I would reblog from that, but mobile’s a piece of shit. http://gayspacejew.tumblr.com/post/158302076653/sunderlorn-its-kk-yo-alwayswillgraham).
“The early bird catches the worm (but the second mouse gets the cheese).”
It should come as no surprise by this point that once again, the second half isn’t actually part of the original phrase. “The early bird catcheth the worm” is straight out of a 17th century collection of English proverbs by John Ray, and makes no mention of any mice. (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/127000.html). While I have personally heard this particular witty retort, it’s just that; a modern response to classic wisdom.
Also, I would like to point out that “the second mouse gets the cheese” encouraging caution flies in the face (the uwu face, specifically) of the OP’s ideas of infantile curiosity.
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.”
It turns out that while this is actually a direct quotation of Carl Schurz, a Union General in the Civil War, it is actually a response to the not-actually-abbreviated “My country right or wrong.”
“‘The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.’
• Remarks in the Senate (29 February 1872) He was here responding to the famous slogan derived from a statement of Stephen Decatur: ‘Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.’” (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz)
TL;DR: Every single one of these supposed “true versions” is wrong, but it doesn’t matter because none of them are gospel truth either way; you can believe in whatever meaning you want to believe in if it works for you. Just take proverbial wisdom and other such quotations with a grain of salt.
areudirty
2087
theartofmadeline
yousharknotpass
izzy806
prguitarman
amandla
