Some sarcastic comment on my use of the phrase (the seven-year itch) in a context has prompted me to post this entry. Although many of the users may know what it means, I’m of the humble view that when I see a word or an expression or an idiom I do not know, I have no right to say: I wonder if anyone (or anyone else?) understands it. It is tantamount to a challenge to the world! Let me, however, make what I meant by ‘the seven-year itch’ clear. Here it goes:
The term seven-year itch originated in North America. In his book Walden, Henry Thoreau uses the phrase ‘the seven-year itch’. What Thoreu had in mind was an infection by a mite that lays its eggs in burrows under the skin. Its medical name is scabies and comes from Latin ‘scabere’ meaning to scratch. Because it was so hard to get rid of, a story grew up in North America that those who got the itch were stuck with it for the next seven years. The phrase was later reinterpreted to mean that it would recur after seven years, or would reappear every year for seven years. The term now refers to something or someone who is persistently irritating or a continual nuisance. __ Source: English Blues by Dr Albert P’Rayan.
I don’t see why you needed to start a new thread. I would have explained all this in the original one, and that would have saved me searching for it so that I could ascertain that even given the meaning attributed by your source, your comment only partially makes any sense to me and it’s clear that anyone searching for the idiom would certainly not have understood it.
Because of the above, I now understand that you are once again resorting to needless, biased personal insult in considering me to the irritation or nuisance, though frankly that is your problem, and not mine. Evidently you don’t like being told that you have something wrong. Your post above is clear evidence of that! But I still fail to see how could you be ‘infected’ into becoming an irritation or nuisance.
[i]Edit 5 minutes later:
Oh, I just worked out why you had to start a new thread! You used your special little acronym of yours, so were unable to continue it there without being seen to not follow it.
You haven’t ‘stopped there’ though - you’ve just moved it here and spread it around a little.
Still, perhaps it will be worthwhile for anyone looking specifically for the idiom.[/i]
Yes, you did not understand it. That doesn’t apply to others. You are much behind the time. Please note the word ‘now’ in the quote. It is the modern meaning of which you seem to be unaware. I have as much right to rely on my own source as you have on yours. Now, it is for you to keep justifying yourself or leave it for ever. I have only clarified what I mean by an expression that I happened to use. When I do not mention your name, why do you want to own it up? Just forget about it. It was meant for others who might be interested, not directed against you, in which case I would have posted it there itself.
Just how difficult is it to understand the expression ‘I wondered if anyone else would’.
You obviously don’t have a clue.
I am the person who has provided the modern meaning, and given a variety of sources.
How preposterous it is of you to keep maintaining that you are in the right. For goodness sake, have some dignity and accept that you were mistaken.
For forum users’ sake, have some dignity and accept that you are mistaken. Know that the expression is used FIGURATIVELY in modern English. I hold that unless it is true, correct and authentic, it will not be sourced. If you look ‘into’ the meaning, you will realize that it is logically acceptable. Figurative use of an expression is an art. It’s aesthetic in nature. It needs a free mind to appreciate and enjoy the meaning. When I say he is a parasite, is he really/literally a parasite? I can quote many examples of figurative use. I’m sure you can, too.
Hi Anglophile
The phase “the seven-year itch” is also used in Chinese with the same meaning as Madam Beeesneees pointed out.
For what I know so far, It’s almost used every time with that meaning. The meaning of your source is quite rare.
As if you don’t! This answer itself testifies it. After all, I opened a fresh post. You have dragged yourself into it. I’m not to blame. Now, don’t worry about how it reflects on me. Others, perhaps, know me much, much better than you do. Can you quote a single instance where I have answered others as you have answered (been answering) me? Please spend your time more meaningfully and wisely lest it should reflect worse on you.
Yes. I can quote lots of posts, because I answer all posts in exactly the same manner to begin with.
Can you quote any posts where I have resorted to personal abuse in the way you have in some of yours to me? I think not.
You really are doing yourself no favours with your talk of how I entered this thread.
Don’t tell me that you didn’t expect (or want) a reaction when you started your post with, “Some sarcastic comment on my use of the phrase (the seven-year itch)…”
and then continued in the same vein throughout that paragraph, instead of opening with “A comment on my use of the phrase ‘the seven year itch’ …”
and then going on to provide a simple explanation about what you understood the phrase to mean.
Leaving your tone and opening remarks aside, please would you explain something else? If you didn’t want to invite discussion on the phrase, then what was the point of posting it under a topic with that name?
Did you only want to invite opinions that were in harmony with yours?
Incidentally, I found your ‘source’. Dr P’Rayan makes a better attempt at explaining the other phrase he mentions in that Indian newspaper article, but he’s a little off the mark with that one too. I’m surprised that someone with his qualifications didn’t research the matter more thoroughly.
I expect to see that little acronym of your own soon, as unless you want me to expand on Dr P-Rayan’s interpretation of that other expression, I don’t think you’ll be able to provide much in the way of reasoned and rational comment in response.
With ‘Excuse me’ to Alan, I would say that I didn’t quote a non-existent source. Dr Albert is an authority on English in India. His English is followed and endorsed by millions of people including me. Here we are discussing a particular phrase about which he has clearly stated that it is NOW used as I have mentioned. The other phrase (not known) doesn’t figure at all. To me, he cannot be mistaken. If he is, I am as well. I still hold him to be a reliable source. I have nothing more to say on this. Thanks for your patience and participation in the discussion.
Which is why I said I was surprised that he didn’t research things a little more thoroughly. Explaining idioms and common phrases does not appear to be one of his strengths based on that article.
Yes, however he is mistaken, as demonstrated by so many other sources.
It has a bearing because it demonstrates that this is not a ‘one off’ error. In that article he explains the origins of two phrases. Neither are reliably explained.
To me, that is sad as it indicates a closed, rigid mind.
At least others know better
Ah, that is so much better than an uncommon acronym. You’re welcome.