Thread by @paulgknox

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse The original saying, several hundred years old, is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” In other words, you don’t know what you’ve got, or made, or purchased, until you’ve tasted the first forkful. Metaphorically, your theory is unproven until put to a practical test. 1/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 2 That seems clear, but collectively the human mind isn’t satisfied until every possibility of complication has been exhausted. So some insist that “proof” and “pudding” must be hunted down backwards in time to discover how their meanings have evolved. 2/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 3 Speaking of reverse evolution, there was a time in England (where the phrase originated) when boxes of powdered chocolate or vanilla pudding were not available. Nor was “pudding” a general term for what North Americans call “dessert.” 3/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 4 The first puddings, in fact, were savoury: ground meat and bits of animal parts mixed with flour and seasoning, stuffed into a casing such as a stomach or intestine. Black or blood pudding is still considered by many to be part of a “full English breakfast.” 4/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 5/ Some complicators suggest that the original word was “putting,” as in “put to the test.” I can’t find any documentation for this, and anyway, in the original saying it would be redundant, having the same meaning as “proof.” 5/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 6 “Proof” is more interesting, since at one time it meant not the result of an experiment or test but the test itself. Hence, page proof, proof alcohol, proofing of yeast dough, etc. So the proof or test of a pudding would not be how it looked or smelled, but how it tasted ... 6/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 7 ... and whether it produced indigestion. The saying held true for sweeter foods as they developed, especially the rich steamed “plum” puddings still served at holiday feasts.

Is “the proof is in the pudding” just a poor copy of “the proof of the pudding is in the eating?” 7/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 8 That seems the simplest explanation, especially since the shorter phrase seems to be more common in North America. But some say puddings were proofed by pulling a string out of the thing and tasting that, in which case the shorter saying might also have been original. 8/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 9 Others theorize that “pudding” is an American pronunciation of “putting,” which also carried to meaning of subjecting to a test. In this view “the proof is in the putting” could be said of anything, not just a foodstuff.

I find these explanations far-fetched. For me, ... 9/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 10 ... “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” is valid no matter what nuances of meaning are imposed on each word. “The proof is in the pudding” is close to nonsense unless it’s understood as standing in for the longer phrase.

One more thing must be said. 10/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 11 No matter how formulated, proof/pudding is a dreadful cliché. It lacks both linguistic charm and the capacity to express more than the most diffuse, unspecific meaning. It falls among those clapped-out figures of speech that George Orwell so aptly describes ... 11/

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse 12 ... in Politics and the English Language as “merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.” Human affairs wouldn’t be diminished in the slightest if “the proof is in the pudding” or its longer form ceased to appear in print. 12/12

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse @threadreaderapp unroll pls

@ProfAnkersen @ThomasHall17 @PhilippeLagasse p.s. more on proof/pudding here:

word-detective.com/2008/12/the-pr…