|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 25, 2013 20:36:24 GMT
Okay, so the "bull in a china shop" idiom was well and truly busted and all who saw that episode will no doubt never use that idiom again. But what if the idiom had used a different animal?
There's a hit song in Denmark right now by Danish singer/songwriter Mads Langer called 'Elephant' (sung in English). Apparantly Mr. Langer isn't aware of the English idiom "bull in a china shop", because the chorus of his song is a direct translation of the Danish equivalent to that idiom, claiming that he feels like, quote: "An elephant in a porcelain shop".
Video here:
Ignoring the fact that when this guy decided he was going to sing in English, he could have done a better job familiarizing himself with common parts of the language, such as this very idiom, would it make any difference to the outcome of the test if they had done the Danish version and used an elephant instead of a bull? Would that variation in geographical origin of the idiom and hence, the type of animal refered to have yielded a different result, or is the general idea that letting any animal loose in any kind of shop or store will lead to destruction and mayhem just overall false?
Personally, I think this idiom is even dumber than the one about the bull. How do you even get an elephant into a shop of any kind to begin with? Even if you ignore that small detail, I still believe that most animals will to some extent try to avoid contact with obstacles just as we humans would. But then again, maybe an elephant would be a better suited animal for this idiom. Just maybe, if you were at all able to get the elephant in there, it would be big enough that knocking stuff over would be inevitable.
Maybe the idiom could still be used, if we instead of "like a bull in a china shop" said "like an elephant in a china shop"...?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 26, 2013 3:05:38 GMT
There is footage of a group of circus elephants who went into a panic and burst through a restaurant; World's Dumbest (I believe it was) aired the clip on an episode.
But even then - they were in a panic, much like what the Mythbusters found out with the one bull that actually did anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2013 5:31:58 GMT
I believe if you take any animal who is used to pushing through say undergrowth or even fully grown plants into any enclosed space, its going to push things out of its way. If you take the same animal and train it what Fences are, it may see shelving units as a form of Fence, and avoid them. It all depends on the animal... what it is used to... The same animal from the wild that has to force its way through to get places, such as growth round a water hole, may act different from a Zoo animal that has to obey fences and other obstacles?..... And again, what happens when EITHER animal is "Spooked"............ The teams own previous attempts, the animals used were relatively calm. In full stampede, we all probably would expect different results...........?............ Wouldnt we?............. Answers on a china post card please......  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 27, 2013 15:49:49 GMT
Animals, be they totally wild or from a zoo, will not run into objects if they can help it. Doing so risks injury, and even a small cut can become infected and result in the animals death. So from the evolutionary point of view animals that did this tended not to have offspring.
Of course if they figure out that some obstacles are not going to hurt them that is a different matter. If the bull they used on MB had realised that the shelves would not harm it chances are that it wouldn't have been worried about charging through them.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 1, 2013 21:40:24 GMT
You all make valid points. Ironhold and Siler, I was thinking the same thing about animals in a panic. The bulls used in the test were pretty calm. The bulls they use at the running of the bulls in Pamplona each year are far from calm and they pretty much bust everything in their way. Cyber, I'm also with you on your evolutionary take. You'd expect most creatures to at least avoid obstacles that were either unknown to them or known to be dangerous/inpenetrable/immovable. Otherwise, we'd see hundreds of animals storming into trees and cliffsides all over the world. I know this particular myth was on Kari's list of favorite unexpected results at one point, which is actually why I brought it up  As I said, maybe a small re-write of the idiom could actually make it sound. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 2, 2013 0:55:00 GMT
I know this particular myth was on Kari's list of favorite unexpected results at one point, which is actually why I brought it up As I said, maybe a small re-write of the idiom could actually make it sound. Not so much. It is one thing to suggest that they may want to reconsider how they tested something. It is something entirely different to reword an idea to the point that it becomes something else entirely, something that has nothing to do with the original idea. This is especially true when you are dealing with idioms, since the basis for the entire 'myth' is the original wording. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 2, 2013 6:16:33 GMT
Bull in a China shop is still used to denote the same thing, a person who is in some kind of hurry and has no sympathy to their surroundings....
I cant see how changing the wording will change any of that.
However, I will suggest that the test is repeated under two differing sets of conditions...
1st the bulls are introduced as they were on the original test.
Second, under full stampede conditions, the same as the Pamplona bull run, or if you have enough room, a full blown gallop charge in from the fields....
Reason?...
Most people I know who are accused of this are in "Stampede" mode trying to get somewhere or something done in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 2, 2013 12:46:14 GMT
Not so much. It is one thing to suggest that they may want to reconsider how they tested something. It is something entirely different to reword an idea to the point that it becomes something else entirely, something that has nothing to do with the original idea. This is especially true when you are dealing with idioms, since the basis for the entire 'myth' is the original wording. I get what you're saying, but I don't exactly see how I'm "re-wording to the point that it becomes something else entirely" in this particular situation. It's the same basic idiom, meaning the same basic thing, namely that a person referred to as being "like a bull (or in this case, an elephant) in a china shop" is clumsy and has a tendency to cause havoc in either a litteral, physical way or in social situations. The elephant variation on this idiom is just as common in Denmark (and in most of Scandinavia, I believe) as the bull version is in America or the UK. Why should it be any less valid for testing? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 2, 2013 13:24:15 GMT
The elephant variation on this idiom is just as common in Denmark (and in most of Scandinavia, I believe) as the bull version is in America or the UK. Why should it be any less valid for testing? The basic answer is because Mythbusters is an American TV show, so when it comes to idioms they will pick those that are well known in the English speaking world. This is simply because their primary audience is the US, even though the show is aired in some 40+ countries worldwide, and the 'important' viewing figures for US Networks has always been the US viewer figures regardless of how popular a show is overseas...or even how involved overseas programmers/channels may be in a show. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 2, 2013 14:31:48 GMT
It's not like I'm presenting some huge cultural difference here. Had I suggested they tackle the "killing two birds with one stone" idiom, to which the Danish equivalent is "hitting two flies in one swat", I would have understood your resistance because of the enormous difference between the two, in spite of them meaning the exact same thing.
But this is a small variation to a well known idiom that's already been adressed on the show before. It's not some obscure proverb only used in one small rural village in western Romania or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2013 16:24:23 GMT
the common interpretation of "Bull in a china shop" denotes a person who obliviously does damage to the environment around them with the bust showing that they are not oblivious to their environment. that is satisfactory to me.
the case in point is our firefighter "Bull" he happens to be our preferred forcible entry instructor - but he doesn't break down doors when he is not doing forcible entry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 2, 2013 16:29:39 GMT
While I have nothing to do with what ideas get picked up for the show, beyond providing a forum where they can go to find them. I do have some idea as to the sort of objections they occasionally bring up, and reasons why they pass on some ideas*.
My feeling is that this alternate saying isn't known well enough for them to consider it, and isn't really different enough to tempt them into a revisit. Bare in mind that all of the Producers are American (or I *think* British in the case of Producer Dan Tapster), and therefore are unlikely to have heard of this version anyway.
This is, however, just how I suspect them to react rather than any statement to the effect that they would not consider the idea at all. Like I said I have nothing to do with what ideas get picked up.
(*Just to clarify; I am not employed by Beyond Productions, Discovery Channel, M5 Industries or any affiliates of the above in any capacity nor entitled to make statements on their behalf. What I can and did do in the case of the 'banned topics' list and guides for posting ideas is repeat things that have been mentioned officially by those working on the show, or which could be considered logical deductions from existing 'evidence'. For example; 9-11 myths were noted as being banned on the old Discovery forums, as well as having been mentioned as banned by Adam during interviews. Cost limitations for myths is a logical assumption to make for any TV show, but also happened to be 'confirmed' when Adam and Jamie were discussing the wrecking ball Newtons Cradle myth - they couldn't afford to ship the wrecking balls they found. The time constraints were also noted by Jamie and Tory, who have both noted that they have 7-10 days to film an episode.)
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 2, 2013 17:41:10 GMT
Well, now they have a chance to hear it and they can pick it up they want to and leave it if they don't. If they do decide to pick it up and test it and the result is a clear 'confirmed', perhaps English speaking nations across the World could get a chance to slaughter the old bull and adopt an elephant, so to speak |
|
bioLarzen
Demi-Minion
"I reject your avatars and substitute my own."
Posts: 86
|
Post by bioLarzen on Mar 3, 2013 1:22:56 GMT
I think it was discussed back in the original forums, that there are languages (like my native Hungarian and most of the Slavic languages as I recall) that have this idiom with elephant instead of bull.
Would be interesting to see some elephants romping around shelves - but untames elephants are hard to come by in San Francisco - that's why they had to suffice with a rather lazy job with the elephants afraid of mice myth when they had the chance to test it on wild elephants in Africa.
bio
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 3, 2013 2:48:16 GMT
I think it was discussed back in the original forums, that there are languages (like my native Hungarian and most of the Slavic languages as I recall) that have this idiom with elephant instead of bull. Would be interesting to see some elephants romping around shelves - but untames elephants are hard to come by in San Francisco - that's why they had to suffice with a rather lazy job with the elephants afraid of mice myth when they had the chance to test it on wild elephants in Africa. bio Not quite. They never intended to test the 'are elephants afraid of mice?' myth. However while they were in South Africa to film the shark week special they had a day where the weather was so bad they couldn't go out to film. Rather than waste a days filming they decided to test out the mouse myth on some wild elephants that were known to be in the area. So it was FAR from lazy, in fact it was just the opposite since they could have just stayed in their hotel all day. But instead they went out and did some work. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 3, 2013 9:58:00 GMT
Elephants, BULL elephants, get your BULL right here, "onastick or inabun"
Adam and Jamie are English speaking.
I know the idiom from England.
If I heard that someone from England or an English speaking country were to test the myth/idiom, I would expect a Bull.
important bit if they then went on to test with an Elephant, I would be wondering how expensive the bull must have been.....
If they then went on to spend quarter of an hour discussing the various other possible sources of this myth and just where it may have originally come from, I would be suspecting "Time wasting"....
It is truth that this idiom goes back as far as we English speaking countries can remember who are we to criticise if they did or did not know of other foreign sources of the same TYPE of myth..........
Why are we getting pedantic about the ancient historical origin of the myth?....
Is it not possible that there were various sources of the same myth from different places that were not connected in any way?....
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 3, 2013 12:24:01 GMT
I don't see how anyone is getting pedantic about origins here...?
The English idiom that they originally set out to test was busted and, as especially Kari made very clear was her opinion, shouldn't be used anymore.
Acknowledging that result, all we (myself and now also bio) are asking is:
Could the English speakers of the world replace the busted English idiom with a similar foreign one, if said foreign variation could be confirmed?
We're not debating origins. We're not discussing which language is better or worse. Where the idiom comes from is of no importance whatsoever. I'm not concerned with whether or not, if they decide to test this, they say anything about where in the world this variation comes from when presenting it on the show. Just that it's a well known variation in other countries.
All I'm interested in is finding out if this variation to the idiom holds any more validity than the one originally tested. If it does, English speakers have the option to adopt the elephant if they want to. If it doesn't, people in other countries have the option to throw out their own useless idiom if they want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2013 15:58:12 GMT
it can't very well predate china shops, can it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 3, 2013 16:51:40 GMT
Here is a thought - what happens if a ton of spooked bovine runs or just trots over an old style wooden floor? Wouldn't this cause the flooring to flex enough that wooden shelving might tip over?
Of course the original saying would have dated from the periods in which shops were very small, and there simply wouldn't be enough room for something the size of a cow to walk anywhere without knocking something over. There is an old book store near me where the isles are so narrow I can't walk down them without brushing up against one or both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2013 23:23:04 GMT
Here is a thought - what happens if a ton of spooked bovine runs or just trots over an old style wooden floor? Wouldn't this cause the flooring to flex enough that wooden shelving might tip over? Of course the original saying would have dated from the periods in which shops were very small, and there simply wouldn't be enough room for something the size of a cow to walk anywhere without knocking something over. There is an old book store near me where the isles are so narrow I can't walk down them without brushing up against one or both sides. well, it certainly would not be in the shopkeeper's best interests to have the bovine browsing through the merchandise - but the idea that the bull would be breaking things just because he could is busted - and rightly so. |
|
As I said, maybe a small re-write of the idiom could actually make it sound.
