[capableweb]

As an aside to your aside, it's also the case that phrases/words change meaning over time, as usage in one grows above the usage in a different way.

In this case, the "a few bad apples are not representative of a group" meaning have grown above the "One bad apple spoils the barrel" meaning, and so the phrase as changed, for better or worse.

Maybe it would be best if everyone used the long version instead of the short one. When you say/write "A few bad apples", the meaning is ambiguous, but if you use the long version, it's not. Problem solved :)

[autoexec]

> In this case, the "a few bad apples are not representative of a group" meaning have grown above the "One bad apple spoils the barrel" meaning

Most of the time when I hear the "only a few bad apples, the rest of us are fine" meaning it's coming right from the mouths of badly spoiled apples twisting the meaning of those words and popularizing that usage to suit their agendas.

Generally, I think that there's nothing wrong with pushing back against words and phrases used incorrectly. We get to decide how words are used, and a large part of that decision making process involves social pressure and education. I think it's particularly useful to defend the meaning of words and phrases when they're being deceptively misused and promoted.

[CrzyLngPwd]

> the "a few bad apples are not representative of a group"

I have never heard that phrase, it has always been that the few spoils the whole.

I have heard people say "the proof is in the pudding", which means nothing at all, when the real phrase is "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting".

I'm from England and I speak English, so maybe it hasn't translated well to Americlish.

[AmpsterMan]

I think the larger "issue" is that the phrase colloquially means the exact opposite of the original observation, that a bad apple MEANS the bunch is spoiled. It's worse because this changing of the meaning is perpetuated by those same bad apples themselves.

"the proof is in the pudding" is a much more benign change. It's literally just a shortening, but no meaning is lost... if you want the proof, you'll find it in the pudding (implying you should try the pudding to verify your assumptions)

[capableweb]

"Literally" is another word where the meaning changed from being the literal opposite of what it was "meant" to originally mean, not sure one is "worse" than the other. It's just change, which will continue to happen.

[hnlmorg]

I would argue that the meaning has never changed. There is just an additional slang variation used by a subset of English speakers. Much like “wicked” was once slang for “good” and how Londers don’t literally ring people using the bones of dogs (“dog an bone” Cockney rhyming slang, in case the reference doesn’t translate).

[Aeolun]

> the original observation, that a bad apple MEANS the bunch is spoiled

Too few people have enough apple trees in their lives to preserve the meaning.

[ceejayoz]

"It's just a few bad apples" is a common response to police misconduct here in the States, with the attitude of "why are you making such a big deal out of this?"

The original saying, of course, is all about why you have to make a big deal out of this, for reasons that apply to both apples and cops.

[saghm]

> I have heard people say "the proof is in the pudding", which means nothing at all, when the real phrase is "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting".

To be fair, the "real" phrase you give here doesn't make much more sense to me. Even assuming the use of the term "pudding" across the pond to be more than just a fairly niche dessert like it is in America, what does it mean for pudding to have "proof"? Is is some sort of philosophical thing where you don't accept that the pudding exists unless you taste it (which I feel isn't super convincing, since if we're going to have a discussion, we kind of have to accept that each other exists without having similar first-hand "proof", so we might as well accept that pudding exists as well)? I know there's a concept of something called "proofing" in baking, but I'm pretty sure that happens long before people taste the final product.

In general, I don't find most cliches to be particularly profound. "It is what it is" is just a weird way to state an obvious tautology, but somehow it's supposed to convince me that I should just passively accept whatever bad thing is happening? "You can’t teach an old dog new tricks" isn't universally true, but it apparently also is supposed to be a convincing argument in favor of inaction. "You can’t have your cake and eat it too" is probably the most annoying to me, because the only way anyone ever wants to "have" cake is by eating it; no one actually struggles to decide between eating their cake or keeping it around as a decoration or whatever.

There's something about stating something vaguely or ambiguously that seems to make it resonate with people as profound, and I've never been able to understand it. In my experience, thought-terminating cliches are by far the most common kind.

[hnlmorg]

It’s “proof” as in to test. Like “proof reading”. The point being, the real test of how good something is, is to use it (for its intended purpose).

A vaguely similar sentiment to when people say “eating your own dog food” (or words to that effect) to mean testing something by using it themselves. Albeit the pudding proverb doesn’t necessitate the prover to be one’s self like “dog fooding” does.

[jallen_dot_dev]

This is just an excuse for ignorance and the annoying habit people have of repeating something they heard but don't understand.

I think it's right to correct it because when people misuse this phrase, it isn't gaining a new meaning--it's making it meaningless. Why apples? The comparison to apples adds no information or nuance.

Like when there's a story about police corruption, and someone says "they're just a few bad apples, not all cops are bad." Again, why compare them to apples? Why not just say a few bad cops?

This isn't words/phrases changing meaning, it's losing meaning.

[capableweb]

> This isn't words/phrases changing meaning, it's losing meaning.

It is literally not, it still means something, just not the same as it originally meant. This happens all the time, with "literally" being one of the best examples of something that literally means the opposite of what it used to mean.

[mitthrowaway2]

The problem with this is that it creates ambiguity in communication. Both the old meaning and the new one will circulate together, especially among different demographics, and cause potentially severe misunderstandings.