this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
1 points (57.1% liked)

Etymology

63 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is for discussions and articles about the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.

founded 1 year ago
1
‘Blood thicker than water’—a lesson in etymology (www.lootpress.com)
submitted 11 months ago by Salamendacious to c/[email protected]
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The commonly used “blood is thicker than water” is a proverb in English meaning that familial bonds will always be stronger than other relationships. The oldest record of this saying can be traced back in the 12th century in German by the philosopher Evan Franklin.

The well-known idiom “blood is thicker than water” is used to say that someone’s family and blood ties are more crucial in their life than any other person, relationship, or need.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Piecemakers3Dprints 3 points 11 months ago

  1. A commonly misused phrase.

  2. That is not at all what it means. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Do you also use "loose" when you mean "lose"? FFS.

[–] SnakeRattleNRoll 2 points 11 months ago

'The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb'

This is like writing a post of 'Great minds think alike' while never learning the full quote is 'Great minds think alike, though fools seldom differ.'

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Two modern commentators, author Albert Jack[17] and Messianic Rabbi Richard Pustelniak,[18] claim that the original meaning of the expression was that the ties between people who have made a blood covenant (or have shed blood together in battle) were stronger than ties formed by "the water of the womb", thus "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Neither of the authors cite any sources to support their claim.

I have heard this story of the meaning being the opposite, but it comes from people with no history background who cite no sources.

So maybe the contrarians in these comments can cite some actual reasons why they're claiming this is all wrong instead of glib rejoinders.