Coin a phrase Meaning To create a new phrase. Origin 'To coin a phrase' is now rarely used with its original 'invent a new phrase' meaning but is almost always used ironically to introduce a banal or clichd sentiment. This usage began in the mid 20th century; for example, in Francis Brett Young's novel Mr. Lucton's Freedom, 1940: "It takes all sorts to make a world, to coin a phrase." Coining, in the sense of creating, derives from the coining of money by stamping metal with a die. Coins - also variously spelled coynes, coigns, coignes or quoins - were the blank, usually circular, disks from which money was minted. This usage derived from an earlier 14th century meaning of coin, which meant wedge. The wedge-shaped dies which were used to stamp the blanks were called coins and the metal blanks and the subsequent 'coined' money took their name from them. Coining later began to be associated with inventiveness in language. In the 16th century the 'coining' of words and phrases was often referred to. By that time the monetary coinage was often debased or counterfeit and the coining of words was often associated with spurious linguistic inventions; for example, in George Puttenham's The arte of English poesie, 1589: "Young schollers not halfe well studied... will seeme to coigne fine wordes out of the Latin." Shakespeare, the greatest coiner of them all, also referred to the coining of language in Coriolanus, 1607: "So shall my Lungs Coine words till their decay." coin a phraseQuoin has been retained as the name of the wedge-shaped keystones or corner blocks of buildings. Printers also use the term as the name for the expandable wedges that are used to hold lines of type in place in a press. This has provoked some to suggest that 'coin a phrase' derives from the process of quoining (wedging) phrases in a printing press. That is not so. 'Quoin a phrase' is recorded nowhere and 'coining' meant 'creating' from before the invention of printing in 1440. Co-incidentally, printing does provide us with a genuine derivation that links printing with linguistic banality - clich. This derives from the French cliquer, from the clicking sound of the stamp used to make metal typefaces. 'Coin a phrase' itself arises much later than the invention of printing - the 19th century in fact. It appears to be American in origin - it certainly appears in publications there long before any can be found from any other parts of the world. The earliest use of the term that I have found is in the Wisconsin newspaper The Southport American, July 1848: "Had we to find... a name which should at once convey the enthusiasm of our feelings towards her, we would coin a phrase combining the extreme of admiration and horror and term her the Angel of Assassination."
In Australia, there are some people called kangatarians who only eat kangaroo and vegetables and exclude every other kind of meat.
The US government spent $43 million building a dysfunctional gas station in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan.
In 1915, the owner of Chubb locks, Cecil Chubbington, was sent out by his wife to buy a set of dining room chairs. He returned chairless but instead had bought Stonehnege for his wife at auction for 6,600. But she didn't like it so he gifted it to the nation. The Colosseum derived it's name from the colossal 30m bronze statue of Nero that stood nearby. It's original name was Amphitheatrum Flavium. Michael J. Fox's middle name is... Andrew. Ants can survive in a microwave because they are small enough to dodge the rays. Cats not so much. Under extreme high pressure, diamonds can be made from peanut butter. The Sami people of Northern Finland used a measure called 'poronkusema' as a measure of distance. It's how long a reindeer can travel before needing to tinkle. Sir Edmund Hillary was a professional beekeeper (apiarist) before climbing Sagarmth. Tintin is called TanTan in Japan because TinTin is pronounced as 'chin chin' which means 'penis'. In his first year at Harrow, Churchill was bottom of the whole school.
I don't know, there is a difference between 'may not' and 'can not'. And a difference between 'may' and 'maybe' A robot may not injure a human being.... I.e. they could be perfectly capable of hurting a human but they are not allowed to. Apparently the robot laws were published in 1942 when people still cared about maintaining a distinction between the two words. Modern usage has created the ambiguity.
scientists, even in 2015! still dont really know what makes the sound when you crack your knuckles or why its made.
Yes we do the "pop" made by cracking one's knuckles results from the rapid creation of a cavity in the fluid inside the joints.
or is it not that at all? http://gizmodo.com/we-still-don-t-know-what-causes-that-knuckle-cracking-s-1746393614
My Chinese massage person says it is breaking up the bubbles and helping energy flow. He's very pleased when I crackle when I sit up.
This photo was taken by astronaut Michael Collins, when he took this photo he was the only human, alive or dead, that wasn't in the frame of this picture. He travelled with Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong and orbited the moon whilst they were landing to study the surface of the moon from farther out.
^ The stars stand out a lot more in space because there is no atmosphere to hide or blur them out but here we have a "sharp" photo in space showing not one star. Does that makes sense? Nope. And there are a lot of things about the first moon landing that don't add up.
On Earth the day is bright because incoming light is diffused through the atmosphere. In space or on the Moon there is no atmosphere to diffuse the light - but, it is just as bright. No flash is required to photograph an astronaut on a space walk or a lunar lander during descent because they are reflecting light. To take a photo of a bright object whether in space, on the Moon or on Earth a fast f-stop (which limits the amount of light being captured) is used to produce a clear picture. Too much light results in an over exposed picture with little detail. Stars are relatively dim objects, they require a slow f-stop to be exposed. So, if you want to photograph stars you use a slow f-stop, regardless of if you are on Earth, in orbit or on the Moon. NASA wanted photos of the Moon's surface features so a fast f-stop was used.
^ That was NASA's story too if I recall correctly but that should still have shown the stars because they are brighter then the earth and moon pictured there. You too Raven because who are you to say that? What I said there is a trivial fact about that photo which is in keeping with this thread "Useless Trivial facts". Stick it right up your a__ if you don't like it!
For many reason I'm not entirely convinced humans have landed/walked on the moon. I'm also not 100% sure we didn't. However with the "why no stars" issue, I've never seen any other earth photos, taken from space, that show stars (other than the sun).
Sorry, you are incorrect, stars are not brighter than the Moon or Earth. The brightest visible star Sirius has a magnitude of -1.5. Magnitude is a logarithmic scale of \sqrt[5]{100}\approx 2.512. My apologies I am unable to insert the mathematical symbols. This scale is inverse, the lower the number the brighter the object. The Sun has an apparent magnitude of -27, a full Moon is -13 and Venus is -5. No stars or planets are brighter than the Earth or Moon (assuming your location is on Earth or the Moon). So, while stars appear bright to the human eye as far as a camera lens, film or CCD they are actually quite dim. The human eye and optical nerve is an amazing apparatus.
You are right but there are some photos that show stars but they are faint. Another example is most photos of the Hubble space telescope orbiting Earth show little to none stars. Was just rubbing it in there before with my other post because I think the first moon landing was faked.
