No Cover Necessary
As you may have suspected our resident cliché authority, Dr. Whist Bowdlerizer, a fellow whose visual appearance might be described as knee-high-to-a-pint-sized cricket, took issue with my recently used expression: "duck and run."
He maintains the proper cliché is: "duck and cover."
Now Bowdlerizer, who can usually be found at the Knee-Knockers Club arguing with club members that a koeksister is the true verbiage for cruller depending upon its country's source of origin, seems to have a well-honed barb.
"Duck and cover" can be found everywhere. Few, if any resources mention "duck and run." Which proves my point. If one "ducks and runs" effectively, there is absolutely no need then to "duck and cover" for your trail will be untraceable, in that the amount of precipitation will need no cover.
To avoid misinterpretations, "duck and run" will not be included in Dr. Whist Bowdlerizer's upcoming gazetteer.
No Cover Necessary © 2005 Chaeli Sullivan
posted by chaetoons @ 9:40 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Does duck and cover have anything to do with a bird in hand is worth two in the bush?
Over
Reed
Only if the bird in hand is hiding from the two birds in the bush, in which case this poor critter is up a crik without a paddle for if he's ensconed in someone's hand, he has neither the opportunity to duck and cover, nor to duck and run.
In such cases, our feathered friends should pray for an excessive amount of precipitation.
Chae
An excessive amount of precipitation just might help but the bird would forcibly be required to duck and swim!
Post a Comment
<< Home