Where's the Proof?!

You’re not alone, it really annoys me too.

I agree - it's something that really annoys me whenever someone says it.

There are other sayings that are misquoted, too. It's ignorance, but I don't mean that unkindly. People get things wrong because they've not heard the correct version. It's like mis-pronouncing placenames because you've only read the name not heard it said.

See the OED. Both are correct as proverbial phrases. The proof of the pudding simply means to put something to the test or to prove a fact or statement.

While the proof of the pudding is in the eating is often used in a non-food context it would be equally correct to say something like: the proof of the pudding was that the jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Compare the expression not worth a pudding meaning something that has little or no worth.

One might say: the proof of the pudding was that the jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, as the evidence offered by the defence was not worth a pudding.

Never heard ‘the proof is in the pudding’. Maybe a mixture of two sayings?

I'm forever shouting at Kirsty Allsop when she says that the proof is in the pudding. No it isnt.
DH laughs af me.

Apologies. I misread the opening post.

Merriam Webster says:

Have you ever stopped mid-pudding to wonder how it might have some "proof" in it, as suggested by the expression "the proof is in the pudding"?

There is a word to explain the oddity of the expression "the proof is in the pudding": idiom, which refers to an expression in which the meanings of its individual words considered together make no lexical sense but to native speakers make perfect sense, oddly because of frequent misinterpretation or mishearing of the expression leading to its acceptance. In this case, the expression "the proof is in the pudding," as well as "the proof in the pudding" and "the proof of the pudding," is a version of the proverbial "the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or tasting)"—all of which have become established in the language through frequent servings.

It seems they are interchangeable.

It seems they are interchangeable.

Not to me they're not

ferry23

^It seems they are interchangeable.^

Not to me they're not

Nor to me, either.

Merriam Webster’s attempt to rationalise a completely meaningless collection of words is utterly pathetic.

I also wonder if the OED doesn’t lean too far in the direction of ‘recording language change’ (or, legitimising incorrect usage 😡)

ferry23

^It seems they are interchangeable.^

Not to me they're not

Maisie anf ferry - I agree!

people applauding themselves oh yes, @ferry23, and also people who take a sip of their drink when they're the subject of the toast!

The OED (and MW) records language change and explains usage. It isn’t dictating how people should express themselves rather commenting on how they do.

We know that proverbs and idioms often have obscure and inexplicable meanings.

Why did pudding evolve as the thing that needed to be proved anyway?

The etymology of pudding is (probably) from Anglo Norman bodeyn, bodin meaing sausage. Bodin became pudding. Perhaps people liked the alliteration of proof and pudding.

Why did a sausage have to be proved? Was is because sausages contain the less choice bits of an animal, bits that were more likely to make someone sick? So one ate the sausage to prove it didn’t?

When I think about that, the proof i.e. the actual thing that could make someone sick, is in the sausage. There would be two ways of telling whether meat was off. Either smell in which case you wouldn't eat it if you had any sense or you’d eat it and be sick.

Anyway, that’s my laboured attempt at explaining. I prefer to understand where expressions come from rather than complain.

It is one of my pet hates too. I hear it said the wrong way more often than the correct.

Another cookery-based one is the use of 'a marinade' a noun, and 'to marinate', a verb, the wrong way round.

Also why is the 'r' so often missed from turmeric to make it spoken as tiumeric?

I will stop there, but I have a long list of food related irritations!

The OED (and MW) records language change and explains usage. It isn’t dictating how people should express themselves rather commenting on how they do.

That might be their intention, but people look to them to give authoritative definitions. Trying to make out that they are descriptive rather than prescriptive is a message which really doesn't get through to the general public.

I think that we lose clarity, accuracy and nuance in our language through this policy. Not only that, we seem to lose words as inaccurate usage of some words supersedes the use of the previously used word. For example, where have 'affected' (impacted), 'persuaded' (convinced) and 'most' (the vast majority) gone? They're vary rarely used these days.

Yes I’ll give you that one ferry23 it is indeed annoying.

“For*free is another and when communal is pronounced as communial nuclear as nucular and aluminium as *alluminum! Just stop it now 😉

Why did pudding evolve as the thing that needed to be proved anyway?

I think it's not historically important that it's a pudding- it's the fact that even an attractive thing/idea/method is only properly judged once tested.

I suppose sausages can all look the same and be unpleasant or tasty.

I say this re Silverbrooks and Mazie's comments above.

Also why is the 'r' so often missed from turmeric to make it spoken as tiumeric?

Even worse when it’s pronounced ’chewmeric! 🤦‍♀️

Actually, there are a lot of food related annoyances - turmeric yes for sure.

People making creme patisserie - really? Are they going to make a pastry shop out of cream or a cream pastry?

No they're going to make creme patissiere. And it annoys me even more when a presenter mispronounces it as Ellie Taylor did on Masterchef the Professionals.

People drinking expresso coffee.

Cardamon instead of cardamom.

Antipodeans insisting a croissant is a croisSANT.

And although technically not incorrect, I shall never accept that our North American friends think that basil is an erb or that a cut of beef is a fillay.

And don't get me started on almonds.

And my lovely late MiL - telling us we're having kwich and salad for lunch along with my darling Mum who insisted on feeding us advocados - never quite sure if I was going to get a green addition to my meal or a drink to go with it.

Silverbrooks

See the OED. Both are correct as proverbial phrases. The proof of the pudding simply means to put something to the test or to prove a fact or statement.

While the proof of the pudding is in the eating is often used in a non-food context it would be equally correct to say something like: the proof of the pudding was that the jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Compare the expression not worth a pudding meaning something that has little or no worth.

One might say: the proof of the pudding was that the jury found him guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, as the evidence offered by the defence was not worth a pudding.

Yes, but, ‘the proof of the pudding’ is a different saying to ‘ the proof is in the pudding’, which is what I understood ferry23 to be talking about.

Also ‘step foot’ and ‘off his own back’ annoy me too!

Yes Daddima the proof is in the pudding is a ridiculous saying I think.

You ate something, got sick and died. Your family tell the coroner that before you died you ate a meal of meat pudding, potatoes and carrots. They did not eat the meat pudding. The coroner accepts that as fact. The symptoms you experienced before you died suggest salmonella. The family tell the coroner where the pudding was bought.

The contents of your stomach are sent for analysis where the meat pudding is found to have been infected with salmonella. The proof of the cause of death was not in the potatoes, it was not not in the carrots, the proof was in the pudding.

The authorities order that the batch of meat puddings be removed from the shelves and issue a public warning to customers who have bought puddings from the same batch not to eat them and return them to the shop. (We are familar with product recalls of this kind.)

Samples from the uneaten puddings are also tested and also found to contain salmonella. Again, the proof was in the pudding.

"it is what it is!!

I feel much improved having been given the true etymology 😂

I haven't heard that one recently but the mixing of honing and homing I hear often. As in I am honing in on something.

A plant I am growing a lot of this year is Osteospermum. Why does almost everyone who says the name call it OsteosperNum? Are they afraid of saying 'sperm'?

Kirsty Allsop is also guilty of constantly referring to 'Phil and I'. 'She showed Phil and I around her house'
I would have thought Bedales education would have given her a better grasp of English grammar