On an NPR news interview, a journalist from the Guardian used the phrase "a storm in a tea cup". This sounds like what USns would call a tempest in a tea pot. Is the storm in a tea cup version standard Brit?
Dear Faldage: A tempest is a violent storm. So a storm in a teacup is less impressive. Incidentally, I was surprised to discover that "tempus" is the root for "tempest".
Why is tempus the root for tempest? Well, I didn't ask that very well. I'm assuming (with my negligible knowledge of any Latin) that tempus means time. Mebbe it doesn't mean time. But, if it does, what does time have to do with a violent storm? Did somebody back there time 'em? No, of course not! But where's the connection between tempus and tempest?
Best ripeness is all,
WildWinds
you may think the connection somewhat tenuous, but it goes like this: time > season > weather > storm
http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
Dear tsuwm,
No, that's not a tenuous connection at all. Time as season and season as its weather make a perfectly solid connection even for this whirling mind of mine. Thanks for reining it all in!
Blowing regards,
Whirlwind in a Theresa Cup
Dear Teresa: Surely you need a pair?
surely you need a pair
A pair, wwh? As in 'form in a C cup'? Or 'storm over a B cup'?
Dear wwh,
No. Only one cup. I'm an Amazon.
Breast regards,
WildWoman
Dear Amazon: tell me the size, and I'll get you a special Amazon falsie, with the right cup built to hold spare arrowheads.
Here we go again ... Storm in a D Cup, Air on a G String. Bill's recruiting for the Olympics again ...
I'm an Amazon. [an amaz-in' one]
Capitalized? Is that your titular designation?
Is the storm in a tea cup version standard Brit?
Woo hoo - it looks like no one else actually answered this bit so here's my take on it.
I don't know about Brit, but it is definitely standard Oz English to say it this way... in fact, I don't think I'd ever heard Tempest in a tea cup before now. It definitely sounds more melodramatic than a storm in same tea cup. 
Hev
Thank you, hev. You win a prize for being the first person to actually answer the question. But now I'm not sure I asked it right. I remember the difference being in the use of tea cup rather than the USn tea pot but the tempest part being the same. Are you saying that storm in a tea cup is standard in Oz?
Dear Faldage,
Oh, you mean we're actually supposed to answer questions on this board?? Ah! I've been completely misled in my understanding of AWAD! I thought we were supposed to avoid answering questions on this board! Eureka! I see the light!
Back to the Mad Teaparty,
WordWoozy
Oh, you mean we're actually supposed to answer questions on this board?? Ah! I've been completely misled in my understanding of AWAD!
well, if you've been following the example of Faldage....
Storm in a teacup is definitely standard Britspeak. You could only conjure up a storm in a teapot if you left the lid off. As for a tempest in a teacup or pot...well I've never heard it used, but it seems to be an acceptable alternative and perhaps more poetic as well as being alliterative.
Are you saying that storm in a tea cup is standard in Oz?
Oooh, ooh, more questions to answer! I guess I only win second prize this time around, because dxb responded for the Brit speakers. To answer your Oz related question... it's definitely a cup! We have storms in cups, not tempests in tea pots.
Hev
well, since this has become Much Ado about Nothing, ponder these weighty words:
Dorion, ridiculing the description of a tempest in the “Nautilus” of Timotheus, said that he had seen a more formidable storm in a boiling saucepan. -Athenaeus,
The Deipnosophistshttp://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
people skilled in dinner conversation.
but I digress...
b. Phr. tea-pot tempest, tempest in a tea-pot (U.S.): = storm in a tea-cup
(see TEA-CUP 4). Also in similar phrases.
1854 ANDREWS Lat. Dict. s.v. Simpulum, Excitare fluctus in simpulo,..to raise a tempest in a teapot. Cic. Leg. 3. 16, 36. 1891 Cent. Dict. s.v. Tempest, A tempest in a tea-pot, a great disturbance over a small matter. 1896 Peterson Mag. Jan. 104/1 What a ridiculous tea-pot tempest! 1928 R. CAMPBELL Wayzgoose i. 16 Storms in a teapot often have occurred. 1942 T. DUBOIS Body goes round & Round xiii. 172 You have been indulging in your favourite occupation of stirring up a tempest in a teapot. 1973 Times 1 Aug. 6/5 Senator Ervin said the issue of whether the subpoenas were continuing was ‘a difference in a teapot’.http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
an annual banquet or picnic held by employees of a printing establishment (Aug. 24)
[forgive my apocrisis]
Simpulum, Excitare fluctus in simpulo.
Excitare fluctus in simpulo.
Literally, to raise a wave in a ladle.
Wayzgoose simply cannot be a real word, apocrisis or not--it's just too...
It most certainly is, me darlin' Jackie - although not in current use. The definition is as given above, but I haven't the foggiest as to the origins. Any ideas, out there? (JI'm prepared top take a small wager that the "goose" bit does not refer to the bird of that name, but is a corruption of something else.)
OH! Oh, my goodness, how
fascinating! Oh, go and look at this site, where among other things can be found:
The other part of the side name refers to a printer’s festival, a “Wayzgoose”, a celebration which has been traced back to the seventeenth century. The annual festival was celebrated on St. Bartholomew’s eve, 24th August when the master printer would supply a feast for his printers. In later years the feast was replaced by an outing, either to the coast or a large picnic in the countryside where good food and good ale were enjoyed in great quantity.Ooh, ooh, my friend lives in West Yo'ksh'r! Oh, I'm so excited, I can't even post that I made that post with the expectation of getting rebutted!
http://www.cae.civil.leeds.ac.uk/wayzgoose/root.htm
How interesting that the custom of the annual company picnic goes back that far.
How interesting that the custom of the annual company picnic goes back that far.
Sparteye, if you tell me y'all Morris dance at company picnics, I'm moving to Michigan!
How interesting that the custom of the annual company picnic goes back that far.
Yes, one of the things I have to try and make myself remember is that long-ago people were, well, people.
A kind boss might certainly have wanted to reward his workers with a "bonus". We always read about the cruelty that was common then, but surely not EVERYone was. Perhaps it makes more interesting reading; I don't know. I know there was a lot of bartering, but doesn't it make sense that this would have included "favors", as well as goods, the way we do today? I'll bet he realized that he would get better quality work out of happy employees. And how different that had to have been from corporate picnics today, where the company is so large that 99% of the attendees have no idea who planned the affair (it was probably given to the clerical staff to manage!). Back then, all the guests would have been very grateful for their boss' generosity. Often today, there is no one to thank. Even the bosses think of it as just something else that must be seen to, preferably by someone else in the corporate structure. (Go ahead, somebody, prove me wrong--please.)
our tempests are only on stage.
Or either in the eye of the beholder, one.