The expression about killing two birds with one stone is an embarrassment to the
language; yet it's so darned useful as to be just about unavoidable-- which I guess
is why it has survived so long despite its offensiveness. I've been hunting for
years for an acceptable and equally useful alternative. Any suggestions?

grump, your e-mail address will bring a major grin to the face of wwh, our most prolific poster (affectionately known as dr. bill).

There was a time when killing birds was necessary to get food
There are still places where this is true. So it is offensive only
where there is no need to kill them for food. Except in places
where they destroy crops. I have had redwinged blackbirds
pull up several long rows of corn I had planted, and wished
I could have killed them all.

Keiva used extortion to get re-instated after a well justified
banning. He is unwelcome to post here.

what is offensive about it?
i don't understand why you think so...

I completely fail to understand why there would be anything offensive about the term "killing two birds with one stone" let alone why you might think it's an "embarrassment to the language". Some explanation of your belief that this is the case would be interesting/useful.

I would guess that the thought is that most people don't go around killing birds anymore. we often try to encourage them to come near: bird feeders, bird-baths, etc. so the idea of killing them, culturally is a bit distasteful, especially more than one at a time. have to think about an alternative expression...

Does anyone actually think about killing birds when they use the expression? I use it frequently and I must admit that I don't. To me it's just a figure of speech. It has no direct meaning in terms of killing anything.

As an aside I was thinking about this when I was out feeding the birds earlier. I asked some pigeons about it and they assured me that no one had bagged two of them with one stone within living memory. I must acknowledge that since they were speaking with their beaks full, I guess I could have misunderstood what they were trying to squawk.

- Pfranz

I don't see what's offensive about the term. In my mind's eye, I see that stone projected through the air, hitting a mental bird, and, still moving with much force, rebounding off bird one and hitting bird two.

Isn't there some kind of gun shot that spreads so that a hunter could get several birds with one blast of the gun? Don't know much about hutning at all...

The image of birds speaking with their beaks full will stick with me all day, by the way. Imagine birds speaking with beaks full of worms--gross! Just about as creepy as Medussa, that image is. The seed one's easier on the imagination.

Tit for tat times two = something like killing two birds with one stone.

Anyway, Google turned up the article pasted below written by an environmentalist. Most of the expressions proposed really don't convey at all the meaning of killing two bird with one stone, but I'll paste them just for interest:

"In my confusion, I posted a request on the INFOTERRA network run by the United Nations Environment Program through the Uganda National Focal Point, Ms. Elizabeth Gowa. I simply requested anyone out there who could assist me not to offend the environmental community in future while at the same time able to explain the advantages of "being able to do two things in a single effort".

The response was good. Some thought this was not a topic relevant for the INFOTERRA conference. They probably already knew of a non-destructive way to say "killing two birds with one stone". However others were worse than what I could have imagined. Let me list them. Pick what suits you.

These are not any better.

"get two birds in one shot"
"throwing the baby out with the bath water"
"catch two pigeons with one broad bean"
"get seven flies with one slap"
"make two hits with one stone"
"to kill two flies with one hit"
"when killing, conserve stones"
"catch two birds with one worm"
"double hit with one blow"
"feed two birds on one huge stone"
"eat two birds in a lifetime"
"to catch two worms with one beak"
"double edged sword" for whatsoever.

How about these

"one path two works"
"grow two trees from one seed"
"feed two children from one bowl"
"take the extra mile in one stride"
"meet two goals with one strategy"
"two problems, one solution"
"hit two nails with one swing"
"buy one, get one free"
"have your cake and eat it too"
"two for the price of one"
"two fires put out by a single shower"
"identify two new birds on the field trip"
"love two girls with one kiss"
"get your biggest deal from your shilling"
"doing double duty"
"stacking functions"
"take maximum advantage from a situation"

Then there were these from Scotland:

"fools look to tomorrow, wise men use today"
"get what you can, keep what you have that is the way to get rich"
"it is an ugly lass that is never kissed and a silly body that is never missed:

Have a nice day and let your utterances always be environmentally friendly!"

The url's too long to paste. I'll see whether it can be reduced later today.

Bird regards,
WW

Pfranz wrote:
>>>Does anyone actually think about killing birds when they use the expression? I use it frequently and I must admit that I don't. To me it's just a figure of speech. It has no direct meaning in terms of killing anything.<<<

But in a way it is exactly that casual--or thoughtless--reference to unnecessary killing which is problematic, and helps makes the term offensive! (The rest of the offense, in my view, is in that word "unnecessary". Of course in some times and places killing birds efficiently was a necessary part of survival. But in most places where the phrase is now common, that hasn't been true for a very long time. In an age of dwindling biodiversity and looming ecological disaster, gratuitous (and often unconscious) reference to killing birds is offensive. IMHO!)

Meanwhile, WW came up with some alternatives gleaned from a Google search. The one I like best is
"grow two trees from one seed"
It has two very nice (in the 'precise' sense of that overused word!) advantages: it stands the proverbial phrase on its head, metaphorizing birth instead of killing; and it shares with the original the aspect of being highly improbable on the literal level.

Hope this modest post manages to hit two nails with one hammer,
Ch.S.

And yet, none of the alternative suggestions is as terse and clear as the original.

In reply to:

---

The one I like best is
"grow two trees from one seed"
It has two very nice (in the 'precise' sense of that overused word!) advantages: it stands the proverbial phrase on its head, metaphorizing birth instead of killing; and it shares with the original the aspect of being highly improbable on the literal level.

---

well, said, grump! that was my favorite, as well. the world needs all the help it can get to get past our violent metaphors and expressions...

Wordwind says, "The url's too long to paste. I'll see whether it can be reduced later today."

Done for you. Here you go: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U26715A21

Don't let keiva's supposed helpfulness fool you.
he was banned, and force his way back by extortion.
he is not wanted here

As of troy said, Keiva is contemptible.

wwh spake:
>> And yet, none of the alternative suggestions is as terse and clear as the original. <<
to which I reply:
Huh?
"to grow two trees from one seed" is exactly as terse and clear as
"to kill two birds with one stone"--
(well, OK, not *quite* as terse, being longer by one letter...)
;-) Ch.S.

Isn't there some kind of gun shot that spreads so that a hunter could get several birds with one blast of the gun?

Without looking it up, betcha this is where we get the words scattershot and birdshot.

Keiva: you were banned from AWADtalk for starting a flamewar,
and refusing to quit. You extorted a reprive from Wordsmith
by threat of a lawsuit. You are completely contemptible.

Grump wrote: >>But in a way it is exactly that casual--or thoughtless--reference to unnecessary killing which is problematic, and helps makes the term offensive!

All too PC for me, Grump. The language is the language and merely wishing it otherwise will not make it change. Your desire to eradicate the phrase from the language may well succeed if you campaign vigorously enough across the entire English-speaking world. I wish you well with it. Good luck!

- Pfranz

The expression about killing two birds with one stone

Even in days "when killing birds was necessary to get food," I can't imagine that throwing stones at them was an very effective method. It wouldn't work: even a professional baseball pitcher can't consistently hit a spot the size of a bird. I'd think the only practical method would be trapping, as by limed twigs.

So if there was not a food-gathering practice of throwing stones at birds, where did the expression come from?

In reply to:

---

All too PC for me, Grump. The language is the language and merely wishing it otherwise will not make it change.

---

ah, yes, but he's doing more than just wishing, he's talking about it... I would think anyone with an interest in words would truly understand that language is powerful, and to ignore those phrases which don't fit our hopes for the future must be discussed, and over time, changed.

In reply to:

---

I can't imagine that throwing stones at them was an very effective method.

---

I would think we're talking about using a sling, rather than throwing. my understanding of the sling indicates that it is a very effective tool.

Dear etaoin: Why was Goliath surprised when David killed him with a stone from his sling?


Aside: Keiva you are still Public Enemy #1.

In reply to:

---

I can't imagine that throwing stones at them was an very effective method.
I would think we're talking about using a sling, rather than throwing. My understanding of the sling indicates that it is a very effective tool.

---

So they would leave no tern unstoned?

Oh that we could turn back time and not let you crawl out from under a stone.

Keiva: Now matter how you post, you cannot cnange the fact that you
used extortion to obtain re-instatement after being banned for starting
a flamewarand refusing to stop adding fuel to it. You are contemptible.

See for your self what Anu Garg had to say….
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=announcements&Number=72021

In reply to:

---

Dear etaoin: Why was Goliath surprised when David killed him with a stone from his sling?

---

well, slings would normally be considered effective for birds and small prey, not giants.

Pfranz wrote:
>>>
All too PC for me, Grump. The language is the language and merely wishing it otherwise will not make it change. Your desire to eradicate the phrase from the language may well succeed if you campaign vigorously enough across the entire English-speaking world. I wish you well with it. Good luck!
>>>
Oh dear. I was afraid I'd get this reaction. Anybody who knows me even slightly would tell you that I'm about as un-PC as they come; that's not where I'm coming from with this. And I am campaigning vigorously: my own usage has changed (to "grow two trees from one seed") and I urge the same on all of you!
Cheers, Ch.S.

Dear etaoin: Goliath was surprised when the stone from David's sling killed him, because
such a thing never entered his head before. (Learned in Sunday School, but not from teacher.)

Back to Two Birds with One Stone. In the Surprise II thread (if I can call it that) the word
"enfilade" reminded me of an old timer boasting about seeing a couple dozen starlings sitting
on a telephone line, so that from the top of a rise, they were in a perfect line away from
him. One 12 gauge shotgun shell brought down over a dozen of them, he claimed.
That beats two birds with one stone by quite a wide margin. Don't anybody weep for the
censored deleted expurgated unprinted starlings. They were hated in those days for driving
so many songbirds away.

Starlings can be a pain in the butt. Not that I'm advocating shooting a dozen of 'em at a time, but they can be a pain in the butt.

Would you like me to tell you about how my Granny used to make robin pie from the robins that used to roost in the cherry tree? Probably not.

Love to all who enjoy hearing the birdies sing,
WW, escaped from the bondage of her nursie, who is now well-tied-up in the little rocking chair out on the back porch

wwh,
I wondered if that was a rhetorical question, and whether you had the punch line all ready to go!

...had never entered his head before...

Why was Goliath surprised when David killed him with a stone from his sling?

Did he have time to be surprised, then, Bill?

Reminds me of those tragic/operatic deaths where the hero(ine) gets plenty of time to say exactly how s/he's feeling at just having died. It's also very important in those Hollywood action films that the baddy gets a chance to fully realise the error of his/her ways before undergoing a suitably gruesome demise.

But of course it's often a battle of ideals and wills rather than a physical duel alone. And as an erstwhile avid Marvel Comics fan I have to admit to loving all that.

Fisk

gratuitous (and often unconscious) reference to killing birds is offensive. IMHO!)

Belated greetings grump!

I find myself in agreement with Capfka on this one - the phrase is useful, sharp and clear, and to my mind doesn't carry any connotations of real violence, let alone environmental destruction. I suspect the "birds" being referenced were never real, given the practical impossibility of killing two real birds with a stone (with or without a sling). The phrase certainly doesn't have any association with impossible or unlikely outcomes.

This makes me think that the birds are targets in a contest - perhaps standing-up targets for slingshot practice? It would certainly be possible to knock down two stationary inanimate targets with one stone or shot.

grow two trees from one seed
Cute, but lacks the very important senses of speed and finality IMHO. Trees take ages to grow, whereas throwing a stone is pretty much instantaneous. And to "kill" two onerous tasks with a single clever effort is definitely preferable to leaving them niggling away at your peace of mind for years.

Fisk

Well, I'll just toss my two birds into the blackbird pie...

I don't have a problem with the two birds metaphor...I hunt and fish (and eat what I take), but I really like the alternative "Go the extra mile with one step" that was proposed by someone. It's longer, but mixes several metaphors in a thought provoking manner.

Incidentally, I read the other day that the human population is now consuming our natural resources at a rate of 1.2 years-worth per year. That is, it will take 1.2 years for the earth to regenerate what we use every 1 year. I suspect that the human population would profit from a little predation - though the preyees wouldn't appreciate it much!

Robert

I'll just toss my two birds into the blackbird pie

Any advance on 26 blackbirds in the pie? I'd gladly make it a hundred pigeons from this side of the Pond. Apparently there was some talk of classifying them as vermin, which would have made a lot of sense as regards city pigeons. I hear Venice is even worse than London, though.

Go the extra mile with one step
It's a good phrase, but I still wouldn't use it in lieu of "kill two birds with one stone". For one thing it has no "two", often a vital ingredient.

I suspect that the human population would profit from a little predation
Nature has Her ways. For instance, we had a very near miss from an asteroid recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2056000/2056403.stm

But then, I might just get run over by a bus.

Cheery Fisk

Dear fishonabike: Bird lovers can really go to extremes. In Boston over fifty years
ago, some bleedinghearts got upset about a rare Arctic peregrine falcon killing
pigeons on Boston Common, and got someone to shoot it.

Robert Payne said: "I suspect that the human population would profit from a little predation - though the preyees wouldn't appreciate it much!"

Seems a situation where everyone would be a NIMBI. Or at an Afghan wedding.



- Pfranz

Seems a situation where everyone would be a NIMBI.

I'll bite. What's a NIMBI?

None of Your Business, Keiva. You are not welcome here.

Dear Dr. Bill,

Today you wrote earlier in this thread:

Aside: Keiva you are still Public Enemy #1.

And now you just wrote:

None of Your Business, Keiva. You are not welcome here.


I had finally gotten WW down for the night, completely secure [or so I thought], tied up in her little bed. I myself, sitting very quietly in front of her laptop screen, took a quick, and very unconcerned glance through this thread out of idle curiosity, but the little devil had pulled out her hidden telescrope, read the thread along with me, and now she is cackling uncontrollably and shouting, "Three cheers for Dr. Bill!" over and over.

Thanks a lot, comrade. Do you have any idea how long it takes to calm her down once she gets going?

Bedlam regards,
WW's Nursie

everyone would be a NIMBI

I thought it was NIMBY, Pfranz, "Not In My Back Yard"

Is this "Not In My Back <a word beginning with I>"?

If so, we could always guess it, which might be fun.

No, shona, it was a typo. Pure and simple.

- Pfranz

Fellas, try I = introitus

"Not In My Back Introitus"

Cute.

More universal, too, as we don't have back yards over this side of the Pond. Even if it is only a yard, we call it a "back garden".

So, a productive typoe, Pfranz!

Edit: to save people looking up, introitus=Latin for 'entrance'

Dear fob: When I was a boy, many houses still had a "little house behind the house". It
was called commonly, a "backhouse", or outhouse. A common prank was to tip them over,
with occupant if possible on Halloween eve. I am no longer proud of having been perpetrator.
Quite a few years ago, USns thought it hilarious that there was a Brit Admiral named
"Backhouse".

"little house behind the house"

As you may have gathered, Bill, Brits would also say "outhouse", but never "backhouse".

Was the tip-over variety more like a seat over a hole in the ground then? As otherwise I'd expect the plumbing costs to be a little prohibitive.

Dear fob: No plumbing in little house, just a pit that periodically had to be dug out again.
via a trap door on outside rear. Reminds me of a story I'll send you if you want me to.