In another place, maverick used the expression get up on one's hind legs (meaning, if this expression is not universally known, to express one's opinion in a forthright manner). The question is of course why does it mean this? None of us stand on our forelegs much, do we? (No doubt at this point someone will send us the url for handstanders united or something).
Bingley
All seriousness aside, I've always taken this to be another example of (what did we decide was the reverse of anthropomorphization), bringing up the image of, e.g., a cat getting up on its hind legs to leave its front legs free to flail about and scratch anything that made the mistake of getting too near.
Did we just get set up here? I know I laughed until I hurt
! Youse guyses!
tsuwm, trust you!
Bingley, you had a narrow escape: I thought I might have to jump on you, based on your subject title, till I read further--I happen to like mav's legs!
Bingly, do you think it might be an evolution of the phrase
Make a man of yourself
Man became man when he learned to stand on his hind legs and not need the use of the forelegs for balance. So to make a man you had to stand up.
To make a man of yourself means to stand up for yourself and consequently to stand on your hind legs.
Well it might do, I suppose, except that I've never heard the expression "make a man of yourself" before. An experience "making a man of" someone, yes. So is bel's expression unique to Canada (French-speaking Canada calqued into English perhaps?)
Bingley
Its a common expression here.
This similar expression, "make a man out of you", can have the same meaning -- or a very different one pertaining to loss of
.
In my experience the connotations are as Faldage implied always derogatory. Whether you take the context to be an early quadruped advancing in estate to rise on its hind legs, or a cat or dog springing up to fight with front paws extended as they do, the implication remains the same: only a less cerebrally advanced form of life has hind legs.
Agreed, mav.
Will you forgive me for changing the subject for a moment? The subject line of "mav's" legs, plus (I do not say "coupled with") the fact that mav lives reasonably near Scotland, leads me to speculate that perhaps mav can answer for us the burning question of the ages: "What do Scotsmen wear underneath their kilts?"
(btw mav: You may recall that the original reference to "rearing on your hind legs" was made by you, addressed at me. Let us forego a discussion of who is, in your terms, "less cerebrally advanced".)
the connotations are as Faldage implied always derogatory.
Huh? I did what?
"What do Scotsmen wear underneath their kilts?"
No, no. The question is, "What is worn under the kilt?"
The answer is, "Nothing is worn under the kilt; it's all in perfect working order."
I've always taken this to be another example of (what did we decide was the reverse of anthropomorphization)
Isn't comparing a person to an animal derogatory in your book, Faldage? oh, god, this is a slam dunk - you owe me one!
Isn't comparing a person to an animal derogatory in your book, Faldage?
Mav, wise old owl that he is (and clever as a fox, too, I might add), shows us that he is as quick as a bunny rabbit and has the memory of an elephant as he effectively uses my own words against me.
<<as Faldage implied
Whether he did or no, I heard you loud and clear
***
The human condition per belM and Mav:
Man became man when he learned to stand on his hind legs and not need the use of the forelegs* for balance. So to make a man you had to stand up.--belM
*"not need" to say "posesses but does not need"
only a less cerebrally advanced form of life has hind legs.--mav
Ergo: to become human is to be[come] less than human
On mules we find two legs behind
And two we find before.
We stand behind before we find
What the two behind be for.
If you're behind the two behind.
You'll find what these be for,
So stand before the two behind,
And behind the two before.
alternatively, in the words of Ogden Nash:
In the world of mules,
There are no rules.