Thanks!

IMHO it's hard to decide if the rubbery attempted conversion of "spit and image" (meaning substance and appearance) into "spitten image" is more balderdash, poppycock, folderol, horsefeathers, or just garden-variety piffle.

Do images ever spit? No. There goes "spitting image." Just spit that one out of the lexicon.

Are images ever spat ("spitten")? No. They aren't ejaculated, either, as the article in its backward arching contortion of conjecture tries to suggest.

Steve Cianci wrote us to lament the use of the term, maintaining that "spit and image" is the proper phrase. "The very spit of someone is an exact likeness," he wrote. [No, it isn't: the SPIT is the substance, not the likeness. The likeness is the IMAGE. The two go together. —Ed.] "'The spit and image' or 'spit image' [a phrase used by nobody] emphasizes the exactness."

Like so many colloquialisms — beat the band, piece of cake, knock on wood — spitting image has been around for hundreds of years, so it's impossible to nail down its exact origins. But we turned to Laurence Horn, professor of linguistics at Yale University, who is widely held as an expert — if not the last word — on the topic.

Cianci is in good company with his "spit and image" theory. "For the majority of language columnists, spittin' image is a euphemistic alteration or 'corruption' of the original expression, spit and image," Horn wrote in a paper on the topic.

Thanks!

IMHO it's hard to decide if the rubbery attempted conversion of "spit and image" (meaning substance and appearance) into "spitten image" is more balderdash, poppycock, folderol, horsefeathers, or good old-fashioned piffle.

Do images ever spit? No. There goes "spitting image." Just spit that one out of the lexicon.

Are images ever spat ("spitten")? No. They aren't ejaculated, either, as the article in its backward arching contortion attempts to sell us.

From the article:

Steve Cianci wrote us to lament the use of the term, maintaining that "spit and image" is the proper phrase. "The very spit of someone is an exact likeness," he wrote. [No, it isn't: the SPIT is the substance, not the likeness. The likeness is the IMAGE. The two go together. —Ed.] "'The spit and image' or 'spit image' [a phrase used by nobody] emphasizes the exactness."

Like so many colloquialisms — beat the band, piece of cake, knock on wood — spitting image has been around for hundreds of years, so it's impossible to nail down its exact origins. But we turned to Laurence Horn, professor of linguistics at Yale University, who is widely held as an expert — if not the last word — on the topic.

Cianci is in good company with his "spit and image" theory. "For the majority of language columnists, spittin' image is a euphemistic alteration or 'corruption' of the original expression, spit and image," Horn wrote in a paper on the topic.