Sind Fliegen im Mund ungesund?
Sachsen, 14.01.2024, 07:59 – In a recent satirical column, Gunnar Saft, a SZ journalist, advises us to remain calm when language activists discover new “dangers”. He highlights the recent concern raised by Peta, an animal rights organization, regarding the use of idioms such as “to kill two birds with one stone” or “to pluck a chicken”. Peta argues that using such expressions is a form of discrimination against the animals mentioned. As an alternative, Peta suggests using less violent phrases like “to load two peas onto a fork” or expressing anger by saying “to roll wine leaves”. However, the practicality and understanding of these alternatives are still in question.
The article raises several questions about the implications of avoiding traditional idioms. For instance, why should one refrain from “letting the cat out of the bag” if mischievous children have put something inside? Why is it not permitted to grab the bull by the horns when it aggressively attacks? And where should one hold it instead? Furthermore, is it possible to shed crocodile tears without a teapot? The specific answers to these questions remain elusive. Meanwhile, the article humorously suggests that fairy tales should be banned because the brave Little Tailor can be considered a mass murderer.
However, the humor extends beyond animals. It raises the absurdity of forcing lions to become vegetarian, as well as dogs and cats who resist a vegan diet. The author even playfully calls on readers to start their vegan experiment by immediately changing the diet of their own pets. With colorful language, the article suggests that if anyone disagrees, they may find themselves facing a wrath of rolling wine leaves and an onslaught of peas on a fork. The article concludes with a whimsical suggestion for farmers to test the impact of saying “pluck a chicken” loudly in the henhouse, hoping to witness a surprising reaction from the hens.
Overall, the article highlights the amusing controversy surrounding the use of traditional idioms and the proposed alternatives put forth by Peta. It playfully questions the practicality and consistency of these alternative expressions. While promoting a lighthearted approach to language activism, the article invites readers to reflect on the deeper implications and potential consequences of changing centuries-old linguistic traditions.