Talk:øye for øye, tann for tann

Not Norwegian, Not an Idiom

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is not an idiom and it's not Norwegian, and it should be removed from this category. It's a proverb, in very literal terms, drawn from the Bible, and it's common to every society where the Bible has had significant influence. An idiom is an expression, peculiar to a certain language or culture, whose meaning is not decipherable from its elements. The fact that this proverb can be extended by analogy to subjects other than eyes and teeth doesn't make it an idiom.

Jdcrutch (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been no response to my comment from more than a year ago, so I've put a "Request for Deletion" tag on the article.

Just to clarify my earlier comment, the proverb is in Norwegian, but it's not a Norwegian proverb, much less a Norwegian idiom. It's a Hebrew proverb, which has been adopted by virtually every nation that's been exposed, directly or indirectly, to the Hebrew scriptures. It's not an idiom at all.

Jdcrutch (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong about pretty much everything you say:

1.) If it's in Norwegian, it is Norwegian. Whether it was originally Hebrew doesn't matter. It may have been Egyptian or Akkadian before it was Hebrew anyway. Who knows?

2.) While you are right that it is a proverb, it is without a trace of doubt an idiom. Most (or all?) proverbs are idioms. The meaning of "an eye for an eye" is: "take revenge by doing to the one that offended you the same degree of damage that they did to you". Do you claim that this meaning is understandable merely from the parts "an eye for an eye"? Well, it's not. Not at all.

3.) The fact that you can replace "an eye for an eye" with something like "a hand for a hand" doesn't mean anything. Because what you do here is to use a structure that is sufficiently similar to the original idiom so the listener will be able to make the connection. If it's not sufficiently similar or if the listener doesn't have the necessary cultural knowledge, it won't work.

4.) This expression is very much "peculiar to a certain language or culture". And the very fact that you say the Norwegians didn't have it before they were Christianised, proves that.