# I don't trust you as far as I could throw you



## papeya

-I don't believe you feel nothing for me.
-I care about you. I don't trust you as far as I could throw you. Which wouldn't be far.

Qualcuno mi spiega la seconda frase? Non mi ci raccapezzo.
Grazie


----------



## cas29

Trust=fiducia
I don't trust you.. .non mi fido di te

Throw= lanciare -- si lancia una palla - (a baseball per esempio)

In effeto:   mi fido di te quanto ti potrei lanciare - 

Più riduttivo:  non mi fido di te per niente.


----------



## GavinW

Everything said so far is right, but there's a mistake in the English, surely. 

It should read "I trust you as far as I could throw you" (ie without "not"). Then the irony of the expression becomes clear: "I trust you (apparently, because that is what I am saying to start with), but then I make it clear that the extent to which I trust you is not very great, because it is logically obvious that the distance over which I can throw you is never likely to be very great" ("ti fido nella misura in cui riuscirei a lanciarti (di peso))".
Clearer? Hope so!


----------



## TrentinaNE

GavinW said:


> Everything said so far is right, but there's a mistake in the English, surely.
> 
> It should read "I trust you as far as I could throw you" (ie without "not").


Your logic is impeccable, Gavin, but I think it's a variation on "I can't even trust you as far as I can/could throw you."  The negative upfront front sounds more emphatic, sort of like "I could care less" has come to mean "I couldn't care less."  Plausible?  

Elisabetta


----------



## giovannino

GavinW said:


> Everything said so far is right, but there's a mistake in the English, surely.
> 
> It should read "I trust you as far as I could throw you" (ie without "not"). Then the irony of the expression becomes clear: "I trust you (apparently, because that is what I am saying to start with), but then I make it clear that the extent to which I trust you is not very great, because it is logically obvious that the distance over which I can throw you is never likely to be very great" ("ti fido _mi fido di te_ nella misura in cui riuscirei a lanciarti (di peso))".


 
Gavin, so this means that the speaker is playing ironically with the original idiom which is usually in the negative, right?

*not trust sb as far as one can throw them *not trust someone at all
(Longman Dictionary)

I guess the "not" in the original idiom means "neanche" (la mia fiducia in te non è pari neanche alla distanza a cui riuscirei a scaraventarti)


----------



## papeya

Thanks to all of you.


----------



## GavinW

This is either all very interesting or all very confusing!

I was about to say "Yes, Elisabetta, I agree that's plausible" (ie that "creative" adaptation of the "original" idiom) when Giovannino cites Longman (that old bugbear of mine) to back up the thesis that the "don't trust" version is the original idiom, a thesis which I feel I must refute... In other words, I'm sticking to my guns despite mounting evidence against me.

Or else I'm just going completely round the bend today. 

What's your gut feeling on the basic expression, Elisabetta? Which Longman dictionary are you citing from, Giovannino (not that it makes much difference)? My LDOCE (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) doesn't have it...

EDIT: Giovannino, thanks for correcting my creative variant of "mi fido di te".... Sheesh!


----------



## Alxmrphi

Totally with Gavin, 

not trust as far as I could throw you sounds like nonsense to me.

"I'd trust him as far as I could throw him"

- Is the correct saying.


----------



## GavinW

Alex_Murphy said:


> "I'd trust him as far as I could throw him"
> 
> - Is the correct saying.


 
 Phew!


----------



## giovannino

Gavin, I quoted from the 2003 edition of LDOCE.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary also gives the idiom in the negative:

He's very charming but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him


----------



## TrentinaNE

giovannino said:


> He's very charming but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him


Which is much like "I can't even trust him as far as I can/could throw him."  Both are slightly different from "I do not trust him as far as I can/could thrown him" and therein lies the potential confusion/disagreement.  

(In AE, it's more common to say "can" rather than "could" throw him.  We like being more direct, I guess.   )

Elisabetta


----------



## Paulfromitaly

*Cambridge: *_I wouldn't trust __someone as far as I could throw them_. INFORMAL
something that you say which means you do not trust someone at all:
_He's very charming but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

_http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=85213&dict=CALD


----------



## GavinW

giovannino said:


> Gavin, I quoted from the 2003 edition of LDOCE.
> 
> The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary also gives the idiom in the negative:
> 
> He's very charming but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him


 
Thanks. OK, my take:
Longman: 
Cambridge:  

This is apparently inconsistent, but may perhaps be explained thus: the basic idiom must be positive, eg "I trust her _about as far_ as I could throw her". This kind of quasi-rhetorical device (which can probably best be defined as bathos, litotes or some device which relies on the fact that an expectation which is built up in the first part of the phrase is ultimately unfulfilled) can, I think, be seen also in similar (sarcastic?) phrases like "I need you like a hole in the head".

But the phrase gets distorted. Through abundant use, there is no longer the effect of surprise in the disparity between the assumed expectation and its non-fulfillment. In other words, the other person already knows the end result (meaning, message) of the phrase ("I don't trust her at all"). So this meaning (the negative) is revealed (ie anticipated) right from the start. Still, while I like Cambridge's "wouldn't" (where the conditional verb retains some sense of an unfulfilled condition), I despise Longman's "don't".

Have I mis-spelled "unfullfilled...?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

GavinW said:


> Have I mis-spelled "unfullfilled...?



I'd say "unfulfilled" (and misspelt) , but hey, you're the Brit here..


----------



## Murphy

To me it seems quite simple.  You can use the expression in either a positive or a negative way.

I trust you about as far as I could throw you.  And that wouldn't be far.
(I trust you very little).

I don't trust you as far as I could throw you.  And that wouldn't be far.
(I trust you even less).

Or maybe it's me that's simple?


----------



## giovannino

GavinW said:


> But the phrase gets distorted. Through abundant use, there is no longer the effect of surprise in the disparity between the assumed expectation and its non-fulfillment. In other words, the other person already knows the end result (meaning, message) of the phrase ("I don't trust her at all"). So this meaning (the negative) is revealed (ie anticipated) right from the start


 
Your explanation makes perfect sense. I'd like to ask you why the LDOCE is a bugbear of yours but that would be totally off topic

EDIT: Murphy's suggestion makes sense too!


----------



## virgilio

giovannino,
               Re:  I guess the "not" in the original idiom means "neanche" (la mia fiducia in te non è pari neanche alla distanza a cui riuscirei a scaraventarti)"

 Absolutely right! 
My own favourite expression - often with reference to some politician or other - is "I wouldn't trust him (or her) as far as I could throw a grand piano".

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## runningman

I've just found another version of this idiom:

*I don't trust you any farther than I can throw you*


----------



## GavinW

runningman said:


> I've just found another version of this idiom:
> 
> *I don't trust you any farther than I can throw you*


 
Yep, this version is at least as common as the other one, I'd say. It might even help explain the differences in the exact phrasing of the other version of the idiom.


----------



## Wodwo

GavinW said:


> Yep, this version is at least as common as the other one, I'd say. It might even help explain the differences in the exact phrasing of the other version of the idiom.



"I wouldn't trust you any further than I could throw you" is the version I've known all my life. But I don't think it's the kind of thing you say to someone, but about them. "I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him".

I don't remember ever coming across the positive formulation of "I'd trust you as far as I could throw you", but it makes sense, I'd know what it meant. I just can't imagine using it.


----------



## Moggy

Ciao a tutti,

mi collego a questo post, ma non ho ben capito come poterlo rendere in italiano nel mio caso. 

*Trust him as far as I could throw him, which wasn’t far.*

Mi sarei fidato di lui .... non so proprio come collegarlo con *which wasn’t far.* Da quanto ho capito è comunque un modo di dire...

Grazie a tutti

M


----------



## metazoan

Hi Moggy,
It's usually "I wouldn't trust him...". That is, if I can throw him two feet, I trust him even less than that (as if trust were measurable in feet, which is part of the comic effect). The final clause is an unnecessary reminder that that distance is not far: "Non tanto!"


----------



## Moggy

metazoan said:


> Hi Moggy,
> It's usually "I wouldn't trust him...". That is, if I can throw him two feet, I trust him even less than that (as if trust were measurable in feet, which is part of the comic effect). The final clause is an unnecessary reminder that that distance is not far: "Non tanto!"



Thank you!

I wonder how to keep the "comic effect" in Italian. Is it just "Non mi fidavo più di tanto di lui" ?

Edit: Or maybe "Non mi ispirava chissà che fiducia"?


----------



## ohbice

Gli credo come credo a Otelma, e non è granché.
Mio tentativo (con tutto il rispetto per il Mago Otelma ;-) ).


----------



## Moggy

ohbice said:


> Gli credo come credo a Otelma, e non è granché.
> Mio tentativo (con tutto il rispetto per il Mago Otelma ;-) ).



Molto simpatica, davvero  ma il contesto richiede più "fiducia" o addirittura "confidare/affidare"..


----------



## london calling

Avere fiducia in lui sarebbe stato come fidarsi del diavolo(?).


----------



## Moggy

london calling said:


> Avere fiducia in lui sarebbe stato come fidarsi del diavolo(?).



Non sarebbe male, solo che il "diavolo" in questo caso sarebbe la persona che pensa questa frase (è un criminale). L'altra invece era buona, ma era un poliziotto. Quindi ovviamente il criminale non può fidarsi del poliziotto che vuole aiutarlo...


----------



## london calling

Sì, ma per un criminale la polizia rappresenta il nemico per cui lo potrebbe vedere come un diavolo, non degno di fiducia, no?


----------



## Moggy

london calling said:


> Sì, ma per un criminale la polizia rappresenta il nemico per cui lo potrebbe vedere come un diavolo, non degno di fiducia, no?



Non mi dispiace com'è impostata, forse è il riferimento al diavolo che sembra stonare... e se fosse "Giuda" o "Caino" o "Marco Bruto? (figlio di cesare)??

Avere fiducia in lui sarebbe stato come fidarsi di Giuda/ o altri?

Che ne pensi? Cosa mi consigli?


----------



## london calling

Forse Giuda è meglio del diavolo in questo contesto.


----------



## Moggy

london calling said:


> Forse Giuda è meglio del diavolo in questo contesto.



     

Grazie


----------

