As I understand it, the etymology of "take with a grain of salt" is purely American. The grain refers to those amber waves of grain of which we are so proud. Amber, of course, is the color of the traffic light advising you to be cautious, and wave is exactly what the guy does when he tells you to slow down and be careful. Salt, when it gets in your eye, stings. So the meaning is that you should be cautious about what you are hearing, because you are about to be stung.

That's what's known as folk etymology -- since I'm obviously just folking with you.

I disagree. No reason, just to be cantankerous.

I was intrigued by that interpretation of the idiom as well. It appears to be wrong - or at least widely rejected:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/take-with-a-grain-of-salt.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/176207.html

From all of that, it looks like the more dubious (therefore unsavory or even poisonous) the proposition, the more salt required.

Anonymous wrote:Idiomatic pet peeve:

I would take this with more than a single grain of salt.

...doesn't make sense. The reason you say "take it with a grain of salt" is that the thing in question is so insignificant that any more than a single grain would be overkill. So if you want to emphasize this, you'd say, "Take it with a very *small* grain of salt" or "...take this with no more than a single grain of salt."

Can you provide some sort of support for your definition of "take it with a grain of salt"? I've never heard it explained the way that you do here. Regardless of the literal meaning of the phrase, idiomatically it means to "view something with skepticism". So, if you take something with more than a single grain of salt, you are viewing it with more than a bit of skepticism. For instance, I am taking your definition with several grains of salt, meaning I am extremely skeptical of your explanation. Also, I plan to argue this to the death because I cannot think of any more important issue facing the world today.

Anonymous wrote:One might consider your post to be inflammatory. But actually there is some scientific backing to your statement that fear is a foundation of conservative ideology. Scientists who studied whether ideology has a biological basis found this, for example: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/science/sci-politics19

I've never come across anything on the nature/nurture of it, but the fear correlation has been found in many different contexts. There was a great study a few years back correlating personality characteristics of very small children with their ideology as adults.

And again - the Rep leadership is very aware of the fear factor.