Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:knock someone over with a feather. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:knock someone over with a feather, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:knock someone over with a feather in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:knock someone over with a feather you have here. The definition of the word Talk:knock someone over with a feather will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:knock someone over with a feather, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Recently added. Cursory GBooks search seems to indicate this is in use. May need a better lemma, definitely needs a better definition. — Keφr20:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Here are the 12 instances found on COCA with a search of "* * * over with a feather"
YOU COULD HAVE KNOCKED ME OVER WITH A FEATHER 6
IT COULD HAVE KNOCKED ME OVER WITH A FEATHER 1
, AND THEN KNOCK IT OVER WITH A FEATHER 1
. YOU COULD KNOCK ME OVER WITH A FEATHER 1
YOU TALK ABOUT KNOCKING SOMEONE OVER WITH A FEATHER 1
DE FLAN-COULD 'VE KNOCKED HIM OVER WITH A FEATHER 1
Also used are "could have knocked/could knock me down with a feather," "could have been knocked down/over by a feather," and the imperative "knock me down/over with a feather." Also "might" can sometimes replace "could." — Pingkudimmi13:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think this should be moved to "knock over with a feather" or "knock someone over down with a feather" (depending on how we deal with phrases like this which have to be used with an internal object). It's also used in the third person ("you could have knocked her down with a feather") and the first-person plural ("you could have knocked us over with a feather"). No evidence of any real use in conjugation ("knocking...", "knocks...") on Google Books, which makes me think it only goes with modal verbs like "could", "could've", "might've" etc. I guess this is one of those phrases that falls into the construction grammar black hole, which we don't really know what to do with. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Pingku The search for the active form with down only found one instance at COCA. I expect it would be thrice attestable on larger corpora and should therefore be an alternative form. The passive (with either down or over) only appeared once, but it too is almost certainly tri-attestable.
The inanimate uses (what are some examples?) must have a different meaning, because "You could have knocked me over with a feather" (crucially over and not down) means "I was thoroughly astonished", which is not something that usually happens to inanimate objects. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Angr There are truncated examples from COCA above. It is a hyperbole for the situation that something physical, including a person, could easily fall apart or fail. I suppose we could have two lemmas, bidirectionally linked under See also and unidirectionally under Etymology from the "something" entry to the "someone" entry and in the opposite direction under Derived terms, but the "someone" sense is not really radically different, just something figurative. DCDuringTALK15:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
We don't necessarily need two lemmas, just two senses: "(of a person) to be thoroughly astonished" and "(of an object) to be flimsily built" or the like. Or I guess we do need a separate lemma using down rather than over, which is usually used of an object rather than a person, but maybe there are some attestations of its being used of a person too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring I don't think the inanimate use of the phrase needs much explaining, really. "You could have knocked the house down with a feather" means (very transparently, if rather hyperbolically) that the house was weak, and I think that any non-native speaker with average reading comprehension could work that out from "knock down" and "feather". "You could have knocked my dad down with a feather" doesn't mean that my dad is weak, though, it means that he is surprised, and that information is not contained in the sum of parts. (There may be some occasional use of the phrase to mean "weak" when referring to people as well, but that can be covered by {{&lit}}.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
