Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

I have to wonder how often the accepted origins of a phrase aren't what lexicographers have decreed, because they didn't have the tools that any modern amateur readily has available.

For instance, "paint the town red" apparently refers to fire or to blood, according to most dictionaries.  Given that everything looks red if illuminated by red lighting, I've wondered if it shared common origins with "red light district" and railroaders' lanterns.

Google's ngram viewer shows zero references in 1881, the first references in 1882, and looking at the references link, we find that the Historic Magazine and Notes nd Queries in 1882 quoted the New York Sun as saying that the phrase was used extensively by Governor Thomas Walker during his last campaign.  They also mention Billy Walshm, the minstrel manager, whose advance man plastered posters, printed in red, all over a community.  When called to account for wasting the posters, the advance man said he was bound to "paint the town red."  I note that both of these could be correct, the advance man coining the phrase, which the politician used to advantage.

But then they mention uncle Elmathan Wheeler, who as a boy, got a deal on mineral red paint, far more durable than common paint, and partnered with a neighbor, Harvey Hammond to peddle the paint and at the low price they offered, virtually every house in old Stratford was painted red.  Boy, that's sure got all the detail one could ask for - but the fact that they DID paint the town red, so to speak, doesn't necessarily mean that they brought the phrase into the common language.  Was the town THAT boring that a couple of boys selling paint was very remarkable? Human nature being what it is, I imagine the question of somebody screwing (and possibly impregnating) someone else's wife was always available, so I tend to think this was a memory that was dredged up by the new popularity of the phrase.

But these contemporaneous citations have nothing to do with fire, nor with blood, as dictionaries suggest.

Undoubtedly, lexicographers will revisit phrases like this and, with the assistance of Google and other tools not available thirty years ago, change their dictionaries.

It's not exactly schadenfreude, but there is a little excitement in thinking one may have discovered something the experts have missed. Et cette proposition est généralement vraie en toutes progressions et en tous nombres premiers; de quoi je vous envoierois la démonstration, si je n'appréhendois d'être trop long. - Pierre de Fermat