[Idiom] on a short leash

[Olenek]

Hi everybody,

Idioms "To keep/ have someone on a short/ tight leash/ string" and "To keep a tight rein on someone" mean to control someone's activity completely.


Which of them is more common in your country?
Or do you use other idioms with the same sense?

Many Thanks for all your answers! :up:

 

[goldflinger]

in england we say "under the thumb" when it involves people in a relationship...
on a short leash means to keep an eye on someone at a workplace or similar

 

[Olenek]

And perhaps one more is "to have someone in your pocket" - to have power over someone, to control him.

 

[BobK]

in england we say "under the thumb" when it involves people in a relationship...
on a short leash means to keep an eye on someone at a workplace or similar

I'm not sure why you didn't agree with 'to control someone's activity completely'. It seems to me that the whole workplace thing is a red herring.

(The point of a short leash - in the original context of giving a dog very little latitude - is physical control; when you keep someone on a short leash [never, Olenek, string] you do more than just keep an eye on them.)

b

 

[goldflinger]

to control somebody completely one may have to incarcerate them ...i didn't disagree i merely offered an alternative point of view
the "workplace" was an example ....im not argumentative either that's an assumption that you alone jumped to
and the real point my friend was not the leash at all more the analogy of the restraint......
something it appears you have little of
i was taught if you have nothing "GOOD" to add, then add nothing



if your bored make a box everybody needs a box or two

 

[BobK]

In this forum, if you've nothing accurate to add, then add nothing -

b

 

[Tdol]

And perhaps one more is "to have someone in your pocket" - to have power over someone, to control him.

That one is different to me- if you have someone on a short leash, you don't give them much freedom, but if you have them in your pocket, would refer more to corrupt relationships, like crooked politicians, etc.

 

[SanMar]

If it is an extremely short leash ... you got them by the short and curly.
I wouldn't consider this rude but it isn't exactly polite. I wouldn't use it in a formal situation, actually I might, but most wouldn't.


Not a teacher.

 

[freezeframe]

To be tied to her (wife's/mother's/gf's) apron strings = when a guy is either too attached to his mommy or if his wife/gf controls him too much :-D

to have someone wrapped around your finger = control someone or manipulate them

to be under someone's heel/have someone under your heel

 

[Tdol]

If it is an extremely short leash ... you got them by the short and curly.

In BrE, I hear the short and curlies used.

 

[BobK]

If it is an extremely short leash ... you got them by the short and curly.
I wouldn't consider this rude but it isn't exactly polite. I wouldn't use it in a formal situation, actually I might, but most wouldn't.


Not a teacher.

In Br Eng it's plural. I had a not entirely sympathetic maths teacher who would control a recalcitrant pupil by holding him by the short hairs on the nape of the neck and shaking his head back and forth - but those hairs are not curly at all (in most people). In less polite society people refer to 'the short and curlies' - referring to an entirely different, and more sensitive, part of the body. I have no idea which came first - curlies or hairs; but I've never heard anything but the plural, and the 'curlies' variation is not at all formal. ;-)

b

 

[freezeframe]

Since we veered south of the border...


Another idiom is "to have someone by the balls".

 

[SanMar]

In Br Eng it's plural. I had a not entirely sympathetic maths teacher who would control a recalcitrant pupil by holding him by the short hairs on the nape of the neck and shaking his head back and forth - but those hairs are not curly at all (in most people). In less polite society people refer to 'the short and curlies' - referring to an entirely different, and more sensitive, part of the body. I have no idea which came first - curlies or hairs; but I've never heard anything but the plural, and the 'curlies' variation is not at all formal. ;-)

b

You may be right. I can't say with absolute certainty that it is not curlies come to think of it. I think here the reference is pubes rather than hair on the back of the neck though. But I am not an expert.

And yes it is not used formally, that was a slip on my part sorry!

Not a teacher.


(BTW what an *ssh*l* Math teacher you had.)