taken "with a grain of salt"

[GoldfishLord]

Hypotheses of the phrase's origin include Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, regarding the discovery of a recipe for an antidote to a poison.[2] In the antidote, one of the ingredients was a grain of salt. Threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt", and therefore less seriously.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_grain_of_salt

I'm still having trouble understanding the meaning of the bold part.
What does it mean?

 

[jutfrank]

Did you miss the explanation at the top of the page or just not understand it?

To take something with a "grain of salt" or "pinch of salt" is an English idiom that suggests to view something, specifically claims that may be misleading or unverified, with skepticism or not to interpret something literally

 

[GoldfishLord]

The paragraph in post #1 is talking about the origin of the idiom, so it would seem that the bold part should be taken literally.

 

[jutfrank]

Literally, it means 'ingested (taken) accompanied by (with) a very small quantity (a grain) of sodium chloride (of salt)'.

Is that what you're asking?

 

[GoldfishLord]

Yes, it is helpful.

1. What is the literal meaning of "threats involving the poison were thus to be"?

2. Does the writer intend the 'threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt", and therefore less seriously' part to be taken literally or figuratively?

3. Given the context, "seriously" means "riskily".
Is it correct to use "seriously" this way?

 

[tedmc]

Yes, it is helpful.

What is the literal meaning of "threats involving the poison were thus to be"?

"Thus to be" means "similarly taken". It's play on the phrase "with a grain of salt", which applies to both the antidote and the threat. "A pinch of salt" is literally part of the recipe of the antidote, while the threat to the antidote is "not to be taken lightly".

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, it is helpful.

1. What is the literal meaning of "threats involving the poison were thus to be"?

It doesn't mean anything by itself. You left something important out of that sentence.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Hypotheses of the phrase's origin include Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, regarding the discovery of a recipe for an antidote to a poison.[2] In the antidote, one of the ingredients was a grain of salt. Threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt", and therefore less seriously.

---

Is the bold part poorly written?

 

[Tarheel]

No.it is not poorly written.

 

[GoldfishLord]

What does "were thus to" mean?

 

[Tarheel]

All by itself it doesn't mean anything. Any meaning it has is as part of the sentence.

A grain of salt is a very small amount of salt. It's inconsequential-- not be taken seriously.

 

[emsr2d2]

What does "were thus to" mean?

Would you have understood it if it said "... were therefore to be taken ..."?

 

[GoldfishLord]

Threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt", and therefore less seriously.

---

1. Does "threats involving the posion" mean "the possibility of harm of the poison"?
2. Does "were thus to" mean "was therefore proper to"?
3. Does "be taken with a grain of salt" mean "be understood along with a very small quantity of sodium chloride"?

Where do I misunderstand?

 

[Tarheel]

Threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt", and therefore less seriously.

---

1. Does "threats involving the posion" mean "the possibility of harm FROM the poison"?
2. Does "were thus to" mean "was therefore proper to"?
3. Does "be taken with a grain of salt" mean "be understood along with a very small quantity of sodium chloride"?

WHAT do I misunderstand?

1. Yes.
2. I don't think so.
3. Yes, with an explanation. (See below.)

It's normally not meant literally. That's what you don't seem to understand. If I would say you should take something with a grain of salt that would mean you should be skeptical about that-- that you should not be too quick to believe it (whatever it happens to be).

 

[GoldfishLord]

1. Yes.
2. I don't think so.
3. Yes, with an explanation. (See below.)

It's normally not meant literally. That's what you don't seem to understand. If I would say you should take something with a grain of salt that would mean you should be skeptical about that-- that you should not be too quick to believe it (whatever it happens to be).

1. What words are implied before "with an explanation"?
2. Does "would" mean "I'm not certain"?

 

[Tarheel]

1. Nothing is implied. I'm not implying anything. I came right out and said what I wanted to say..
2. No, it doesn't mean that at all.

@jutfrank Help!

 

[GoldfishLord]

1. Yes.
2. I don't think so.
3. Yes, with an explanation. (See below.)

It's normally not meant literally. That's what you don't seem to understand. If I would say you should take something with a grain of salt that would mean you should be skeptical about that-- that you should not be too quick to believe it (whatever it happens to be).

What do the bold parts mean?

 

[Tarheel]

You are wasting my time and yours.

 

[jutfrank]

1. Does "threats involving the posion" mean "the possibility of harm of the poison"?
2. Does "were thus to" mean "was therefore proper to"?
3. Does "be taken with a grain of salt" mean "be understood along with a very small quantity of sodium chloride"?

1. Yes
2. No
3. No

Where do I misunderstand?

I don't know. Try to explain the whole thing and then I'll try to work out what you misunderstand.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt", and therefore less seriously.

---

It seems that I understand the sentence.

"Threats involving the poison" means "statements that someone would be harmed with the poison".
"Were thus to" means "should(in past tense)".
"Be taken with a grain of salt" means "be received with one quantity of sodium chloride".

This is what I understand about it.