6

Consider this famous Hindi proverb,

A washerman's dog belongs neither at home nor at the riverbank.

This saying is used to describe someone who doesn't fully belong to or fit into any group or place, often because they are trying to serve or please multiple parties and end up satisfying none.

Is there a English equivalent to this proverb?

I should also point out that in US (at least) most people do their own laundry (based on my brief experience there) so probably there is no washerman there.

Improve this question
8
  • 2
    We had washerwomen in the West before domestic washing machines became common!
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Aug 9 at 7:38
  • 1
    @KateBunting One (famous/controversial) economist said that washing machine is man's greatest invention. :)
    – Sahil
    Commented Aug 9 at 8:50
  • 3
    I think the expectation in the proverb is that the dog is a working animal that is not suited for the task of hauling the clothing and being a working animal is not considered a house pet. If that adds anything to an english conversion.
    – Yorik
    Commented Aug 9 at 15:51
  • 1
    @Eric Because the birth control pill was funded by a woman.
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 10 at 16:26
  • 1
    @Eric They both save women enormous amounts of time. One is "man's greatest invention", the other is "woman's greatest invention".
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 11 at 13:14

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
20

Another possibility: Neither fish nor fowl.

Merriam-Webster defines this as:

  • one that does not belong to a particular class or category.
    The movie is neither fish nor fowl—it's not really a comedy, but it's too light-hearted to be called a drama.
Improve this answer
3
  • Vote this is the answer. It's the answer I came here to write.
    – Jess Fuckett
    Commented Aug 11 at 2:14
  • 1
    I considered including this in my answer, but decided that I probably wouldn't use it to describe a person's behaviour.
    – JavaLatte
    Commented Aug 11 at 5:41
  • 1
    @JessFuckett — ditto.
    – Michael Lorton
    Commented Aug 12 at 2:26
8

Here are a few possibilities:

  1. Here's an idiom:

    You can't serve two masters.

  2. There's a quote by John Lydgate that's frequently cited:

    You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

  3. A little off-topic, but there's a nickname for someone who does an OK job at many things, but can't do anything really well:

    A jack of all trades and a master of none.

Improve this answer
6
  • John Lydgate was born in the 14th century.
    – TimR
    Commented Aug 11 at 19:13
  • @TimR — that attribution is floating around the Internet, but it’s patently false.
    – Michael Lorton
    Commented Aug 12 at 2:30
  • I would normally expect the first idiom to be in the form "No man can serve two masters" or "A man can't serve two masters".
    – aantia
    Commented Aug 12 at 9:09
  • @aantia Any of the three are fine. Mine is just less formal than yours.
    – swmcdonnell
    Commented Aug 12 at 16:05
  • Whether correctly attributed or not, the 'Lydgate' quote appears to be the inspiration for the chorus of the Rick Nelson song Garden Party; "You can't please everyone, so you've got to learn to please yourself."
    – Kirt
    Commented Aug 12 at 23:17
7

You could use the expression "falling between two stools". It means that something tries to satisfy two different sets of requirements, and so fails to satisfy either.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Related to "servant of two masters"
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 10 at 16:26
  • @Barmar I've never heard the "servant of two masters" whereas "falling between two stools" crops up a lot. This NGram graph backs up my opinion. books.google.com/ngrams/…
    – JavaLatte
    Commented Aug 11 at 5:39
  • I may have been thinking of the proverb from the Bible "No man can serve two masters."
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 11 at 13:12
  • This is so completely wrong - hard to understand the upvotes. This has nothing to do with requirements - it has to do with belonging
    – S K
    Commented Aug 11 at 18:26
  • @SK I think that my answer is completely relevant to this part of the OP's explanation: "because they are trying to serve or please multiple parties and end up satisfying none"
    – JavaLatte
    Commented Aug 13 at 0:28
4

One correction I would like to make, the proverb is "Dhobi ka katka" not "Dhobi ka kutta". "Katka" refers to wooden plank/board on which launderers wash clothes, whereas "kutta" refers to a dog. So, proverb becomes, "The washerman's wooden plank/board belongs neither at home nor at the riverbank." The planks were heavy and taking it from home to riverbank and vice versa was exhausting which is why the boards were often hidden somewhere along the way near the riverbank. As for the equivalent in English, there are numerous possible answers already submitted.

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    This provides invaluable information, and clarification, which explains the origin of the proverb and makes a lot more sense. I just wonder how accurate your account is, but +1 from me all the same.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Aug 12 at 13:14
  • 1
    I am a native speaker; It is actually dog not what you said. Not sure how you got your info.
    – Sahil
    Commented Aug 12 at 13:15
  • Could easily see a proverb originating organically as "katka" and then phonetically simplifying, while still remaining semantically plausible, to "kutta". Such reanalysis often happens with proverbs and idioms, especially a few centuries later when the original cultural context has been lost to the majority of speakers. It would be an eggcorn that gains enough acceptance to be a valid alternative. But I'm just speculating in the case of this proverb.
    – Luke Sawczak
    Commented Aug 12 at 19:55
  • This seems like it could be true, but many phrases and idioms have multiple conflicting etymologies. To support this you should provide a citation from an authoritative source such as a dictionary or scholarly article.
    – barbecue
    Commented Aug 12 at 21:44
0

It sounds like the dog's existence is (considered) pointless, if not harmful - providing no tangible benefit to its owner in exchange for the cost of keeping it. In this sense, the phrase "just another mouth to feed" might actually be relevant, especially if the owner is struggling to support themselves. Another expression in this vein is "white elephant", referring to a possession that costs more to keep than it's worth. Or you could call it a "lapdog" to emphasize its owner keeps it solely for their own pleasure or entertainment, usually implying that it's worth little otherwise.

Improve this answer
3
  • It's funny you mentioned lapdog. I actually don't know what that means (I know it is a kind of dog, but why lap etc.?). I actually had a friend Labrador and Australian Collie. I wonder how they feel about the lapdog thing as opposed to Dog With A Job?
    – Sahil
    Commented Aug 12 at 4:30
  • A lapdog is a dog small and calm enough to comfortably sit on your lap. While in the literal sense, any small dog can be a lapdog, the term is often is pejoratively used to describe over-bred pets of aristocrats who have, over generations, been given exaggerated features that would make them incapable of doing work, even if their owner wanted to train them for it.
    – Blckknght
    Commented Aug 12 at 6:06
  • Right. When applied to a person, the implication is that they receive more favor than they deserve from leadership, i.e. that their position is the result of favoritism rather than merit.
    – talrnu
    Commented Aug 12 at 19:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .