On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Not to me. Admittedly we computer geeks are perhaps more >> wordplay-friendly than the norm, but all of the above readily refer to >> being kidded IML. >> >> "A little dog's hair" would not immediately >> make me think of the same thing as "A little hair of the dog". >> >> Mark J. Reed > > Agreed. I often say things like, "Well, I live in a glass house on this one" and "Mr. Pot? There's a Mr. Kettle on line 2." I would certainly understand "The bucket has been kicked." In all cases, though, I do feel like it's a humorous reference to the base idiom rather than any actual grammatical flexibility. A bit of a puzzle as to why "a little dog's hair" more obscures the original idiom than "now pull the other one" does. Part of it may be that "hair of the dog" is short for "hair of the dog that bit you" (meaning, more alcohol to mask the unpleasant effects of alcohol consumed earlier), and "the dog that bit you's hair" is damned awkward. Of course, for that explanation to work you have to assume that everybody using the phrase knows that there's "supposed to be" a complement there, which seems dubious.