Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It basically means don't try to teach someone something that they already know how to do. Usually said by older people to youngsters who think they know it all. I'm British and I don't tend to use the phrase but I know people who do. Although I am older, I tend to be sarcastic if someone, older or younger, patronises me!
:D
 
Never heard of it before, myself. But what's up with these old, obscure idioms/phrases popping up? I recently saw that Geico commercial: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". It's actually pretty funny...but I have no idea what the actual phrase means.
 
But what's up with these old, obscure idioms/phrases popping up? I recently saw that Geico commercial: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". It's actually pretty funny...but I have no idea what the actual phrase means.
I wouldn't say it's that obscure – perhaps it's not commonly said but it's well enough known, at least in these parts.

Basically, it means it's better to have something you actually already possess rather than pursuing something that you don't. There might be more birds in the bush, but you don't have your hands on them so they're of no use to you.
 
And a bird in your hand is useful? :p
Why yes. Yes, it is.

It could be your chicken that provides you with eggs for tea or – if you're particularly hungry – meat, it could be a pigeon that transported your messages before letters were invented in the 1940s, or it could be the source of entertainment like the eponymous star of 1960s film classic Kes.

All are fine uses for a single bird, ones that those lurking in the bush can't fulfil even though there are more of them. At the very least, your sole bird could provide valuable eggs for your grandmother to use in her sucking lessons.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.