How did this expression come to suppose, at least be provided now and then, as meaning that the drink/product/organization will be on the house?

It sounds as though tright here are negative ramifications of your organization in the facility in general, yet you’ll still be allowed your drink/product/business, but it’s passist for by the residence.

You are watching: Your money is no good here


If you say “your kind is no excellent here” it definately implies for you to obtain the hell out of tright here.

But why carry out you proceed to obtain organization, for free, if your money is no great there?

Language – specifically idiomatic language – is under no duty to be logical. Someone started using the phrase to suppose, “I’ll serve you yet I won’t take your money” and it recorded on.

Very regularly the literal interpretation of a expression is not the very same as its intake.

When I was younger, I always believed it meant something negative like, “your money’s no great below, rather I desire you to perform the dishes to pay for your meal.” It took me a while to capture on to that idiom.


When I was younger, I constantly believed it meant somepoint negative prefer, “your money’s no good right here, rather I desire you to perform the dishes to pay for your meal.” It took me a while to catch on to that idiom.

See, that provides sense too.

If I didn’t currently recognize what it meant, if someone told me my money was no good somewright here, my initially response would certainly be, “Why the fuck not?”

Often when civilization are readily available to be treated, they politely attempt to turn dvery own the invitation.

The expression is a jocularly gruff means of insisting that they take the treat. They are being told that, because they are unable to pay themselves, they have no alternative however to accept the hospitality. It’s a way to reduced off discussion.

I constantly figured this was a case of an older NEGATIVE catchexpression being turned on its head, and also supplied in a positive method.

That is, in the Old West, if a scruffy, undesirable-looking perkid walked into a saloon, he could have been told sternly, “Your money’s no great here,” as in “We don’t intfinish to serve you, so gain shed.”

In the Old South, a babsence guy seeking to eat at a resturant or shop at a whites-only store might have been told the very same point. In that situation, "Your money’s no good here "expected, “I don’t care if you have actually money to spfinish, YOU are not welcome below.”

Over time, those methods have actually mostly vaniburned, yet people remembered the old phrase, and also started utilizing it in a various means. If, for instance, a bunch of males are taking a buddy out to a resytaurant or bar for his birthday, they might tell him, “You money’s no excellent below,” interpretation “Tonight, you don’t pay for anything, it’s all on us.”

I think astorian’s got it. It initially meant, “You’re not welcome right here.” Later, it was offered in a mock-hostile manner to expect “It’s my treat,” because males prefer to present their love through their fists.

Exactly. I think this is an example that have the right to be both used in the negative and positive means, and it would certainly be obvious from context which was intfinished.

Does anyone have actually any kind of proof of the expression being provided in a hostile or exclusionary way? I have never before heard it offered like that, and also as Reality Chuck points out, idioms don’t need to make logical sense, so the reality that that “should” be the source of it is irappropriate.

I’m via Colibri. I’ve never heard of it having been an unfavorable, exclusionary expression that then turned positive, although that seems a reasonable theory. I came up dry as soon as I checked the usual online phrase-origin websites, FWIW.

A variant I’ve heard is “Put your money amethod, it’s no excellent below.”

I came up through a number of negative offers without a lot effort –

– The big three networks refoffered to market ads for the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD close to the election.

– Gisele Bundchen refoffers to accept payment for her services in UNITED STATE dollars.

– Airlines will not accept cash for a lot of in-flight transactions.

– British financial institutions might refuse to open up accounts for Amerihave the right to depositors.

– Take Two’s shareholders refusage a buyout market from E.A.


I came up with a number of negative offers without much effort…

I never before doubted tright here were and also are such modern uses. My question was whether that was the original usage of the expression, and later on becoming a friendly but stubborn insistence on dealing with someone.


Does anyone have any kind of evidence of the expression being offered in a hostile or exclusionary way? I have never heard it offered prefer that, and as Reality Chuck points out, idioms don’t have to make logical feeling, so the fact that that “should” be the source of it is irappropriate.

See more: If The Dollar Depreciates Relative To The Russian Ruble, The Ruble:

I recognize some old Western offered it to mean they wouldn’t perform company with that perchild. I have no desire to uncover one that does this for the thread.