Elayne says "Should and would build no bridges", but the obvious response is that there are tons of woulden bridges.

 

Discuss.

Bridges are built from wood, which is a completely different things to "would". "Wood" is a noun ( a word that refers to a person, a place or a thing). "Would" is an  modal verb ( an auxiliary verb that expresses necessity or possibility. English modal verbs include must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might.)

Yes, but as a verbal statement the homophone would be confusing.

Maybes don't fly in September. 

 

Its only confusing to someone who isnt paying attention and doesn't know the little jokes and sayings.

Irregardless of the author's intent, let's take it for granite for a moment that, for all intensive purposes, lingual drift is a harsh mistress and wrecks havoc on the best of sayings.  I know, I know, you could care less about this, but in this doggy-dog world I'm taking a stand against poorly thought out sayings.  Obviously everybody understood the Jysk of the saying so this may be a mute point, and well beyond the statue of limitations, so let's try a different tact here to eek out some common ground.

 

Knowingly using a homophone in a saying, when the homophone itself is something that makes the saying have a completely opposite meaning, is just beyond the pail and should be nipped in the butt before the author reaps what he sews.

 

In lame man's terms, "wood builds no bridges" is a saying that would cause confusion on every single udderance.

 

...Yes, this post was made tongue-and-cheek, but I still await your response with baited breath.

Thank you for that laugh Wulf.  I really needed one tonight.

That...that actually pained me to read