today's misstep (not really today's since the episode i'm watching on recording is from june):
'this ridge over your eyes can also refer to the expression of your face'
no, no it can't!
despite not being able to locate any uproar on the webs, i feel certain others must've caught this error as well. feel free to disabuse me of any misconceptions i may have, but:
brow does not have a valid definitional sense of 'expression'.
the very few online dictionaries that have foolishly included this in their list of senses either fail to cite a source or example or, like the 'freedictionary', cite an example that serves to disprove rather than prove:
"'speak you this with a sad brow?' (shakespeare)."
brow, here, as elsewhere, is modified by an adjective. in this case it is the adjective, sad, which quite clearly refers to and describes the expression. one would say 'she has a sad expression', not 'she has a brow expression', or 'she looks sad', not 'she looks brow', if describing a person to your friend over the phone. brow only means what it so often means, the forehead portion of the face. in other instances one would find expressions such as 'troubled brow' or 'furrowed brow' (note, also that such phrases most commonly refer to the negative emotions which are more noticeably conveyed by the eyebrow and forehead area of the face, although one can find examples of positive emotions like the 'laughing brow' in a melville poem.) while in certain instances through the operation of metonymy, brow could take on the meaning of 'face' in its entirety, these common expressions are predicated on the specific attributes of the forehead portion of the face.
a proper clue might say 'the set of this ridge over your eyes is a commonly observed facial expression.', or 'the set of this ridge over your eyes sometimes reveals an otherwise unexpressed emotion'.