Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently I've wondered about two idioms which have a strange relationship.

Come Hell or high water

and

Lord willing and the creek don't rise

  1. Grammatical accuracy, alternative formulations, and questionable folk etymologies, and literal meanings aside, why do these two phrases (often used interchangably) have such different implications?

My thoughts so far have centered around the former being an expression of an internal locus of control (i.e. I will make this happen) and the latter of an external locus of control (i.e. I hope this won't not happen).

  1. Why does the more apparently positive formulation reference Hell while the less (certainly) positive one mentions the 'Lord?'
share|improve this question
    
I realize now that rather than with roughly the same meaning, it would have been clearer to say which are often used interchangably, because they do have opposing literal meanings. –  Hone The Droll Jul 26 '13 at 12:00
    
Phone edits so ineffectual and computer so temporally distant... –  Hone The Droll Jul 26 '13 at 14:57

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

"Come Hell or high water" anticipates the possibility of adverse conditions and appropriately groups those with Hell, while "Lord willing and the creek don't rise" anticipates positive conditions (adverse conditions held at bay) and that is appropriately paired with an appeal to G-d.

They are similar in that they reference similar adverse conditions and I think you've correctly identified the distinction between them and appropriate context for each.

share|improve this answer

They don't really mean the same thing.

Come hell or high water

That means it will get done no matter what.

God willing [and the crick don't rise]

Whereas that means it will get done only if something doesn't prevent it.

If hell comes then you've got to oppose it to get into heaven. But on the contrary, if something is God's will then you have to let it happen.

So really the first is saying "not even the devil can stop me" whereas the second is saying "God will decide if this happens".

Similarly with the reference to rivers. The first defies the river, the second acquiesces to it.

These phrases, therefore, are opposite in meaning.

share|improve this answer
    
Why did you change the OP's question/title to "vs"? The OP says the idioms are related to one another. –  Mari-Lou A Jul 26 '13 at 9:55
1  
Because they ask why the implications are so different. They are setting the phrases against each other. –  Matt Эллен Jul 26 '13 at 10:01
    
And that's why he used that expression, implications, in his title. P.S you need to correct the spelling of "crick" It's creek. :) –  Mari-Lou A Jul 26 '13 at 10:03
8  
crick is dialectical. :-) Right, but the title was too broad. I prefer to specify what the question is about, rather than leave people guessing. I'm in chat if you want to carry on the discussion :) –  Matt Эллен Jul 26 '13 at 10:22
    
I obviously didn't mean dialectical, that's just my brain being stupid. I mean used in some dialects. –  Matt Эллен Jul 26 '13 at 13:21

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.