English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water and make it drink.
I read this on http://chucknorrisfacts.com. What I think this sentence means, is: Chuck Norris can take his horse to where the water is and then his horse will drink the water. So, what is funny about this? Isn't it something pretty normal?
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" is an English proverb. If you want the horse to drink, the most you can do is lead it to water; after that, the horse drinks only if it wants to. More generally, the proverb is used in the senses of "there's only so much you can do" or "people will do what they want" or "you can't help people who don't want to be helped". This proverb is one of the oldest in English, having been recorded in Old English Homilies, 1175:
Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule drinken
[who can give water to the horse that will not drink of its own accord?]
So "Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink" simply reverses the proverb: Chuck Norris can do something which the proverb says is impossible. (The humour is partly from the appropriation of a commonplace proverb for Chuck Norris purposes.) Something similar would be "Chuck Norris can eat his cake and have it too", reversing the proverb "You can't eat your cake and have it too". (Once you eat your cake, you'll no longer have it with you: this proverb is these days more commonly stated as "you can't have your cake and eat it too".)
There is an idiom in English: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Even favorable circumstances won't force one to do something one doesn't want to, as in We've gotten all the college catalogs but he still hasn't applied --you can lead a horse to water. This metaphoric term dates from the 12th century and was in John Heywood's proverb collection of 1546. It is so well known that it is often shortened, as in the example.
The whole notion here is that Chuck Norris has superpowers, making possible the impossible even. These jokes are only funny when you hear many of them in a row and one seems to outdo the other.
The dynamics of the joke have been explained so I won't rehash that but I don't see the meta-joke being mentioned here so I'll explain it.
A kind of meta-joke, a joke above the jokes, is to tell a series of really unfunny jokes. So while the jokes in and of themselves aren't funny the string of jokes clearly not meant to be funny can be funny. If it's just one joke you might say, "Meh, that wasn't funny." But a barrage of really stupid jokes, if they are ridiculously unfunny like the one above, is funny.
And finally it's kind of an inside joke that some people actually find the unfunny jokes funny. That's a meta-joke on top of the meta-joke.
P.S. I don't find Chuck Norris jokes funny either, but I get it.
This is related to the idiom:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Meaning: People, like horses, will only do what they have a mind to do.
or
Something that you say which means you can give someone the opportunity to do something, but you cannot force them to do it if they do not want to.
So the sentence you refer to is a joke which points out the determination (decisiveness) of Chuck Norris.
Well I guess Chuck Norris is so physically capable that he can "force" a horse to drink water no matter what, even if it doesn't want to, so you'd better watch out if you mess with Chuck Norris.
A Question Without Comments Is Not a Question: codinghorror.com/blog/2006/04/… . errrr! he said about blog instead of question :D