And How?

[Fiery Diamond]

So, really I have a simple question.

What does "and how." mean? Where does it come from? And so on.

Also, other people should post their questions about phrases they don't understand. And we can have an answer-fest!

[Moff Chumley]

It adds emphasis. If Riley managed to do a flying spinning kick in a fight with Aaron, one might say "Riley beat Aaron up." "And how!"

[TooManyBadgers]

It adds emphasis.
And how!
did I just go there? I think I went there.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I have never, ever heard that phrase used like that. That makes no sense whatsoever. I believe that that use of that phrase is more than a little silly. :smallamused:

[Xyk]

Literal translation/etymology: "He won!" "And just how complete and thorough his victory was surprises me!"

That was shortened because of laziness, I assume.

It's similar to the word "Howdy" as a greeting. It comes from "How do you do?", which is also sort of an adapted greeting. Even though it really shouldn't be.

[Starscream]

I've personally never understood the phrase "Fight fire with fire".

Because someone is sure to bring it up, yes, you can contain a blaze by setting another, more controlled fire to keep the first from spreading. But I think it's obvious that this saying is intended to be more general than that.

And as such it makes no sense. Ask any four year old how to fight a fire, and he'll come up with a more sensible answer. And it doesn't even have to be the obvious one. I'd accept "Fight fire with Batman" easier than this.

Sure, it's meant to be a general philosophical statement rather than actual advice for combustion handling. It basically means "match force with equal force". But couldn't they come up with something that stands up to at least a little more logical examination? It's like saying "Win wars with surrender" or "Cook food with ice".

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

That one makes sense to me, simply because it's an awesome phrase. Yes, da de da, firebreaks, etc, fire is awesome, and fighting fire with MORE FIRE just sounds like a party.


Up to the point where the house burns down. :smallsigh:

[Kneenibble]

"And how" is the exclamative use of the pronoun. Other languages have exclamative pronouns too -- Latin, for example. It doesn't really come from anything, it's just a part of speech that is a little old-fashioned. e.g. "How twinkly the stars tonight..."

edit Ooh, or like "What a question!"

[Roland St. Jude]

I have never, ever heard that phrase used like that. That makes no sense whatsoever. I believe that that use of that phrase is more than a little silly. :smallamused:

And how! Sorry, I couldn't resist. It makes sense to me.

[Xyk]

I've personally never understood the phrase "Fight fire with fire".

Because someone is sure to bring it up, yes, you can contain a blaze by setting another, more controlled fire to keep the first from spreading. But I think it's obvious that this saying is intended to be more general than that.

And as such it makes no sense. Ask any four year old how to fight a fire, and he'll come up with a more sensible answer. And it doesn't even have to be the obvious one. I'd accept "Fight fire with Batman" easier than this.

Sure, it's meant to be a general philosophical statement rather than actual advice for combustion handling. It basically means "match force with equal force". But couldn't they come up with something that stands up to at least a little more logical examination? It's like saying "Win wars with surrender" or "Cook food with ice".

...they mean gunfire. But people hear it and think it's funny to use it with flamey fire.

[Cobalt]

I have never, ever heard that phrase used like that. That makes no sense whatsoever. I believe that that use of that phrase is more than a little silly. :smallamused:

:smallconfused: Really? Sounds right to me.

It's not used often in everyday conversation, but it makes perfect sense.

[Dr. Bath]

...they mean gunfire. But people hear it and think it's funny to use it with flamey fire.

Nope. Pretty sure it was originally fire with the burning etc. Could be wrong though.

'I could care less' has always annoyed me. Because it is pointless and terrible. 'I couldn't care less'? Fine, that makes perfect sense, but the former... blarg.

[Xyk]

Nope. Pretty sure it was originally fire with the burning etc. Could be wrong though.

'I could care less' has always annoyed me. Because it is pointless and terrible. 'I couldn't care less'? Fine, that makes perfect sense, but the former... blarg.

I looked it up (http://grahams-random-ramblings.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-fight-fire-with-fire-origin-and.html) and you are right. I like my way much better though. :smalltongue:

[Fay Graydon]

I looked it up (http://grahams-random-ramblings.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-fight-fire-with-fire-origin-and.html) and you are right. I like my way much better though. :smalltongue:

Why did you like you way better?
Your way promotes violence which is like everyones goal to reduce >.>

And I always thought "Fight Fire With Fire" refered to using an explosion to starve a fire of oxygen...

[factotum]

'I could care less' has always annoyed me.

I think that must be a particularly American thing, because I'd never heard it said that way until I went online--everyone I know always said it as "I couldn't care less".

[Dr. Bath]

Yeah, in Britain it is almost always couldn't. Though one friend always said it wrong. The dastard.

[Xyk]

Why did you like you way better?
Your way promotes violence which is like everyones goal to reduce >.>

And I always thought "Fight Fire With Fire" refered to using an explosion to starve a fire of oxygen...

Because it makes sense without thinking about it! And that's the way I always thought it was and I don't like being wrong. :smalltongue:

Honestly, I don't know why either one of those interpretations would be positive.

I'd fight flamey fire with water or dirt or something. As for gunfire, I think "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies nicely.

[Kris Strife]

I'd fight flamey fire with water or dirt or something. As for gunfire, I think "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies nicely.

But three rights make a left! :smallbiggrin:

[Dogmantra]

But three rights make a left! :smallbiggrin:

A common fallacy! If we let x be the mean turning angle, for three rights to make a left, 60 < x < 120.

Sheesh.

[Winter_Wolf]

'I could care less' has always annoyed me. Because it is pointless and terrible. 'I couldn't care less'? Fine, that makes perfect sense, but the former... blarg.

But here's the thing: I really could care less. I could care so little that I ignore it entirely. Clearly I care enough about it to at least comment on it.

Seriously, though, I agree that it's kind of a dumb way to say, "I don't care".

[Dr. Bath]

If you could care less, then you could care any amount between 1 arbitrary unit of care and infinite care. If you couldn't care less there is no possible amount of care you could currently hold. You can't care less because you don't care at all. There is no such thing as minus care.

It bugs me because a perfectly reasonable phrase is right there, but is changed to make no sense.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

Nope. Pretty sure it was originally fire with the burning etc. Could be wrong though.

'I could care less' has always annoyed me. Because it is pointless and terrible. 'I couldn't care less'? Fine, that makes perfect sense, but the former... blarg.

Yeah, that's due to people repeating a mistake. "I could care less" isn't a real phrase. The latter is the correct one, the former is just a bastardization of the latter.

[Dr. Bath]

And also really common.

It just sounds wrong. What is wrong with people.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I say it occasionally, but then I was raised up with 1940's pulp sci-fi/weird fiction novels where that was a common expression.

(And how!)

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

But three rights make a left! :smallbiggrin:
Let me quote a theory I came up when I was 15...

If two wrongs don’t make a right, inversely, two rights make a wrong. This is incorrect, as two rights make a down. But if being right and thus good makes others down, then you have made a wrong, so two rights make both a wrong and a down. Unless down is the wrong direction, right has been pulled two ways, and a time paradox is created, destroying the Universe.

A splendid theory. And how!

[Maximum Zersk]

Let me quote a theory I came up when I was 15...

If two wrongs don’t make a right, inversely, two rights make a wrong. This is incorrect, as two rights make a down. But if being right and thus good makes others down, then you have made a wrong, so two rights make both a wrong and a down. Unless down is the wrong direction, right has been pulled two ways, and a time paradox is created, destroying the Universe.

A splendid theory. And how!

I could care less.

[Moff Chumley]

...I am very quickly growing to love this thread. :smallbiggrin:

[musicalbookworm]

I always thought you weren't supposed to fight fire with fire because it would only make the problem worse. Like, if another kid is playing pranks on you at summer camp, the solution is not to retaliate in kind, because that could cause it to escalate, but to tell a counselor. (not that that's the fun answer, but it is the "right" answer) But then, it somehow got turned around as the mindset of western culture changed, and now it is used to say the opposite.

not that i have any proof of this theory other than my own observations...

[factotum]

But the phrase "fight fire with fire" is always used in the context of this being a GOOD thing to do, so that theory kind of falls at the first hurdle!

[Moff Chumley]

I dunno, I usually hear it in the context, "well, that's just fighting fire with fire."

[Terry576]

I dunno, I usually hear it in the context, "well, that's just fighting fire with fire."

And how! :smallwink:

[Moff Chumley]

:smalltongue: Stop that.

[Devils_Advocate]

'I could care less' has always annoyed me. Because it is pointless and terrible. 'I couldn't care less'? Fine, that makes perfect sense, but the former... blarg.
I assume that it was originally a common sarcastic phrase, but as it entered common usage it became an idiom. Its original, literal meaning ignored, the sarcastic inflection was lost. And there you have it.

This also explains why "fat chance" is commonly used to mean "slim chance", although this one usually seems to sound fairly sarcastic. I'd say that it's often said more sardonically than sarcastically, but sardonicism and sarcasm sound similar.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

"I could care less" is merely "I couldn't care less" rendered incorrectly. I've never heard anyone say it, though. And how!

[Fortuna]

:smalltongue: Stop that.

And how? Amazing how much difference a single punctuation mark can make. Let's eat Grandpa!

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I have to say, could care less pales in comparison to irregardless. Oh, how I hate that "word."

[Telonius]

This site (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=h&p=21) gives the following:


And how! emphatic, first recorded 1865, said to be a Ger.-Amer. colloquialism.

Does make a bit of sense, since German wie ("how") can be used as an emphatic as well as a question (in what way/in what manner).

[Devils_Advocate]

I have to say, could care less pales in comparison to irregardless. Oh, how I hate that "word."
It makes about as much sense as "unloosen". Which is to say, not much.

[nyjastul69]

I have to say, could care less pales in comparison to irregardless. Oh, how I hate that "word."

I agree. It's the worst 'word' ever.

[The Succubus]

"Cook food with ice".

Gazpacho soup anyone? :smalltongue:

My personal favourite is one put forward by terry Pratchett - "getting along like a house on fire". Does this mean a hot and fiery relationship, with bystanders ringing for the emergency services?

Or that other one "A trolling a day keeps the moderator in pay."

[Eldan]

Gazpacho soup anyone? :smalltongue:

My personal favourite is one put forward by terry Pratchett - "getting along like a house on fire". Does this mean a hot and fiery relationship, with bystanders ringing for the emergency services?

Or that other one "A trolling a day keeps the moderator in pay."

The wording is screwed up, but comes from a simple fact: if, in a town built mostly of wooden buildings, one of the buildings caught fire, people were expected to put aside their differences and help each other put it out, or they would all lose their property.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Getting along like a house on fire is a common phrase over here, so Pratchett wasn't being original at all there.

[The Succubus]

May have phrased it clumsily - Pratchett didn't make the phrase up but he mocks it on more than one occasion throughout the course of his books.

[YPU]

Fun fact, the Dutch language has its own version, which is a literal translation and the exact same use.

[RandomNPC]

Fun fact, the Dutch language has its own version, which is a literal translation and the exact same use.

And How!


... sorry

[Maximum Zersk]

Fun fact, the Dutch language has its own version, which is a literal translation and the exact same use.

So basically, "En hoe!"?