Discussions about eggcorns and related topics
You are not logged in.
Registrations are currently closed because of a technical problem. Please send email to
The forum administrator reserves the right to request users to plausibly demonstrate that they are real people with an interest in the topic of eggcorns. Otherwise they may be removed with no further justification. Likewise, accounts that have not been used for posting may be removed.
Thanks for your understanding.
Chris -- 2018-04-11
About to debark from a BC ferry, a passenger commented to me that an argument someone had presented to him didn’t “hold weight.” I pondered his curious turn of speech as we crowded onto the exit ramp. The phrase seems to be an idiom blend with eggcornish overtones. Speakers of English have agreed, from time immemorial, that arguments are like vessels—they either leak or hold water. But gravity also has its place in the metaphor of dialectics. We speak of the “weight of argument” favoring one side or the other in a debate. I assume that my interlocutor borrowed “hold” from the water metaphor and joined the action to an object derived from the weight metaphor.
Perhaps my shipmate’s hasty blend was a one-off. I checked the Web as soon as I could get to a computer. “Hold weight” is a rare coin, but it does circulate. Here are three examples:
From a Wikipedia forum. “Does it hold weight that this would be post-arbitration and voluntary? This looks to me like a gray area per checkuser rules.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: … Archive/21)
From the Orange Room bulletin board. The post that this person comments on had used the phrase “hold water.” The responder tried to echo the phrase, but got it wrong: “What do you mean that arguments that speak of indigenous people do not hold weight…” (http://www.lfpm.org/forum/showthread.php?t=28716&page=6)
In a special report on hotels in August 2000 the writer promoted the blend to title prominence, heading her essay “The Rule of Thumb Method: Does It Still Hold Weight?” (http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PressR … etAug.html
Hatching new language, one eggcorn at a time.
Offline
Very interesting post Kem. Perhaps the phrase is more an American invention because it didn’t set off any bells when I first read it. But, you are right that constructs like “doesn’t hold weight” conjures up only about 200 Google hits.
I was trying to figure out why the phrase seemed so natural (idiomatic) to me. The first possibility I can come up with is some old TV commercials of a stretched out, wetted paper towel being toploaded. One brand’s claim over it’s competitors was that it’s towels would hold weight. But, I’m thinking there may be related imagery that predates even that… something along the lines of a bag “holding weight” rather than tearing open.
Offline
I wonder if this is a “spinoff” from the idea that we weigh arguments against one another, as though on a scale.
Last edited by JonW719 (2007-09-21 14:23:37)
Feeling quite combobulated.
Offline
I agree, jorkel. There are times when “hold weight” might actually make sense. If you were discussing the contribution of various weighing factor in a statistical analysis, for example. An important factor might “hold more weight” than another. I came across a few of these usages when I did the web search on “hold” and “weight.” When the topic is arguments, however, “holding weight” looks to me like a blidium end.
Hatching new language, one eggcorn at a time.
Offline
kem wrote:
We speak of the “weight of argument” favoring one side or the other in a debate. I assume that my interlocutor borrowed “hold” from the water metaphor and joined the action to an object derived from the weight metaphor.
Or perhaps he just shortened the more traditional phrase “carry weight,” said of an argument that’s persuasive or convincing. After all, to carry something physical one has to be holding it, and speaking for myself, the mental image for both is the same (except of course that holding is static and carrying dynamic).
Offline
[ “hold any weight” argument ] as search terms yeilded a lot of right-on hits (9,370).
Want proof? What would happen if someone simply didn’t agree with premises A, B and C? Would your argument hold any weight? Didn’t think so. ...
www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-62542.html – 24k
In order for this type of argument to hold any weight it is essential that (1) the scientific principle be presented accurately, (2) the scripture be …
eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/FARMSReview1993.html – 14k
Hence, Petitioner’s argument that the exclusion should not apply to him does not hold any weight because the I.G. appropriately acted on the final action of …
www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/cr733.html – 32k
“doesn’t hold any weight” makes me think of a pack animal analogy or perhaps a supporting structure of some kind….it collapses under the least amount of weight(scrutiny). There is the implication that there is little foundation to the idea. No gravitas.
It’s interesting that the metaphor is used much more often in the negative than in the affirmative, which initiated the original post. I, like Joe, wasn’t keen on anything being “off” about the original submission (does it hold weight). But thanks to kem and the forum, I too can see that something is going on here. I especially think it has a tie to the water analogy, as you said. But alas, this seems like one of those that is going to be very hard to pin down. I concur with kem that the cause could be an idiom blend of the weight and water metaphors, which would make it not an eggcorn but very interesting nonetheless. Thanks!
Last edited by booboo (2007-09-22 12:58:08)
Offline
Another interesting aspect to these two sets of metaphors is the difference in syntax. Look at these numbers for (unique-hit) Google searches:
“argument doesn’t hold water” 793
“argument holds no water” 781
“argument doesn’t hold weight” 39
“argument holds no weight” 169
“argument doesn’t carry weight” 11
“argument carries no weight” 149
The water metaphor is almost evenly split between the “doesn’t hold” and the “holds no” forms. By contrast, the weight metaphor – with both verbs – prefers the “holds/carries no” form by a notable margin. If the weight metaphor began life as an offshoot of the water metaphor, its preference for a particular syntax certainly differentiates it from the other one now. But that weird difference makes me suspect that the two metaphors are probably independent of each other. It’d be interesting—but time-consuming—to go looking for early citations for these things.
Admittedly, I haven’t even begun to exhaust the potentially relevant permutations (“carry any weight,” or “carries no water” for instance). More googling might really complicate this picture.
Another point to make here is that “holds no weight” and “carries no weight” get very similar unique-hit numbers – and “holds” is actually ahead. I’m not sure either of them is really non-standard.
Offline
I have trouble reading this as an eggcorn. A matter for serious discussion is a “weighty topic”, a frivolous candidate is a “featherweight” – it would make sense to describe arguments in these terms as well.
But if it is an eggcorn, it could have evolved from ‘hold sway’, ‘carry sway’
Offline
Very interesting. I suppose this could be a combination of many phenomena; idiom blend,subliminal eggcorn/word transfer. The bond is so tight, it is very probably impossible to identify any differentiation, even through exaustive history investigation. Still, I appreciate your dabbling into the matter, Pat. I think what’s going on is that those of us who “get” what eggcorns are about are getting a strong intuitive sense that eggcorning is going on here, but it’s just a little frustrating that it can’t be isolated from the other factors. Even if this one doesn’t make it to the list, it’s been fun discussing!
Offline
patschwieterman wrote:
Another point to make here is that “holds no weight” and “carries no weight” get very similar unique-hit numbers – and “holds” is actually ahead. I’m not sure either of them is really non-standard.
Mea culpa. I should know better than to assume that my impressions, however entrenched, necessarily reflect objective reality.
We have looked at “holds no water”, “holds no weight”, and “carries no weight”, but not “carries no water”. I found 159 unique hits for the latter, of which roughly 89 were metaphorical, but including this particularly interesting double-whammy:
He dismissed the argument that working with India’s civilian nuclear program would weaken efforts to limit Iranian nuclear ambitions. The argument “carries no water, it has no weight, and it’s not accurate,” he said.
Offline
Lovely, in particular “carries no water”. This, and “holds no weight” wouldn’t be eggcorns, though, but idiom blends (“that’s the way the cookie bounces”, “it’s not rocket surgery”, “that’s a whole nother kettle of worms” ... ). See Mark Liberman and Neal Whitman.
Thought the last quote could have been an example of intentional jocular blending, especially in the light of the “double-whammy”.
Offline