Hold water 💧💪

Meaning

To be sound, logical, and convincing.

Origin

Imagine old ships sailing the choppy seas. For a vessel to stay afloat and withstand the elements, its hull had to be watertight, able to hold water without leaking a drop. If it couldn't do that, it was doomed. This practical, seafaring necessity gave us the phrase. An argument or plan that 'holds water' is similarly sound and reliable, proving itself capable of withstanding scrutiny and challenges, much like a well-built ship against the waves.

🗣️ communication ⚖️✅ honesty 🦉🤔 wisdom 🏆 success

Hold water represented with emoji💧💪

This playful arrangement of a water droplet and a flexing bicep, 💧💪, challenges the viewer to consider the surprising strength found in seemingly delicate things. It functions as a whimsical reminder that even the most fluid concepts can possess a robust and convincing logic, inviting a dialogue on the power of clear reasoning.

Examples

  • Her explanation for the missing cookies didn't really hold water.
  • The detective's theory about the stolen diamond began to hold water as more clues emerged.
  • The wizard's argument that socks only disappear into a parallel dimension of lost laundry truly held water, at least to him.
  • The fairy's claim that she had painted the dewdrop colors on the spiderwebs with a hummingbird's feather held water, as the tiny brush was right there.

Frequently asked questions

Is 'hold water' a proverb or an idiom?

'Hold water' is an idiom, not a proverb. Idioms are phrases whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal meaning of the words, whereas proverbs are short, well-known sayings that offer advice or express a general truth, often metaphorical.

What is the opposite of 'hold water'?

The opposite of 'hold water' is to 'fall apart' or 'not add up'. These phrases describe an argument, plan, or theory that is illogical, unconvincing, or unable to withstand scrutiny.

Can an abstract concept 'hold water'?

Yes, abstract concepts like arguments, theories, or plans can 'hold water'. The idiom extends beyond the literal sense of a physical container to describe anything that is logically sound and defensible against criticism.

Similar to "hold water"

Stand up to scrutiny
Both mean to withstand examination, but 'hold water' suggests a more inherent soundness, while 'stand up to scrutiny' implies a more active and rigorous testing process
Pass muster
This phrase, originating from military inspections, shares the idea of meeting a standard, but 'hold water' applies more broadly to arguments and ideas, whereas 'pass muster' often refers to a specific checklist of requirements being met
Ring true
Both capture a sense of authenticity and conviction, but 'hold water' focuses on logical validity, while 'ring true' emphasizes an intuitive or emotional resonance with the listener

Opposite of "hold water"

Fall apart
This phrase argues that arguments or explanations can crumble under pressure, directly contrasting with the resilience implied by 'hold water,' highlighting how easily logic can collapse into nonsense
Be full of holes
This argues that something is fundamentally flawed and riddled with inconsistencies, whereas 'hold water' suggests it is solid and defensible—the tension lies in how easily a seemingly sound argument can actually be demonstrably unsound
Be up in the air
Where 'hold water' asserts certainty and conviction, 'be up in the air' throws doubt onto any claim, suggesting that no conclusion is yet firm or reliable, making the idea of something 'holding water' seem premature

Related to "hold water"

Separate the wheat from the chaff
This phrase shares the context of distinguishing the valuable or valid from the worthless, much like how one might assess if an argument 'holds water' versus being mere pretense
The jury is still out
This idiom relates to ongoing deliberation, contrasting with a completed assessment where an argument would either 'hold water' or be dismissed
A house of cards
This metaphor speaks to something inherently unstable and prone to collapse, a direct counterpoint to the robustness implied when an argument successfully 'holds water'
Get to the bottom of things
The drive to 'get to the bottom of things' is precisely what leads one to test whether an explanation can 'hold water' or if it's merely superficial