what is the origin of the phrase "hot and heavy" Obviously I understand the hot part but heavy? Just curious
152659
"Heavy" can mean substantial, not just weighs a lot. "Weight" itself, like "heavy", can mean "serious" or "substatanial". "Weighty issues" are big ones; the threat of war doesn't weigh any more than the threat of rain, since threats have no weight, but it is more serious.\n\nThe fact "Hot" and "Heavy" both start with an "H" makes it a natural phrase.
483310
In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, when man started using language he began with small (short) words e.g. I, me, you, is, food, game, etc.  As we became more sophisticated we chose to assign words to concepts and more complex thoughts.  Let's face it "I, me, and you" are much simpler concepts than "abbreviation, multinational, and so on".\n\nOK, for what ever it is worth, there is my idea...  We simply ran out of short words.
1016570
We usually know what an idiom means, but the interesting thing is to find out why it means what it means.  For example, do you know where "frog in your throat" came from?   Medieval physicians believed that the secretions of a frog could cure a cough if they were coated on the throat of the patient. The frog was placed in the mouth of the sufferer and remained there until the physician decided that the treatment was complete.   Yuck!!\n\nThese sites give the origins of hundreds of idioms.
458165
It classic bavarian, a german dialect. It means "well it is nice today, for the sauna it think ist is too nice weather and too warm"\nNormally the dialect is not written(as far as I'm aware), but it is fun if you do as ther is no strict spelling
320706
If you search on www.dictionary.com and look up "flammable" it has a note at the bottom explaining exactly what why. Now, if you really don't feel like going onto that website here it is, "Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings."\n\nThat is exactly what it says. However those are not my own words. Thank dictionary.com =]
1121667
ignorance.  \n\nTo take it a step further though, I know many people who say they dont take the Lords name in vain, but they say; gosh, golly, jeez and things like that- those are still variations of the Lords names because those words derived from the words God, and Jesus.  \n\nI wrote an article about this at my website.  Click a link below if you are interested in reading it.  \n\nThe general idea, is that we need not interject words at all that are unnecessary.  Why say anything that isnt to the point anyways?\n\nWhy do we even add the space in a sentance for cursing?  Instead of saying things like "Jeez, its hot!"  Couldnt we just say, "its hot?"
157240
I used to be a server and we used to say that all the time but I had no idea where it came from.  So...  I tried to find some info and this is a website I found.  I hope it answers your questions.  I found it interesting.  \n\nhttp://www.dinermuseum.org/culture/culture-slang.php
321259
The phrase in this form started out in the 1950s as an offshoot of "excuse my French."  This is a result of racial stereotyping - Anglo-Saxons of the late 19th century blamed the French for anything remotely dirty.  The belief started in the mid 19th century and held that was France sex-obsessed and pornographic.
193605
Good point...because there is nothing in comon between the original word and what it is nowadays...it makes you wonder. Sory i didnt exactly answer the question :D
797489
curious phrase, it sounds ridiculous. you need a context.
647206
By far the most shocking one that I'd discovered was "feisty," which literally means "like a farting dog."  It comes from an abbreviation of the phrase "fisting hound" or "fisting dog," and "fist" was in this case a reference to breaking wind.  (Though "fist" was used in the phrase as a general pejorative, like if you tripped over the "fucking chair.")
794352
Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning "to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame). "Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.\n\nComes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word "flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare," meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with "flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had "inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the 1800's.\n\n"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day." Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.\n\nThe Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in" (as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning "not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant "fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of "flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and "inflammable" has all but disappeared.\n\nThat left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable" is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."
1170816
This originated in the early 1980s. It is generally regarded as an American expression. This item from the New York newspaper the Syracuse Herald-American, Feb. 1982, which is the earliest version in print that I can find, puts that in some doubt. It's in a piece by Jerry Buck, writing out of Los Angeles, about actress Lauren Tewes
833115
Here's a website on word origins that has a few suggestions:\n\nhttp://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/97.html
741742
I think it's a euphemism for "jacksh-t"\nSo now the question is, where did THAT phrase come from?
574156
Interesting how so many people quote a different part of the bible without dealing with the fact that there is a clear contradictino here.\n\nTHis guy posted a verse that says basically, ask and you shall receive. Not "I'll think about it", but you shall receive.  And you all quote verses saying "not so fast".  Well, which is it? Can we move mountains with faith? Only if it's for a good cause? What?
765378
... hhmmmm.... have no idea...  it´s just a good phrase...\n\n=)