We have a funny one which is similar to the Italian "Molto fumo e poco arrosto" which goes Mycket skrik för lite ull literally 'Much screaming for little wool'. The continuation is usually not said, but it's like this: sa bonden när han klippte grisen 'said the farmer when he sheared the pig' [sheared as in 'cut its hair off like you do with a sheep']. – The English version of that would be 'much ado about nothing'
~Vir pius sacrificat~
Amazed at all the upvotes for the comment at the top of this thread. I wouldn't call that an idiomatic English expression. I'm native speaker but never heard it expressed that way. It's much more common to say "no smoke without fire" as the person below pointed out , and as here in the lesson .
One is primarily American, one is primarily British. Both are incredibly common. If you said your prefered version in the wrong place, I don't think people would assume you weren't a native speaker - so perhaps that should go the other way as well? :)
That doesn't prove me wrong. In real life people wouldn't say it that way in the UK even if it's found online. Lots of hits online maybe and it's a dictionary entry but it's not necessarily used much in real life here that way. People here just don't say it that way and never did. But it doesn't matter that much. The initial poster is probably an American who never heard the idiom said the other way as we say it here. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Americans and Brits are two peoples divided by a common language. Something like that anyway :)
'Where there's smoke, there's fire.'
This must be an Americanism because I've rarely, if ever, heard someone say it that way. It sounds like you've adopted the 'where there's a will, there's a way' format when there is already a 'better' idiom.
Generally outside the US (I assume, at least in my experience), the expression is, 'there is no smoke without fire'. But it wouldn't sound odd to drop the 'there is' as the Swedish does here. I wonder can we use 'det finns' or would that sound odd?
Also: I don't think I've ever heard anyone on American TV use your idiomatic equivalent. It sounds fine, but where I'm from, I'd probably think, 'oh, you mean, there's no smoke without fire'. I also wonder if there are any subtle differences in usage.