I think there is redundancy in speech, for example, if you use multiple negatives. However, speech is not just about the neutral transmission of information, it is lively, energetic, full of personality, quirks. Rejoice! Peng ting!
Hard to see how a word or phrase can be "pointless" if people use it to convey clearly to other people what they intend to. That's what words/phrases are used for. That's their point. Seems a bit of an overreach to proclaim perfectly serviceable words useless just because one doesn't like them personally.
I think the point is that there are other better words to express these things. The real problem is where neolisms are coined where there are perfectly valid words already in existence. This is why some of us respond when words or phrases are actually valid.
A bit of tangent... Before posting it here, I was looking up happenstance, which I think is ugly and unnecessary, and then glanced farther up the page (Concise Oxford) to see hapax legomenon, meaning a word of which only one instance is recorded - the opposite of what this thread is about, I suppose. Most of us won't have encountered a lot of those, unless you count young children learning to speak (and about half the words written by Terry Pratchett). I'm going to have to try really hard to slip it into a casual conversation.
Hard to see how a word or phrase can be "pointless" if people use it to convey clearly to other people what they intend to. That's what words/phrases are used for. That's their point. Seems a bit of an overreach to proclaim perfectly serviceable words useless just because one doesn't like them personally.
I think the point is that there are other better words to express these things. The real problem is where neolisms are coined where there are perfectly valid words already in existence. This is why some of us respond when words or phrases are actually valid.
Is "neolism" a neologism?
Far worse is when a word that means something is turned into a useless synonym for another word that already exists, and there's no single word left meaning what it used to mean. (Of course I can't think of an example right now.)
Far worse is when a word that means something is turned into a useless synonym for another word that already exists, and there's no single word left meaning what it used to mean. (Of course I can't think of an example right now.)
'Disinterested' when what is meant is 'uninterested'.
"Platter" seems to be a word which has appeared from nowhere. What was once biscuits on a plate, or a bowl of fruit now seems to be a "biscuit platter" or a "fruit platter." Worse, some of them are now "bespoke platters." A bespoke biscuit platter appears to be plate of biscuits from which the kit-kat and penguin wrappers have been removed prior to serving.
A bespoke biscuit platter appears to be plate of biscuits from which the kit-kat and penguin wrappers have been removed prior to serving.
Why would you ever have had wrappers from kit-kats and penguins mixed up in a plate of biscuits?
Seriously, I'd never expect to find either kit-kats or penguins included in a selection of "biscuits", even though they might be technically biscuits (calling a kit-kat a biscuit is a bit like calling a tomato a fruit).
Platter is a perfectly common word, in use for as long as I can remember.
I've found it more common in North America than the UK, and I agree, 'plate' seems to serve the purpose perfectly well. 'Bespoke' is confoundedly pretentious and I would never use it.
Platter is a perfectly common word, in use for as long as I can remember.
Platter meaning "large flat plate" has been in use for as long as I can remember, but within the last few months it seems to have extended it's meaning and now includes wooden or cardboard boxes etc. Plus prefixing "platter" with "bespoke" is new. A selection of crisps, dips and grapes didn't used to be called a "grazing platter."
When I worked in the CS, coffee and biscuits would include some kit-kats which had been unwrapped and split into their component fingers. You could tell by the thumbprints in the chocolate.
Do you think 'platter' is replacing 'selection'? Btw, I notice wine back labels that assure you it is made from 'selected grapes'. I would like to think of each grape being minutely vetted, but suspect it's just a synonym for 'picked'.
Platter is a perfectly common word, in use for as long as I can remember.
Platter meaning "large flat plate" has been in use for as long as I can remember, but within the last few months it seems to have extended it's meaning and now includes wooden or cardboard boxes etc. Plus prefixing "platter" with "bespoke" is new. A selection of crisps, dips and grapes didn't used to be called a "grazing platter."
Thank you @North East Quine for explaining that. I was puzzled as for me too platter has always been around as a word meaning "large flat plate". I haven't encountered the other usage you describe, and I really don't want to. A cardboard box with some biscuits in it is not a platter. Calling it one doesn't make it one, or make it anything other than a cardboard box with some biscuits in it. As for 'grazing platter', that's two different words that are being prostituted without their consent.
Platter is a perfectly common word, in use for as long as I can remember.
Platter meaning "large flat plate" has been in use for as long as I can remember, but within the last few months it seems to have extended it's meaning and now includes wooden or cardboard boxes etc. Plus prefixing "platter" with "bespoke" is new. A selection of crisps, dips and grapes didn't used to be called a "grazing platter."
Platter and bespoke are perfectly reasonable words, if used correctly. If I was treating myself to a suit made for me personally, it would be appropriate to call it bespoke. Putting the terms together would confuse me.
"Platter" seems to be a word which has appeared from nowhere. What was once biscuits on a plate, or a bowl of fruit now seems to be a "biscuit platter" or a "fruit platter." Worse, some of them are now "bespoke platters." A bespoke biscuit platter appears to be plate of biscuits from which the kit-kat and penguin wrappers have been removed prior to serving.
As others have said, a platter is large and flat. A bowl may be large but is not flat.
In banqueting days, the scale up from a platter would have been a charger. But that one's gone electrical and I doubt it'll come back. And when did you last see a trencher? Or a cauldron? Or a trivet?
I still refer to chargers, cauldrons and trivets and regard them as normal words, but I'd regard trencher and ashet as either obsolete or regional. That's even though trenchers have started to reappear as a faux-clever way of serving food in a fancy way much favoured by restaurants and pubs that regard plates as so boring and last year. It goes with the notion that if you serve the food on something peculiar, the clientele will be so impressed that they will pay more and won't notice that its rubbish.
I can't off hand think of an alternative word for a trivet. Although this must strictly be incorrect, I'd actually use the term for one with a different number of legs.
Also, and again, this is probably wrong, although a cauldron doesn't have to have legs, anything which is made of metal and actually has its legs permanently attached, I think has to be a cauldron rather than, say, a stewpot.
Calling a kit-kat a biscuit is a bit like calling a tomato a fruit.
Technically it is a fruit, I believe, though I'd never put it in my fruit bowl!
Here's an unfavourite phrase: "Specially selected" (as on supermarket wrappers). (a) How are the products selected, if at all? (b) What has been special about the method by which they were selected?
Even worse (on adverts): "Specially selected for you". Rubbish, they don't know me from Adam.
Le Carre freqhently uses the expression 'Gay as a trivet' in his novels. I don't understand how a stand for a kettle or teapot can be .gay'. Does he mean 'cricket' (the insect, not the game), I wonder?
Platter is a perfectly common word, in use for as long as I can remember.
Platter meaning "large flat plate" has been in use for as long as I can remember, but within the last few months it seems to have extended it's meaning and now includes wooden or cardboard boxes etc. Plus prefixing "platter" with "bespoke" is new. A selection of crisps, dips and grapes didn't used to be called a "grazing platter."
And it's has extended its meaning to mean its.
I noticed after the 6 min window of opportunity to edit.
The "platters" which seem to be a feature of 2020 don't refer to the physical item on which the food is arranged. A plastic box containing cake is a "cake platter." A cardboard box of sweets is a "confectionary platter" A wooden tray of crisps, dips and grapes is a "bespoke sharing platter." A metal tray with four burgers and a pile of chips is a "burger platter."
Actually, now I think about it, these platters are an easy way to deliver food to lockdown homes, as they are a single box /tray /plate / bowl with enough to serve 2 / 4 / 6 people. The penny has just dropped as to why "platters" have suddenly become ubiquitous.
Is 'platter' meant to indicate multiple servings then? If they just went with 'box of sweets' would it be seen to imply you were going to guzzle the lot?
And I'm not keen on 'tear and share' breads either - stop telling me how to eat already.
The same stockist offers a selection of "Lesbian Trivets" as well.
Seriously, I have no idea, and had never heard that particular expression. It sounds almost like it might be a cousin of "as bent as a nine-bob note", but no matter how hard I struggle, I can't force any sense in to it.
Trivet is a normal word here. If you put Trivet into Amazon you will find a bewildering assortment.
It's a normal word in the UK as well. I made a wooden one in a woodwork class at school. It wasn't very good. I don't own any (all the things I have to protect tables from hot pans etc. are things I'd call heat mats/insulating mats rather than trivets) but my parents have several (including, I regret, that crappy wooden one I made in school).
I'm just confused as to why they are gay (in any sense of the word).
Trivet is a normal word here. If you put Trivet into Amazon you will find a bewildering assortment.
It's a normal word in the UK as well. I made a wooden one in a woodwork class at school. It wasn't very good. I don't own any (all the things I have to protect tables from hot pans etc. are things I'd call heat mats/insulating mats rather than trivets) but my parents have several (including, I regret, that crappy wooden one I made in school).
I'm just confused as to why they are gay (in any sense of the word).
Perhaps it's manly and therefore heterosexual to have scorch marks on your table?
Perhaps if you're that manly you don't do mimsy stuff like furniture and saucepans? Just impale your steak on the spear you killed it with, over an open fire.
I think gay trivets are widely available. They are decorated, e.g., with the rainbow flag, or various hot men or women. You can get hot cowboy oven gloves, try some as a prezzy for your gran.
I can't speak for Scotland, but 'trivet' doesn't include a table mat or the title equivalent in English usage. It no longer has to have three legs, but it definitely has to have holes in it, and preferably be predominately open and stand slightly proud of the surface it's placed on, as in this rather expensive one.
Changing the subject, and going for another word, I'd like to nominate "mandatory". It's very popular with officialdom at the moment. What's wrong with it is that it's opaque, which in my opinion, makes it pretentious. It's also, therefore, more likely that a lot of people won't understand what it means the status is of what 'they' are telling us to do. Why can't they use 'compulsory' which also means 'you've got to do it' and is not opaque?
Changing the subject, and going for another word, I'd like to nominate "mandatory". It's very popular with officialdom at the moment. What's wrong with it is that it's opaque, which in my opinion, makes it pretentious. It's also, therefore, more likely that a lot of people won't understand what it means the status is of what 'they' are telling us to do. Why can't they use 'compulsory' which also means 'you've got to do it' and is not opaque?
The difference is that 'mandatory' implies mandating, an order to do something - so the agency is with the people requiring the action. 'Compulsory' means compelled to do something-aagency being with the person being compelled to act. In effect, the impact is the same, but at least 'mandatory' has a good Christian background in Maundy Thursday, the 'mandatum' from Christ to the apostles...!
Is 'platter' meant to indicate multiple servings then? If they just went with 'box of sweets' would it be seen to imply you were going to guzzle the lot.
I've tended to come across it in the past as an item in catering menus, where you order enough to feed X people at a meeting, assuming none of them are complete gannets. In the case of sandwiches it normally means the equivalent of a round each, but spread across two or three flavours.
I've tended to come across it in the past as an item in catering menus, where you order enough to feed X people at a meeting, assuming none of them are complete gannets.
Does anyone else find that the more people you have present at a particular gathering, the less each individual person tends to eat?
The difference is that 'mandatory' implies mandating, an order to do something - so the agency is with the people requiring the action. 'Compulsory' means compelled to do something-aagency being with the person being compelled to act. In effect, the impact is the same, but at least 'mandatory' has a good Christian background in Maundy Thursday, the 'mandatum' from Christ to the apostles...!
Etymologically that may be correct, but it's a meaningless reference to the ordinary member of the public who is told that not driving to Barnard Castle to test their eyesight or that they must wear a face-mask on public transport is "mandatory".
'Required' seems to serve the purpose most of the time for me, as in 'Facemasks are required here'. It sends a firm message without sounding unduly authoritarian.
I can't speak for Scotland, but 'trivet' doesn't include a table mat or the title equivalent in English usage. It no longer has to have three legs, but it definitely has to have holes in it, and preferably be predominately open and stand slightly proud of the surface it's placed on, as in this rather expensive one.
Changing the subject, and going for another word, I'd like to nominate "mandatory". It's very popular with officialdom at the moment. What's wrong with it is that it's opaque, which in my opinion, makes it pretentious. It's also, therefore, more likely that a lot of people won't understand what it means the status is of what 'they' are telling us to do. Why can't they use 'compulsory' which also means 'you've got to do it' and is not opaque?
On this side of the pond "mandatory" is the plain word for "someone is making me do this." On the other hand "compulsory" sounds like something internal or psychological -- I have a compulsion to wash my hands 20 times before I leave the house.
I remember that school games were compulsory, and to say mandatory would be bizarre. So there is a stylistic difference, I guess politicians like mandatory, as it sounds more impersonal.
I can't speak for Scotland, but 'trivet' doesn't include a table mat or the title equivalent in English usage. It no longer has to have three legs, but it definitely has to have holes in it, and preferably be predominately open and stand slightly proud of the surface it's placed on, as in this rather expensive one.
Changing the subject, and going for another word, I'd like to nominate "mandatory". It's very popular with officialdom at the moment. What's wrong with it is that it's opaque, which in my opinion, makes it pretentious. It's also, therefore, more likely that a lot of people won't understand what it means the status is of what 'they' are telling us to do. Why can't they use 'compulsory' which also means 'you've got to do it' and is not opaque?
On this side of the pond "mandatory" is the plain word for "someone is making me do this." On the other hand "compulsory" sounds like something internal or psychological -- I have a compulsion to wash my hands 20 times before I leave the house.
Yes, thank you. I was trying to think of how to describe how the two words are (or aren’t) used on this side of The Pond. I think your external vs internal distinction gets it right.
If someone is telling us that we have to do something, then the something we have to do is “mandatory” or “required.” “Compulsory” would never, in my experience, be used for that purpose here—it would, I think, sound just as pretentious and opaque here as @Enoch says “mandatory” sounds in the UK.
'Compulsory' means 'you've got to do it' here. Somebody in authority, whether the government, the law, the police, your teacher or whoever can compel you to comply. It doesn't have an internal sense. The way it's normally used I can't see how it would - e.g. 'wearing seat belts when driving is compulsory'. That isn't speaking about an inner compulsion.
'Required' doesn't go quite far enough. In government circulars etc., the code is 'must' = the law says you've got to, and 'should' = it's not directly a matter of legal and illegal, but if you don't follow the guidance, you've either
- got to be able to demonstrate you thought about the point, did a sound balancing exercise and can justify what what you did in stead, or
- there's the strong potential that you will be liable for the consequences, your decision could be set aside as irrational and you might even be criminally negligent.
Well here, but perhaps it would be better not to encourage the catering industry too much, unless you want to be offered a tuna and sweetcorn trencher in every pub and café.
I've just seen another pet grudge of mine, the misuse of 'nominal charge'.
"It (a venue) had, .... introduced a temporary entrance fee for sight-seers, who must pre-book: £2 for anyone over the age of five; £5 for families of two adults and two children.
“We are committed to keeping XXX free for everyone in the long term, but, as a temporary measure, we will be introducing a nominal charge at the point of pre-booking your tickets,” the spokeswoman said."
A nominal charge is a charge in name only, so as to create consideration, the equivalent of a peppercorn. It's not a euphemism for a charge that hasn't been costed, or that is less than it might have been if it had been costed. £2 and £5 are never nominal charges.
Grrrrrrr
What the spokeswoman actually meant in the context, was a charge that might help towards covering the extra cost and hassle of sanitising everything - in which case, say that. Don't use the word 'nominal'.
A nominal charge is a charge in name only, so as to create consideration, the equivalent of a peppercorn. It's not a euphemism for a charge that hasn't been costed, or that is less than it might have been if it had been costed. £2 and £5 are never nominal charges.
I agree with the first sentence, and want to quibble a little with the last one. There are circumstances in which £5 might be a nominal charge - I think the key is not the precise value of the nominal charge (or peppercorn) but the fact that the value of the charge is basically irrelevant to the people paying it. So if you're using it in a context where people are paying thousands of quid for something, a fiver might well be nominal - particularly if you want to charge it in cash, as it's the smallest note that circulates.
Comments
I think the point is that there are other better words to express these things. The real problem is where neolisms are coined where there are perfectly valid words already in existence. This is why some of us respond when words or phrases are actually valid.
Is "neolism" a neologism?
Far worse is when a word that means something is turned into a useless synonym for another word that already exists, and there's no single word left meaning what it used to mean. (Of course I can't think of an example right now.)
'Disinterested' when what is meant is 'uninterested'.
Why would you ever have had wrappers from kit-kats and penguins mixed up in a plate of biscuits?
Seriously, I'd never expect to find either kit-kats or penguins included in a selection of "biscuits", even though they might be technically biscuits (calling a kit-kat a biscuit is a bit like calling a tomato a fruit).
I've found it more common in North America than the UK, and I agree, 'plate' seems to serve the purpose perfectly well. 'Bespoke' is confoundedly pretentious and I would never use it.
Platter meaning "large flat plate" has been in use for as long as I can remember, but within the last few months it seems to have extended it's meaning and now includes wooden or cardboard boxes etc. Plus prefixing "platter" with "bespoke" is new. A selection of crisps, dips and grapes didn't used to be called a "grazing platter."
Do you think 'platter' is replacing 'selection'? Btw, I notice wine back labels that assure you it is made from 'selected grapes'. I would like to think of each grape being minutely vetted, but suspect it's just a synonym for 'picked'.
And it's has extended its meaning to mean its.
As others have said, a platter is large and flat. A bowl may be large but is not flat.
I can't off hand think of an alternative word for a trivet. Although this must strictly be incorrect, I'd actually use the term for one with a different number of legs.
Also, and again, this is probably wrong, although a cauldron doesn't have to have legs, anything which is made of metal and actually has its legs permanently attached, I think has to be a cauldron rather than, say, a stewpot.
Here's an unfavourite phrase: "Specially selected" (as on supermarket wrappers). (a) How are the products selected, if at all? (b) What has been special about the method by which they were selected?
Even worse (on adverts): "Specially selected for you". Rubbish, they don't know me from Adam.
I noticed after the 6 min window of opportunity to edit.
Actually, now I think about it, these platters are an easy way to deliver food to lockdown homes, as they are a single box /tray /plate / bowl with enough to serve 2 / 4 / 6 people. The penny has just dropped as to why "platters" have suddenly become ubiquitous.
And I'm not keen on 'tear and share' breads either - stop telling me how to eat already.
https://zazzle.com/gay+trivets
The same stockist offers a selection of "Lesbian Trivets" as well.
Seriously, I have no idea, and had never heard that particular expression. It sounds almost like it might be a cousin of "as bent as a nine-bob note", but no matter how hard I struggle, I can't force any sense in to it.
It's a normal word in the UK as well. I made a wooden one in a woodwork class at school. It wasn't very good. I don't own any (all the things I have to protect tables from hot pans etc. are things I'd call heat mats/insulating mats rather than trivets) but my parents have several (including, I regret, that crappy wooden one I made in school).
I'm just confused as to why they are gay (in any sense of the word).
Perhaps it's manly and therefore heterosexual to have scorch marks on your table?
Changing the subject, and going for another word, I'd like to nominate "mandatory". It's very popular with officialdom at the moment. What's wrong with it is that it's opaque, which in my opinion, makes it pretentious. It's also, therefore, more likely that a lot of people won't understand what it means the status is of what 'they' are telling us to do. Why can't they use 'compulsory' which also means 'you've got to do it' and is not opaque?
Does anyone else find that the more people you have present at a particular gathering, the less each individual person tends to eat?
On this side of the pond "mandatory" is the plain word for "someone is making me do this." On the other hand "compulsory" sounds like something internal or psychological -- I have a compulsion to wash my hands 20 times before I leave the house.
If someone is telling us that we have to do something, then the something we have to do is “mandatory” or “required.” “Compulsory” would never, in my experience, be used for that purpose here—it would, I think, sound just as pretentious and opaque here as @Enoch says “mandatory” sounds in the UK.
'Compulsory' means 'you've got to do it' here. Somebody in authority, whether the government, the law, the police, your teacher or whoever can compel you to comply. It doesn't have an internal sense. The way it's normally used I can't see how it would - e.g. 'wearing seat belts when driving is compulsory'. That isn't speaking about an inner compulsion.
'Required' doesn't go quite far enough. In government circulars etc., the code is 'must' = the law says you've got to, and 'should' = it's not directly a matter of legal and illegal, but if you don't follow the guidance, you've either
- got to be able to demonstrate you thought about the point, did a sound balancing exercise and can justify what what you did in stead, or
- there's the strong potential that you will be liable for the consequences, your decision could be set aside as irrational and you might even be criminally negligent.
Well here, but perhaps it would be better not to encourage the catering industry too much, unless you want to be offered a tuna and sweetcorn trencher in every pub and café.
A nominal charge is a charge in name only, so as to create consideration, the equivalent of a peppercorn. It's not a euphemism for a charge that hasn't been costed, or that is less than it might have been if it had been costed. £2 and £5 are never nominal charges.
Grrrrrrr
What the spokeswoman actually meant in the context, was a charge that might help towards covering the extra cost and hassle of sanitising everything - in which case, say that. Don't use the word 'nominal'.
I agree with the first sentence, and want to quibble a little with the last one. There are circumstances in which £5 might be a nominal charge - I think the key is not the precise value of the nominal charge (or peppercorn) but the fact that the value of the charge is basically irrelevant to the people paying it. So if you're using it in a context where people are paying thousands of quid for something, a fiver might well be nominal - particularly if you want to charge it in cash, as it's the smallest note that circulates.
However, something which does annoy me is when you see an offer in the paper: "FREE! (£6.95 P&P)". That to me always looks a bit shifty.