èƵ

Feedback: Words for worthless whatsits

èƵpapers recycling fear-mongering, Muphry was here, and here, amazing discovery at St Pancras Station and more
Feedback: Words for worthless whatsits
(Image: Paul McDevitt)

Feedback is our weekly column of bizarre stories, implausible advertising claims, confusing instructions and more

Words for worthless whatsits

FEEDBACK was not aware that any other language had a synonym for the Yiddish tchotchke, “a trinket of no discernible function” (13 December 2014). So we are pleasantly surprised by the number of suggestions.

Before the ink was dry a colleague observed that “only the other day I found myself uttering the sentence ‘Little girls’ party bags just get filled with pink plastic tat’.” But we first heard “tat” in an entirely different context, referring to rather unofficial street parties: “if the cops seize our tat, we’re stuffed – can we sort backup?” To the utterers, items of “tat” were essential. A discussion on attitudes to needs and possessions, and the effects of parenthood on these, ensued.

A website asked John Gibson “What is your lucky number?” as a security question. It then complained his answer was too short. “If I pick a longer one, it won’t be my lucky number…”

Scots has words for these

OTHER nominations for tchotchke synonyms included John Rawson’s “mathom”, as “the hobbit term for anything which they had no use for but were unwilling to throw away”. The hobbits’ creator John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was a language scholar. We cannot rule out his engaging in a quest parallel to ours, only to cheat by attempting his own synonym.

Andrew Shead and Iain Wallace mentioned geegaw, which Iain identifies as Scots. Never having lived in Scotland proper (we think Edinburgh hardly counts for these purposes), Feedback cannot be sure, but we believe geegaws are necessarily shiny: a tchotchke can be as dull as you like.

Judith Woolf, also a language-related scholar, supplies another Scots delight: a whigmaleerie is “a fancy ornament or small and useless knick-knack”. We agree that the word “comes in handy for Feedback in its alternative sense: a fanciful notion or contrivance”.

Recycling fear-mongering

SHOULD your home be infested by whigmaleeries, you may be thinking about recycling. We witnessed the distress of a German-speaking neighbour deprived of the chance to lovingly sort unwanted things when her council switched to a single recycling bin (29 March 2014). She may have been more at home in the Netherlands where in 1989, Patrick Fenlon reports, householders had to sort out 10 different categories from “machinery” via “rubble” to “other”.

Funnily enough, we have since found a small spate of alarm about this. “Families may have to separate rubbish into six separate bins due to European regulations coming into force in January” in August 2014. In October 2013 the threat had been smaller: “At least FOUR recycling boxes for EVERY home” was the fear of the Daily Mail. But that story : “local authorities can comply without requiring households to use separate bins”. A storm in a chipped teacup, then. (But would a ceramic teacup be “rubble” or “other”?)

Muphry was here, and here

SEVERAL readers congratulated us on the recursive nature of the column which opened “Muphry’s Law holds… that whenever one criticises editing or proofreading, there will be a fault in what you have written.” (6 December 2014). We should perhaps have repeated that the law was by John Bangsund of the Victorian Society of Editors – the Australian state, not the reign – in a self-referential homage to Murphy of “if it can go wrong, it will” fame (1 March 2014). Extensive research into the matter reveals that it has also been named the “Law of Pedantic Reverberation”. Where? Er, here (2 October 1999).

Off by one error trap

WHATEVER we call the above-mentioned law mandating an error for an error, it has once more been tested, and again not falsified. John Cockton queried our explanation for marking èƵ‘s numerical millennium with issue 3002, because issue 3001 had been absorbed into a seasonal double issue (3 January). Should we have adjusted for previous such issues? As we were replying ruefully to John that whatever arithmetic we did would likely be plagued by what computer programmers call an “off-by-one error”, another message arrived from Chris Ford: “Er, isn’t your edition 3002 the dawn of your fourth millennium?”. Whoops.

Amazing St Pancras discovery

TEMPTING Muphry once more, we return to safety precautions at the Francis Crick Institute, a medical research facility being build next to St Pancras station in London (20/27 December 2014). Biological hazards are graded on a whole-number scale.

The Institute that it will not handle level 4 bugs but also that its hazard rating is greater than 3. Colin del Strother concludes that, whatever the safety issues, “the discovery of a new integer between 3 and 4 must be of some scientific interest.”

Pre-meditated elephants

FINALLY, there must be a parallel law governing metaphorical quantitative help for readers. Feedback mentioned another publication’s observation that plucky little lander Philae had the same weight as a newborn elephant (6 December 2014). Meanwhile on page 46 of that issue, as four readers pointed out, pressure at the bottom of Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench “is equivalent to having two elephants standing on your big toe”. Was this deliberate, we asked a colleague. “Absolutely. Metric elephants, naturellement.”

More from èƵ

Explore the latest news, articles and features