
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, âa trinket of no discernible functionâ (13 December 2014). So we are pleasantly surprised by the number of suggestions.
Before the ink was dry a colleague observed that âonly the other day I found myself uttering the sentence âLittle girlsâ party bags just get filled with pink plastic tatâ.â But we first heard âtatâ in an entirely different context, referring to rather unofficial street parties: âif the cops seize our tat, weâre stuffed â can we sort backup?â To the utterers, items of âtatâ were essential. A discussion on attitudes to needs and possessions, and the effects of parenthood on these, ensued.
Advertisement
A website asked John Gibson âWhat is your lucky number?â as a security question. It then complained his answer was too short. âIf I pick a longer one, it wonât be my lucky numberâŠâ
Scots has words for these
OTHER nominations for tchotchke synonyms included John Rawsonâs âmathomâ, as âthe hobbit term for anything which they had no use for but were unwilling to throw awayâ. The hobbitsâ 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 âa fancy ornament or small and useless knick-knackâ. We agree that the word âcomes in handy for Feedback in its alternative sense: a fanciful notion or contrivanceâ.
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 âmachineryâ via ârubbleâ to âotherâ.
Funnily enough, we have since found a small spate of alarm about this. âFamilies may have to separate rubbish into six separate bins due to European regulations coming into force in Januaryâ in August 2014. In October 2013 the threat had been smaller: âAt least FOUR recycling boxes for EVERY homeâ was the fear of the Daily Mail. But that story : âlocal authorities can comply without requiring households to use separate binsâ. A storm in a chipped teacup, then. (But would a ceramic teacup be ârubbleâ or âotherâ?)
Muphry was here, and here
SEVERAL readers congratulated us on the recursive nature of the column which opened âMuphryâs Law holds⊠that whenever one criticises editing or proofreading, there will be a fault in what you have written.â (6 December 2014). We should perhaps have repeated that the law was by John Bangsund of the Victorian Society of Editors â the Australian state, not the reign â in a self-referential homage to Murphy of âif it can go wrong, it willâ fame (1 March 2014). Extensive research into the matter reveals that it has also been named the âLaw of Pedantic Reverberationâ. 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 51¶ŻÂțâs 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 âoff-by-one errorâ, another message arrived from Chris Ford: âEr, isnât your edition 3002 the dawn of your fourth millennium?â. 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, âthe discovery of a new integer between 3 and 4 must be of some scientific interest.â
Pre-meditated elephants
FINALLY, there must be a parallel law governing metaphorical quantitative help for readers. Feedback mentioned another publicationâs 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 âis equivalent to having two elephants standing on your big toeâ. Was this deliberate, we asked a colleague. âAbsolutely. Metric elephants, naturellement.â