Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
All of us have seen 'weasel words.' These words are 'empty' words used to justify an opinion, but they contribute little or nothing to the logic and final proof of an argument.
Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors use this term among others. Here are four examples taken from the Wikipedia entry in English:
1. 'People say...' — Which people? How do they know?
2. 'It is known that...' — By whom and by what method is it known?
3. 'Officially known as...' — By whom, where, when—who says so?
4. 'The vast majority...' — All, more than half—how many?
Maybe you experienced 'weasel words' in Kudoz answers.*
Like adverbs:
'We always say this in English.' - who? always - really?
'It technically is this.' - what does 'technically' mean?
Or superlatives:
'The most common word is this.' - where? for who?
'The worst example.' - is this your opinion?
[*I'm not quoting anyone here.]
These are not adverbials in my opinion. And, it is not 'wooden language' (from French 'langue de bois').
I doubt there's an existing word or collocation in Italian for 'weasel word' and think there's a chance here to define one.
Explanation: I know, it's long-winded. But I think the meaning isn't that by using them one is trying to be misleading (letting people understand B while it is actually A); he's just trying to avoid a clear-cut responsibility (he's trying not to be forced to provide a clear alternative between A and B). So he's being deliberately vague.
Here's a slightly different take on "weaseling" that maybe explains what I mean:
"Weaseling. Overuse of words like mostly, usually, almost, sometimes, rather, mainly, apparently, seemingly, generally, etc., gives the manuscript a confused, uncertain, and tentative feel."
Very difficult decision. I had to form a committee to vote. We agreed all of the answers had merit. It came down to making a combination of cynthia's and Michele's answers. If there was no 'creative' or 'figurative' translation, we thought 'espressioni vaga e impersonale' was good (leaving out Michele's 'deliberatamente'). Then, we decided to match just two words - 'weasel word' - we had to reduce the answer to 'espessione vaga.' Michele was closest and earliest to this. We should agree 'vague expression' is not exactly equal to 'weasel words,' but that is the nature of translating, isn't it? So, because it was a difficult contest - and because it's a useful expression/collocation, it should be in the glossary. I'll enter it as 'espressione vaga'. Time will tell if a new expression arrives into Italian. Thanks to everyone who participated! 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
Io credo che a questo punto il problema vero sia il contesto in cui è inserito il termine. Se si sta parlando di qualcosa di linguistico a livello tecnico, credo che o si lascia l'inglese o si mette la traduzione tecnica. A differenza dell'italiano, "Weasel Words" sembra essere sia un termine specifico che un'espressione di uso comune per definire un certo tipo di parole, discorsi, espressioni. Sapere da che tipo di documento viene questa parola credo aiuterebbe. :)
A me sembra che weasel words abbia un senso decisamente assolutamente ampio e sfaccettato che difficicilmente si può rendere in italiano con una sola espressione. Concordo con One-L-Michele, quindi, e con Valeria perchè alcune espressioni sono forme verbali passive, altre frasi ellittiche. Quindi è il senso che accomuna l'espressione inglese e il "lasciato a intendere" ha un peso.
Silvia Socinovi and MisterBeppe: no, I don't think they are cryptic words.
"People say..." - this is vague, possibly not deliberately.
"Those who are in the know, you know who, say..." - this is cryptic.
"According to the well-known poll, people will say..." - this may be equivocal. I'm claiming there is some scientific backing, but I'm not providing enough information for verification. It's somewhat weaselly, but most probably it's deliberately misleading.
"Apparently, most people would say..." - this is truly weaselly, as I understand it. I don't want to say exactly _who_ is saying it, and I don't want to bear complete responsibility for what I'm reporting (whence "apparently", "would").
ma non state discutendo di quelle piccole interiezioni che fanno guadagnare tempo in un discorso e che usiamo tutti in continuazione ma di tutt'altro.
In grammatica, l'interiezione è la parte del discorso che esprime un
particolare atteggiamento emotivo del parlante, in modo estremamente conciso. ...
it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interiezione - Cached - Similar
I've just made my mind over this: Parole Sibilline, which actually and literally means "Cryptic Words". I think this is the true meaning of weasel words. We should go back to philology to understend WHY the weasel has been used to convey such a meaning...
uhm..."volpone" sounds tricky to me. I mean, when I think of "volpone" in sencences like "è un volpone", I usually think of someone cunning, but a little bit mean, too....
"parola di volpone", which refers to a different animal (a little magnified, actually, to stress the meaning), but basically would give the perfect idea, especially in advertizing! Anyway "ambiguo, ingannevole, fuorviante" et similia, are what you were looking for. :)
I realize that you don't want a translation...perhaps. Anyway the two links say the same things as our colleagues have said in their answers, and which I would have posted if I hadn't misunderstood what you were actually looking for. My fault. Sorry, I only wanted to help, which I didn't much after all.
Silvia Socinovi Italy Local time: 02:03 Specializes in field Native speaker of: Italian
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you Silvia. The reference is very nice. I am just wondering if there's a more colourful idiom given that 'ambiguous words' could be something like..."a quality product" - this doesn't tell me if it's good or bad quality. Still, this is a strong answer.
Asker: Silvia. Your answer was very possible and I liked your extra information in the discussion. I want to say a special 'grazie' for your participation. But, my little committee felt 'vague words' had it's own meaning already. You had the most confidence votes, but the same peers also voted for other answers. Thanks very much.
The translation workplace 
peer agreement (net): +3
