0

Introduction

According to correspondence theory, if you say or think something that does not correspond to reality then you have said something that is false. While this is an obvious concept learned in childhood, and while is true that we say many things that are false, we seldom say that ‘something is false’ — at least in Spanish. Instead, we distinguish between different types of falsities and use the idiomatic expression most appropriate to the situation.

The sophist falsity

If somebody say things that consist about fallacious arguments, sophisms or false statements with the objective of gaining reputation or prestige we may say either that he chamuyó or verseó; or that he is a chamuyero, versero (the correspodent adjectives). The former comes from caló chamullar while the latter comes from verso (verse, because of the idea that often a verse can be sweet to the ear but with a false content).

What English idiomatic or slang words fit best for the description I gave?

  • Be careful because the words sometimes could be used with the meaning of seduce or charming which often have a positive connotation. I think a lot of terms which fall into this category: sweet-talker, enchanter, delighter, etc. But the most usual sense is negative.

  • The words could be confused with an adulation. But this one focuses on the listener, while chamuyar focuses on the speaker. The idea behind the word is not that you are ‘specifically and constantly’ interested in someone, but that you are under pressure (e.g. an exam or a presentation) and you utter a nice discourse in order to (try to) show that you know what you are asked for. I found: flattering, charm the pants off, licker. But I think these terms are synonyms of adulate.

Example #1:

A: —How would you explain that a diode performs poorly at higher frequencies? What happens?
B: —The diffusion capacitance predominates. [Thinking that because he used the term difussion capacitance then A will be convinced that the answer is good]
A: —That's chamuyo / verso. I'm not asking how can you model a diode, but what represents the capacitance in the model of the diode that was given in the lecture.

Maybe ‘that's bullshit’ could be used, but this word is much more aggressive.

Example #2:

A: —I can't believe that X got his project approved by the committee. The stats and numbers he presented are nonsense.
B: —What a chamuyero/versero he is! [said as a complain]

tac
  • 412
  • 1
    Do you mean that "bullshit" is more aggressive, or that "chamuyo/verso" is more aggressive? – alphabet Oct 04 '23 at 04:09
  • You need to ask a philosopher or translator specifying in philosophy how this is usually translated/expressed rather than making up your own translations. – Stuart F Oct 04 '23 at 08:38
  • @alphabet bullshit is more aggressive – tac Oct 04 '23 at 13:04
  • @StuartF Philosophers don't use this term, I'm asking how would you say it 'in the street' – tac Oct 04 '23 at 13:06
  • 1
    Is there a policy here that questions can be closed as duplicates if answers (broadly) correspond? This seems to go against regular SE guidelines. – Joachim Oct 04 '23 at 18:30
  • 1
    @Joachim At last, a reasonable remark about CVing... – fev Oct 04 '23 at 18:57
  • If *bullshit* is too coarse, and exclamations like *Nonsense!* and *Poppycock!* are too demeaningly "affected", maybe *disingenuous* would fit. Much depends on the speaker's opinion as to *why* someone has just said something that's highly questionable, and the relative social status of the conversants. – FumbleFingers Oct 04 '23 at 19:04
  • Real Academia dictionary: chamuyo
    1. m. coloq. Arg. y Ur. Palabrería que tiene el propósito de impresionar o convencer. Coloquial, Argentina and Uruguay, verbiage aimed at impressing or convincing.
     – Lambie Oct 04 '23 at 19:13
  • By using terms like sophist and falsity you make this sound much more lahdeedah than it is. – Lambie Oct 04 '23 at 19:50
  • 1
    @Lambie I don't agree. Actually, if you know for what the sophists were accused for, then you only need a slang for a person who does the same (just like a sophist). And the definition you provided is not enough accurate, I don't care what the RAE says. – tac Oct 04 '23 at 19:56

2 Answers2

1

In American English, possibly other dialects as well, someone who is able to convince people using facile arguments and perhaps some flashy charts and graphs, with a bit of charm thrown in, can be called a bullshit artist.

What a bullshit artist he is!

It's somewhat harsher than "con-artist".

TimR
  • 2,999
0

I believe there is no single word or expression that fits all contexts and your examples. Deceive is a common and general verb (and deception for the noun) that covers the definition, but it is not slang and it won't work in every situation.

deceive verb
deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, especially for personal gain.

Google Dictionary

For your first example, bullshit works as a slang word; but if it is too vulgar (as you've mentioned also), you could use nonsense.

That's nonsense. I'm not asking how can you model a diode, but what represents the capacitance in the model of the diode that was given in the lecture.

or you could start with saying "Don't fool me!". To fool someone is slang for to trick or deceive (someone).

For your second example, con artist works as a slang word.

What a con-artist he is!

con artist
noun INFORMAL
a person who cheats or tricks others by persuading them to believe something that is not true.

Google Dictionary

Note: As you've mentioned also, in some contexts, chamuyar is used for to flatter, to charm, to sweet-talk, to butter up etc.; but you wanted to get away from that connotation and focus on the sense "deception with false statements".

ermanen
  • 62,797
  • con artist is the wrong word for the Spanish. – Lambie Oct 04 '23 at 19:10
  • 1
    @Lambie I wouldn't say just "wrong" brusquely. There are details in the answer. Bullshit and its variants are vulgar slang. Even the OP mentioned that bullshit is too strong. Chamuyar is not vulgar slang also. It is about equivalency and there are different usages, not about exact translation. – ermanen Oct 04 '23 at 19:21
  • chamuyar is not con. verbiage aimed at impressing or convincing. , translated from the RAE dictionary, link above. Bullshit may be too strong for the OP; not for me. :) Translation is about equivalent meaning, not equivalency. One translates meaning. Of course, nothing is 100% the same in the other language. The RAE does say colloquial. – Lambie Oct 04 '23 at 19:24
  • 1
    @Lambie con artist is a good equivalent it works only as an adjective but it's ok – tac Oct 04 '23 at 19:59
  • @tac Do you mean chamuyero (and versero) only works as an adjective? Con artist is a noun and your second example requires a noun. Equivalency between languages is not always exact; even in terms of parts of speech; and especially with colloquialisms. However, you can still find some adjective equivalents in English, like slick or sleek which could work in some contexts. – ermanen Oct 04 '23 at 21:33
  • @ermanen NO, they can be adjectives or verbs. Con artist only works as an adjective because conning doesn't exist. Nevertheless, it's a good candidate for translating – tac Oct 04 '23 at 22:38
  • @tac I think you are mixing up some terms. Con artist is a noun; and it is in the definition also. The blank in your second example requires a noun, so I've offered a noun. Chamuyero is the adjective form of the verb chamuyar; but chamuyero can be used as a noun also. https://deleahora.com/diccionario/chamuyero – ermanen Oct 05 '23 at 04:04
  • @ermanen there always've been an ambivalence between nouns and adjectives. Just like in programming, there is an ambivalence between pointers and arrays. – tac Oct 05 '23 at 12:52