I have a family member who worked at a cat boarding facility. There, she met a couple who jokingly described their cat as "beautiful but worthless." Is there a word in the English language to describe such a purrradox? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Asked
Active
Viewed 2.3k times
36
-
6+1 for the purrradox! The premise reminds me of art. Utterly useless other than to allow those who look upon it to derive whatever pleasure they wish from it. I hope you get a response - I'm interested to know too! – May 07 '15 at 09:35
-
2Priceless = either so expensive or so worthless, that you cannot put a price on it. The cat is priceless - having no worth and yet worths so much in beauty. – Blessed Geek May 07 '15 at 12:16
-
1We have a "decorator cat" – Ex Umbris May 07 '15 at 14:16
-
2"White elephant" is a term to consider. Supposedly the term originated from the habit of an Asian prince for gifting people he did not especially like with a white elephant (the real thing). Since the white elephant was considered sacred the giftee could not simply kill it, but it was very expensive to feed, so the individual was saddled with a continuing burden. – Hot Licks May 07 '15 at 22:42
-
Related: What metaphor or phrase can describe an object that is aesthetically pleasing yet totally useless? (nouns to these adjectives) – user56reinstatemonica8 May 08 '15 at 09:43
-
If one wanted to use a more colloquial term, one could adopt the "bling bling" or "blink" phraseology often used by poets belonging to the Rhythmic Artistic Poetry (RAP) genre. Ofttimes one would use such words in the description of something which is perhaps expensive/beautiful/attractive but also totally useless (not necessarily worthless)... Objects described as "blink" are generally used to show status... kind of like what some individual do with their four-legged friends. – G.Rassovsky May 08 '15 at 11:05
-
some might argue that something beautiful has worth by definition. – user428517 May 08 '15 at 17:35
-
'Superficial' is close as it expresses that the most obvious attribute is really of no relevance. superficial beauty. – Tony Ennis May 09 '15 at 14:04
-
2I don't understand the context. How can a cat be "worthless"? – Lightness Races in Orbit May 10 '15 at 01:28
11 Answers
60
You could say Mrs. Whiskers is purely ornamental.
For example, Cambridge gives the definition of "ornamental" as precisely "beautiful rather than useful":
.
Furthermore, Vocabulary.com lists "non-functional" as the first synonym of "ornamental", and Wikipedia has this to say about ornamental plants:
Ornamental plants are plants which are grown for display purposes, rather than functional ones.
You could also say Princess Pretty Paws is cosmetic, decorative, or even a mere bauble. Just don't do it to her face.
Dan Bron
- 28,335
- 17
- 99
- 138
-
3
-
@DanBron Utilitarian, but I hardly think that qualifies. It's far too flamboyant. Hmmm.... apparently utilitarian and ornamental are antonyms. – Chris Sunami May 07 '15 at 13:25
-
1I'm not sure that ornamental really works: I have, for instance, a number of female acquaintances who are both useful (my vet springs to mind), yet quite ornamental. Likewise my dogs and horse, and some of my fruit trees: ornamental, but serving useful purposes as well. – jamesqf May 07 '15 at 21:39
-
Purely ornamental is not a single word. As jamesqf mentions, things can be quite decorative (the colloquial definition of ornamental), yet entirely functional. – Mazura May 07 '15 at 23:02
-
1@jamesqf i would say, then, that your vet is attractive (and NOT ornamental). – Erich May 08 '15 at 06:00
-
7
-
-
@NVZ Personally, I didn't prefer it. The terrible screenshot was intentional from day 1 of this answer, and was part of its (ironic) charm. But, on the other hand, I wasn't going to step on your toes either. But if you want my opinion, I prefer the answer the way it was before you edit. – Dan Bron Apr 22 '16 at 22:17
-
@NVZ No problem, though I should have mentioned I appreciated sentiment behind the edit. The screenshot is garish, but in this case that just happens to be ironic. – Dan Bron Apr 23 '16 at 03:37
13
-
3Per the OP's question, however, I would not refer to a cat as bauble, which I connote as meaning something inanimate and referring generally gems or jewelry. – Tony Ennis May 09 '15 at 14:09
8
It's an obscure word: gewgaw.
From the New Oxford American Dictonary:
a showy thing, especially one that is useless or worthless.
chowwy
- 189
-
5this is a word for a doodad or trinket, perhaps something you picked up in a tourist gift shop. i'm not seeing the connection to "beautiful" here. – Erich May 08 '15 at 06:06
-
1
-
1Thanks for all of the comments. It should be noted that other dictionaries define gewgaw as: "A showy trifle; a toy; a splendid plaything; a pretty but worthless bauble." Understandable that we could argue the semantics of pretty vs. beautiful, but gewgaw can refer to something that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, yet worthless. – chowwy May 10 '15 at 21:31
5
The kitty is purrty.
pretty: (often pejorative) Fine-looking; only superficially attractive; initially appealing but having little substance [Wiktionary]
ermanen
- 62,797
-
1
-
First I've ever seen pretty defined with (often pejorative). +1 for that, i guess – JTP - Apologise to Monica May 10 '15 at 13:17
5
You can say that that particular thing is just "for show".
For the sake of appearance rather than for use (Oxford Dictionaries)
Example sentence,
It was a commonplace of Roman food writing to despise complicated dishes designed for show rather than for taste
4
If you really want to use a single word for this, you might have to settle for an analogy. The problem then becomes the obscurity of the reference, which would then require explanation, thus revealing the economy of words to be illusory. However, here are a couple of examples:
- Paris-Hiltonian
- pyritic
The last has the virtue of actually being in the dictionary.
Jason Melançon
- 572
-
3It's not cool to make cracks about real live people. Of course, if you are quoting someone else, please do indicate that. – Andrew Leach May 07 '15 at 20:10
-
5Commenting on public figures seems legit to me. We all knew exactly what he meant. – Tony Ennis May 09 '15 at 14:07
3
Perhaps you're looking for meretricious!
apparently attractive but having in reality no value or integrity.[1]
[1] "Meretricious, n.1." OED Online. Oxford University Press, April 2016. Web. 21 April 2016.
temporary_user_name
- 1,819
2
Something that's been gilded has a thin veneer of pretty gold on top, but underneath that, it may be something worthless. The word is often used metaphorically, as in "The Gilded Age."
Gild
verb (used with object)
to coat with gold, gold leaf, or a gold-colored substance.
to give a bright, pleasing, or specious aspect to.
(Dictionary.com)
-
Gold is more impressive or dazzling than beautiful, I would say. I don't think calling something gilded implies it's beautiful. – einpoklum May 09 '15 at 20:02
2
eye candy
Slang. someone or something that is visually attractive or pleasing but is usually considered to lack worth or merit.
trumpery
A showy thing of no intrinsic value; something intended to deceive by false show; worthless finery.
0
You could also use folly perhaps in a more specific sense:
- A structure, such as a pavilion in a garden, that is chiefly decorative rather than practical in purpose.
Nobilis
- 2,222
-
-
18th century English gardens often feature beautiful and elaborate follies. – Nobilis May 09 '15 at 21:07
-
Hmpph... Can you use that as the subject in a sentence without 'beautiful' or a similar adjective? :-) – einpoklum May 09 '15 at 21:27
-
I'd struggle to be honest, in this case folly refers to a specific type of architectural feature. Follies were structures that had no practical value but were built purely for their aesthetic features. For a similar use that omits 'beuatiful' you could refer to this article, specifically This comprehensive volume covers over two hundred projects – from the earliest experimentations to product design, from follies to large-scale built works – Nobilis May 10 '15 at 12:21
-
1
-1
If you mean something that you couldn't sell for much money but is nevertheless worth a lot to you, I'd say it had purely sentimental value.
Jez
- 12,705
-
6No cat is ever truly worthless. The question is how one defines "worth". I set the bar low. My cat has a perfect record of keeping the pterodactyls away. – Brian Hitchcock May 07 '15 at 10:05
-
1
-
if the value is purely sentimental, then there's no aesthetic value. – einpoklum May 09 '15 at 20:01