9

Context: I asked a mid-level state education official (Mr. A) to forward all the state ed memos he receives via email, as they come in. These memos are important because they lay out actions that the state requires local school districts to carry out. For example, there's one that says that school nurses are required to inform the parent if a child goes to the nurse's office with an injury sustained in school, or a suspected infectious disease. Once I find such a state ed memo about something that my district should be doing but hasn't done, and refuses to do, I can request that Mr. A follow up and explain to my district what is required. The state ed department does not have the memos collected in one central web location. The ones that I have found, I have found more or less by accident. They are powerful things to have for advocacy and activism.

Mr. A passed me off to a listserv that state ed maintains for keeping parents updated. He said that if I subscribe to it I will get the memos. I subscribed; I requested, and was sent, a copy of the archived messages as well. I discovered that through this subscription, parents don't get any useful information. I am ready to write back to Mr. A. (Please don't suggest I try someone higher up at state ed. I've tried that, and they send me back to Mr. A.)

Sorry if that was too long. If someone can boil it down please be my guest.

Here's the sentence I need to clean up:

They don't give parents jacksh&t.

Here is some documentation of that expression: http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/jack-shit

I need something succinct and expressive but without a four-letter word. Mr. A is someone I don't need to beat around the bush with; but "jacksh*t" is not a word I can use with him.

I know a way of saying this in Mexican Spanish, if this helps anyone:

Nos están dando atole con el dedo.

This means they are feeding us gruel with a finger (rather than a spoon). It's extremely effective in Mexico. That's the kind of expression I'm looking for, but in English.

The best I've come up with so far:

They don't give parents jacks**t.

Update

Normally I wait a lot longer than this before accepting an answer, but I wanted to get the email out, so I went with diddly-squat. I may as well go ahead and click the checkmark now. If someone comes up with something better, I'll use it next time! (Something tells me there will be a next time, sooner or later....)

My finished product:

[...] Also, I signed up for the listserv as you suggested, and asked them to send me the messages I had missed so far. They did. Unfortunately I discovered that the listserv does not give parents diddly-squat. It was a good idea, though, and I'm glad we tried. [...]

aparente001
  • 21,530
  • 4
    You could say something like, "The state does not provide parents with anything beneficial" or "with anything useful". – Hank Dec 08 '16 at 17:30
  • @Hank - I need something with more punch. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 17:59
  • Try to somehow work in the word “transparency” (as I’m sure you know, DOE’s and school divisions love to take pride in and tout their empty claims of transparency): “[Apparently] your/their idea of transparency with Parents is a twisted version of (the already twisted notion of) “on a need to know basis”: “Give Parents only what we don’t need to hide from them to keep ourselves out of trouble [and get bitten on the ass]”= “They only give/gave us what they want us to know/what they know we can’t use against them.” – Papa Poule Dec 08 '16 at 18:18
  • @PapaPoule - Nice analysis, but I'm not really asking for strategy, just a powerful expression in place of jacks**t. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 20:01
  • 6
    (Jack)shit is a member of the extremely idiomatic class of negative phenomena known as Squatitives. – John Lawler Dec 08 '16 at 20:18
  • 1
    @JohnLawler, I always learn something new from your comments. – Katherine Lockwood Dec 08 '16 at 20:46
  • If (on a future occasion, of which I'm sure there will be more than one) you want to get the message across while being slightly opaque (he can figure it out, I'm sure), try the British "...doesn't give the parents FBA" (or SFA) – MMacD Dec 08 '16 at 21:16
  • @MMacD - Too cryptic for my U.S. ears. I am certain this guy would just skip right over anything he doesn't understand at first glance. He is a mid-level state education administrator and I have been rather lucky so far to get any response from him at all. // P.S. what does it mean? Could you write an answer, please? I don't require huge amounts of documentation in an answer. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 21:17
  • The polite version of the first is "Flaming Bugger-All", but more people would understand "F*cking Bugger-All". – MMacD Dec 08 '16 at 21:27
  • (I always hit "return" prematurely in comments) The second one doesn't have a polite understanding: "Sweet F*ck-All". – MMacD Dec 08 '16 at 21:28
  • If he's Jewish, you could use "bupkes", which is Yiddish for "beans" and means, in a polite way, FBA. :-) – MMacD Dec 08 '16 at 21:30
  • I hear "jack crap" with non-trivial frequency. – Brian Tung Dec 08 '16 at 21:37
  • You can substitute "the time of day" for the final word of your original expression to produce an idiomatic and still forceful expression: "They don't give us the time of day!" The impact of the expression is strengthened by the sense that people often ask complete strangers what time it is, figuring that it's not a huge imposition to ask them to check their watch. A person who "wouldn't give you the time of day" is therefore exceedingly ungenerous and unhelpful. – Sven Yargs Dec 08 '16 at 22:02
  • @MMacD - "Bugger" doesn't work in the U.S. Thank you for explaining. (Anyway, in an email to an official, I can't use vulgar language even in acronym form.) – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 22:53
  • @BrianTung - I do hear "crap" quite a bit as though it didn't mean what it does. It would work in something more informal, but not in this situation. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 22:55
  • @MMacD - I do live in New York State, but not in an area where everyone can be assumed to understand the most common Yiddishisms. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 22:56
  • @SvenYargs - You could write an answer. Your proposal might work well in some circumstances. (For my email, "diddly-squat" worked better -- more punch! Also, it's not that the listserv was a bad idea -- it was the brain child of the new state commissioner of education, who I believe means well -- it's just that I need more information than the listserv seems to be designed to disseminate.) – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 22:59
  • 1
    @CarlVeazey - I accepted your edit so it would be recorded for posterity. It was a great edit, really slimmed down the question to the essentials. But for now, at least, I'd like to leave the context in the question -- maybe it's silly -- anyway, please do keep editing, it was a great edit. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 23:03
  • They give parents nothing. They give parents very little [in the way of meaningful information] etc. What they give parents is worthless. – Jim Dec 09 '16 at 05:29

5 Answers5

15

A cleaner version of jacksh*t is jack:

US informal
short for jack shit

There's nothing closer to the original meaning, and it's considerably more polite than the full expression.

And your sentence would then be

They don't give parents jack.

aparente001
  • 21,530
Laurel
  • 66,382
  • 1
    In British English, "They give parents jack all" (or less politely, "squat all"). – alephzero Dec 09 '16 at 00:00
  • Didn't accept this answer because it wasn't part of my vocabulary before, plus, the sh*t part is so clearly implied. But I'm glad to add it to my vocabulary! – aparente001 Dec 09 '16 at 16:18
15

This no doubt dates me, but we used to use:

doodly squat, also-doodley squat, also-diddly squat

1. a minimum amount or degree; the least bit (usually used in the negative):

"This coin collection isn't worth doodly-squat in today's market."

to mean the same thing. According to Random House, it goes back to 1934.

Merriam Webster speculates that it is:

perhaps an alteration of do one's do (to defecate) + squat

Dictionary.com says that it is:

probably euphemistic variant of doodly-shit, diddlyshit

It was considered "clean" enough for our 1960s era cheerleaders to use in the chant:

Our team is red-hot,
Your team ain't doodly-squat

And your sentence would then be...

They don't give parents doodly-squat.

Or

That listserv is only good for doodly-squat.

Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_
  • 20,777
12

Beyond curses-that-aren't-curses, also consider words that are strongly negative, like "worthless" and "useless".

The information is practically worthless.

Though it pains me to admit it, this is a time I see the value of using "literally" for emphasis. "They literally don't give parents anything useful." In such situations, "Practically" and "Virtually" are my go-to replacements, so you may try:

Virtually nothing of value
ancientcampus
  • 366
  • 2
    This particular administrator is a down-to-earth kind of guy, and I wanted something colorful. – aparente001 Dec 08 '16 at 20:44
  • 1
    That would have been an important thing to mention in the question, @aparente001. Normally, when you're writing an email in a professional context, you want to avoid this kind of language, so a phrasing like this one was the first thing that came into my mind, too. – Cody Gray - on strike Dec 09 '16 at 05:16
  • @CodyGray - I tried! I wrote, "Mr. A is someone I don't need to beat around the bush with" and "I need something succinct and expressive." – aparente001 Dec 09 '16 at 05:19
  • Oh, I see. Yeah, I guess that is one way you could interpret that. The way I took it (and probably ancientcampus did too) was that just you wanted something direct and powerful, not necessarily that colorful or borderline-crude was acceptable. One has to be very careful with the latter, especially in written communication, because of the dangers of being misinterpreted or perceived as unprofessional. It really only works when you have a good established relationship with the person on the other end. Lots of people take things too seriously! – Cody Gray - on strike Dec 09 '16 at 05:37
  • @CodyGray - You really put your finger on it with your comment. Tell me, is "diddly-squat" borderline crude to your ear? – aparente001 Dec 09 '16 at 16:19
6

The Online Slang Dictionary gives several delightful alternatives, including:

boo – bumpkiss – bupkis – dick – diddly-squat – f**k all – fu**le – goose egg – jack – jack sh!t – jack squat – nunya – sh!t – squat – zilch – zip – zippo

Not all of these would fit your purpose. If I had to choose, in a semi-professional situation where I would not want to swear, I might go with

They give parents a big fat goose-egg.

which has some colorful but clean intensifiers, or possibly string some of them together for emphasis:

They give parents nothing--zip, zero, zilch, nada.

Katherine Lockwood
  • 3,211
0

If you wanted to go even further, you might consider reversing the statement along the lines of They give the parents nothing of any [use|value|significance].

Gwyn Evans
  • 221
  • 2
  • 4