1

What is the word for "saying a lot but unable to make a point or deliberately refrain from making a point"?

2 Answers2

0

You might also consider bloviate

Define by Oxford as:

to talk or write in a way that shows that you think you know a lot and have something important to say, when in fact you do not know much and have nothing important to say

Jim
  • 33,381
-1

Depending how forcefully the person is speaking, chooose from these (Cambridge Dictionary)...

bluster
- to speak in a loud, angry, or offended way, usually with little effect

waffle
- to talk or write a lot without giving any useful information or any clear answers

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • or possibly filibuster too, although that's more about time wasting I suppose. – Smock Jan 09 '20 at 13:28
  • Also, *filibuster* is rarely used outside of the context of wasting *parliamentary debate* time (though perhaps it turns up sometimes as a "malapropism" for phonetically similar *bluster*). – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '20 at 14:33
  • Which could fit the OP if they are doing it in a debate. – Smock Jan 09 '20 at 14:41
  • That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I could endorse using the word *filibuster* in the context of an actual "debate" (such as might take place in a school or university, for example). To me mind, it's only really a "natural" choice when the purpose of the time-wasting tactic is to delay or prevent a legislative assembly from actually *voting* to pass a bill. Maybe some people would also use it where the purpose is to "hog" the allocated debate time (and thus prevent the other side from presenting their arguments), but that wouldn't really work for me. – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '20 at 14:51
  • Just saying that 'saying a lot but [unable to make a point or] deliberately refrain from making a point' if done in a legislative assembly to waste time in order to block legislation could also be classed as filibustering. I'm not arguing with your answer, this is just a extra side note with conditions attached - you don't need to endorse it. – Smock Jan 09 '20 at 16:18
  • Well, I hope the mods won't be too assiduous about clearing away our comments here, because *filibuster* is both (somewhat) relevant to the question and "interesting" (from my point of view, at least). But equally, I hope you'll be happy that I've (somewhat) endorsed its use (in certain contexts) in our comment exchange here. I probably wouldn't actually downvote it if someone else posted it as an alternative "Answer" - but since I wouldn't upvote it either, I don't think I'll edit my own answer text to include it . – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '20 at 17:05
  • 1
    Yep, I totally agree with that! It definitely doesn't warrant an edit to include it in the answer - it only works in a very small context as you say. – Smock Jan 10 '20 at 10:03