Good grief. I don’t have any better way to explain it. You’re welcome to disagree.
Edit: actually, you’re right. “Straw” is named for the object from which it was made, not the material, even though straw is a material in addition to being an object. It shouldn’t count. Good catch!
If you can write the sentence, “A _____ is no longer made out of _____,” and put exactly the same word in both blanks, it qualifies for the thread.
Is that a correct explanation?
There are other types of foil beyond just aluminum- there’s the eponymous “tin”, there’s copper, gold, lead, etc…
But yeah, I think it’s really what @Riemann says- where the material has become synonymous with the actual object. Something like a polyurethane rubber is an example. Or like you say, an aluminum tin.
I thought it was the contradiction in the words, not one material that’s commonly made from something else. Saying “a glass marble” does meet it because of the contradictory nature of the words. So would something like plastic oilskin. A “graphite lead” would work, but nobody actually says that.
Or in golf, you could say that having titanium irons fits the bill, as does carbon fiber woods.
I’m a little surprised to learn that it is evidently common for people use the word “glass” for non-glass drink holders. Maybe it’s a regional thing, but I always call plastic or paper drink holders “cups.” Paper cups, plastic cups … if it isn’t made from glass, it’s not a glass.
Eyeglasses, on the other hand, I do refer to as “glasses” even when they are 100% plastic.
I think that works, although I’m worried that some unforeseen aspect of it is going to set off another 50 posts of debate. But yeah, if that works, it is way simpler than my explanations. Thanks!
Drat it all to heck
It has to be both grammatically correct and true. “A straw is no longer made from straw” is a legitimate sentence, but false. “A straw is no longer made out of a piece of straw” is true, but doesn’t fit the pattern.
Well, there should be a “necessarily” in there as well. A glass is no longer necessarily made from glass.
I mentioned reeds (as used in musical instrument mouthpieces) upthread, but perhaps it was missed. The Wikipedia article on them begins, “A reed is a thin strip of material that vibrates to produce a sound on a musical instrument. Most woodwind instrument reeds are made from Arundo donax (“Giant cane”) or synthetic material. Tuned reeds (as in harmonicas and accordions) are made of metal or synthetics. Musical instruments are classified according to the type and number of reeds.”
I think it qualifies.
I’ve got two more potentials. @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, I request a ruling, please!
Slate as in a writing slate
The case for: hand-sized blackboards, common in classrooms decades (and centuries) ago; used to be made from slate stone; then made from boards painted with special paint. Wiki says, “They are still made in the twenty-first century, though in small quantities.”
The case against: are the more modern versions – such that they still exist at all – called “slates”? Or has “blackboard” entirely replaced the word “slate” in modern vernacular? Would anyone realistically say, “I own a wooden slate?”
–
Pearl
The case for: imitation pearls – made of plastic, glass, alabaster, or whatever – are very common. And I think it’s common just to call them “pearls” in conversation rather than “fake” or “imitation.” I could easily imagine someone saying, “that’s a glass pearl.”
The case against: we might have a counting problem here. While one certainly could hold (and reference) a single pearl, much more common usage is as a collective (“a set of pearls”) or an adjective (“pearl earrings”).
What do we think?
Paper clip
Not in my experience, no. Even “blackboard” is kind of archaic, as pretty much everyone uses white boards now.
“A paper clip is no longer made of paper clip.”
Nope.
Sorry, misunderstood.
Hot water heater!
(Runs for my very life.)
Yeah. I was hoping that there were enough legacy blackboards left in the world – and a culture somewhere that still called them “slates” – to qualify.
I wonder if this would have been an easier case to make at some point, say, 60-80 years ago, when 1) these devices were still common, but 2) no longer typically made of slate stone, 3) while still being referred as “slates” out of linguistic inertia? (I’m too young to know if all those stars aligned.)
Yeah, that might actually work - when slates were still commonly used in schools, there were almost certainly variations that weren’t made of slate, but were still called “slates.”
According to Wikipedia, writing Braille requires a set of tools called a “slate and stylus.” I’m guessing the “slate” part is derived linguistically from the old writing slates used in schools, but it’s also a distinct device that was probably never actually made of slate, so I’m not sure if that counts.
Another possibility: “slate” as a in “a slate of candidates,” assuming the term was derived from a practice of writing candidate’s names on a piece of slate.
Pashminas are no longer always made of pashmina, shahtooshes likeways not always made of shahtoosh.
The word “slate”, as a discrete noun, isn’t used much any more… but it still shows up fossilized in expressions like “a clean slate”.
And I think the “straw” countability issue also rules out my previous example of “cane” and also the French example of “plume” (pen/feather). Phooey.
Of course “linens” meaning fabric pieces for household use, as in “bed linens”, “bath linens”, “kitchen linens”, originally derived their name from the linen fabric from which they were made, and are now generally made of cotton or some other fiber. So it’s legit to say “Household linens are no longer necessarily made from linen.”
However, AFAICT the term “linens” or “linen”, in this sense, is always either discrete without being singular or singular without being discrete. “Bed linen” can be used in a collective sense to refer to all its different forms such as sheets and pillowcases, but you can’t call an individual pillowcase, for example, “a bed linen”.
So you can’t say “A household linen is no longer necessarily made from linen.”
And just to be super-nitpicky, I’m not sure that the previous example of “a fleece” works: not because there isn’t a more recent type of object created out of a different substance, as in “a polyester fleece”, but because it doesn’t refer to the same type of object.
A sheep fleece, or a goat fleece or a yak fleece, etc., refers to the cohesive mass of sheared-off hair of an individual animal, and is made out of the (natural-fiber) substance fleece. But a polyester fleece or Polar fleece or similar, as an individual object, refers exclusively AFAICT to a constructed garment made out of the (synthetic) substance fleece. There’s no overlap between the meanings of the two terms as discrete objects, although the same word is used for both types of material.
In other words, you can’t legitimately say “A fleece is no longer necessarily made from (natural-fiber) fleece”. Because either it still always is (if by “a fleece” you mean an animal fleece), or else it never was (if by “a fleece” you mean a constructed garment for humans). The term “a fleece” was not used for an item of human clothing until the recent manufacture of garments from synthetic fleece fabrics.
It definitely still works in French: l’ardoise is still used to refer to a blackboard in a restaurant setting, even though it’s no longer made of slate.
Another metaphorical use of slate in English (and French) refers to the bar tab. “Put it on the slate.”