The term “Indian giver” to mean someone who gives something and then takes it back has racist origins and so I don’t use it. However the concept of someone taking back a gift is a useful in certain situations and it would be nice to have a short-hand for it.
For example:
“Sorry Bob, I don’t want to be a XXXX, but my new mower just conked out and I’ll need to borrow back my old mower that I just gave you.”
Any ideas?
I don’t mean to go back on my word, but…
9 words instead of 7.
Same idea.
Why not just avoid the whole construction? Just say something like, “Sorry Bob, but I need the mower I gave you back.”
Aboriginal giver.
nm.
No, there’s not.
I base that on 2 things:
Googling “indian giver synonym,” and the whole internet has no good substitute, including several dictionaries.
I once wrote a function that allocated manpower, but then sometimes would take them back if it needed them more somewhere else. There was no good name for the method - and I tried hard.
It’s a shame. It’s a useful concept to have boiled into one term.
The simplest construction that would convey the same idea might be to “renege on my loan/gift.”
“I don’t mean to renege on my loan” - same number of words.
You could just say “I don’t want to renege.”
The main difference is that “renege” is not specific to a gift, but includes backing out of any promise or commitment.
Let’s just invent a new term then. My suggestion is to call it “being a Polonius”. (As in, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be”.)
That’s not really the same, and in any case I doubt that that’s the first image of Polonius that would come to mind.
It was the first thing I thought of when I thought about borrowing or lending stuff. And who is going to be offended by a reference to a character in a Shakespeare play?
“I don’t want to be a Polonius, but I was hiding behind that curtain and have some long-winded advice for you.”
I don’t want to be a Polonius, 'cause I hate getting stabbed.
Yeah, the first thought of what “a Polonius” might be is someone who gives tedious advice. Or maybe someone who gets stabbed in the arras.
“Taking back” really does describe the concept and in the same number of words. It’s not as catchy or colloquial as something like Indian giver, but it does the job.
“I don’t want to be a Polonius, but I… what? Oh, he’s a character from Hamlet. Hamlet? You know, Shakespeare. Yes, the playwright.”
re: Polonius. I thought of the skipper, Alan Hale.
“Deadbeat” was successfully re-purposed from meaning a general lazy bum to a guy who doesn’t pay child support. Maybe we could re-purpose some existing epithet for this, like tosser or roustabout.
We could go with Leno, in the tradition of *boycott *and quisling.
If we’re going to coin one instead, a two-syllable compound word with stress on each syllable is almost de rigeur. It’s permissible to add a third unstressed syllable (like -er), but even that weakens it somewhat.
Suggestions:
yank-bait (-er)
flint-gift ( -er)
cheese-yoink (-er)
It’s also not an epithet. Not a substitute. A take-back might count, but it’s not as satisfying to call somebody.
Bank giver, or banker’s gift. Something I just made up.
Some contracts have a “claw-back” feature allowing a deal to be undone.
IIRC, the actual concept of “Indian Giver” was based on the concept “I give you a gift. I expect an equal or bigger gift later in return.”
For nomadic non-monetary cultures, there was a limit to how much you could accumulate. If you ended up with too many blankets or peace pipes or dried meat, you gave some away to others who had nothing. This enhanced your prestige or social standing, and was also a form of barter. Of course, when these recipients had something and you were running lean, it was nice that they returned the gesture. (The ultimate example of this was the potlach celebrations by the northwest coast Indians - when some started getting rich in the late 1800s - they would take their savings, buy as much as they could, have a big party, and give away their wealth instead of saving for the future…)
IIRC it was one of those interesting culture clashes. The pilgrims did not grasp the concept that they as “rich” people should return the favour in proportion to their incredible wealth of possessions (compared to the Indians). As settled people with fixed houses, their possessions could pile up behind locked doors. They insensitively took what the indians had and gave nothing back.
The Indians took a while to catch on. They obviously had not run across people who did NOT reciprocate; they saw people with a lot of neat stuff, and started giving them gifts expecting something even bigger and nicer in return. When they got nothing, they were offended.
It’s sort of like the people who offer to pick up the bill at the restaurant. They expect the other person to offer too, an then eventually you alternate. If you keep offering to pay, and the other richer person always says “OK, go ahead” you will eventually get pissed off at them.
Of course, nowadays it has evolved instead to mean “gimme my mower back.”
How about “Welch” 
If you gave your neighbor your old mower and your new mower broke… well then you can ask to borrow it until your new mower is fixed but then you have to give it back. That is the whole point of giving.