English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

When someone says

... X which is to say Y ...

is there an implication that X is mistaken or false? In this construction is Y generally the opposite of X?

Some random examples from the NY Times:

"When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored and miserable" (source)

"But corruption levels are around the global average, which is to say, corruption is rife" (source)

"There are journalists who cover the world of ideas, which is to say they report on the lives and work of people who have them" (source)

share|improve this question
up vote 13 down vote accepted

In earnest writing, the phrase can be used so that Y clarifies X.

However, it is a typical witticism (as in your examples) where Y is a cynical statement about X, almost treating X as a setup premise for the humor in Y.

share|improve this answer
+1 It is good to point out that there is a non-ironic usage that one might encounter. – jbelacqua Mar 28 '11 at 22:33

It can mean that X is a euphemism (or similar) for Y. They don't necessarily have to be opposites.

Edit: and indeed, looking at all of your examples, I'd say they fit that pattern. "Unemployed," for example, sounds (as bad as it is) much better than "underfed, harassed, bored and miserable."

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.