# become fashionable /catch on/come into fashion/



## kansi

The idea is *catching on* nationwide. Stay-at-home and social distancing orders meant to slow the spread of COVID-19 have put restaurant dining on hold, forcing many to close and leaving others barely surviving. From large chains to mom-and-pop eateries, restaurants are increasingly turning to grocery sales.

US restaurants turn to grocery sales to help offset losses

A dictionary says to catch on means to become fashionable.
Do these words just different ways to mean the same thing?
What's the difference in mening or nuance between them?


----------



## lingobingo

catch on = gain widespread acceptance = become popular/accepted/seen as normal


----------



## kansi

lingobingo said:


> catch on = gain widespread acceptance = become popular/accepted/seen as normal


So become popular can be used instead of catch on there but become fashionable or turn into fashion can't be used instead of cacth on there?


----------



## lingobingo

Those are definitions, meant to explain this usage of the term. I’m not suggesting them as replacements! *Catch on* is a common informal expression. Don’t try to complicate it.

Its other meaning, of course, is to begin to understand.


----------



## kansi

lingobingo said:


> Those are definitions, meant to explain this usage of the term. I’m not suggesting them as replacements! *Catch on* is a common informal expression. Don’t try to complicate it.
> 
> Its other meaning, of course, is to begin to understand.


Okay then, are those words replacable instead of catch on in the sentence?


----------



## lingobingo

*Catch on* is the natural colloquial expression to use. There is absolutely no point in paraphrasing it.


----------



## kansi

lingobingo said:


> *Catch on* is the natural colloquial expression to use. There is absolutely no point in paraphrasing it.


So are you saying there is no need to paraphrase it but they can be a substitute for catch on? I am mainly asking the underlined.


----------



## lingobingo

I have nothing more to add.


----------



## kansi

lingobingo said:


> I have nothing more to add.


ok


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> The idea is *catching on* nationwide. Stay-at-home and social distancing orders meant to slow the spread of COVID-19 have put restaurant dining on hold, forcing many to close and leaving others barely surviving. From large chains to mom-and-pop eateries, restaurants are increasingly turning to grocery sales.
> 
> US restaurants turn to grocery sales to help offset losses
> 
> A dictionary says to catch on means to become fashionable.
> Do these words just different ways to mean the same thing?
> What's the difference in mening or nuance between them?



Designer handbags are fashionable.

Justin Bieber is popular.

Calling anything to do with the various national and regional emergency orders either "fashionable" or "popular" sounds tone deaf because these are things people are doing under duress. They are not doing this to follow fashion or because other people are doing it. They are doing these things to survive. They don't even *want* to do these things. 

Catch on implies a new idea or action is spreading in a culture but does not imply motive or suggest people are doing it to copy other people.


----------



## Roxxxannne

No, 'fashionable' is not a good replacement for 'catching on' in this sentence.  "Fashionable' is usually used for things that are relatively inconsequential. I might wear fashionable clothing or get a fashionable haircut because I see other people with them and I want to seem aware of current trends.  Restaurants are operating as grocery stores because they need to stay afloat economically and their customers need food.  That's a much more serious matter than whether I have one haircut or another.

cross-posted


----------



## kansi

Ponyprof said:


> They are not doing this to follow fashion or because other people are doing it. They are doing these things to survive. They don't even *want* to do these things.
> 
> Catch on implies a new idea or action is spreading in a culture but does not imply motive or suggest people are doing it to copy other people.


They are doing that not because they want/wish to copy or follow but because they have to do that to survive. In this kind of contexts the number of people doing the same thing inclease , we say "something is catching on" not "something is becoming popular nor fashionable ,nor is turning into fashion"?

Is there closer synonym for catch on?



Roxxxannne said:


> I want to seem aware of current trends.


This sence comes with become fashionable or popular or turn into fashion so they aren't good replacements?

What about this context?
Fortunately, my teenage son was ahead of the curve, seeing this moment coming before scientists recommended action and face coverings *became fashionable*.

Coronavirus Florida: I resisted masks. Now I don't shop without one.

Here it seems catch on can be used as well as become popular and turn into fashion?


----------



## lingobingo

kansi said:


> Is there closer synonym for catch on?


catch on = get taken up


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> They are doing that not because they want/wish to copy or follow but because they have to do that to survive. In this kind of contexts the number of people doing the same thing inclease , we say "something is catching on" not "something is becoming popular nor fashionable ,nor is turning into fashion"?
> 
> Is there closer synonym for catch on?



Why do you need a closer synonym? That is the word.

English has many words that are very close in meaning but very few that are exact synonyms. 

If you want to paraphrase the sentence you should change the sentence structure as well as the vocabulary. If you change the sentence structure, you could use wordier expressions like "starting to appear." But you can't just pop that into the existing sentence


----------



## JulianStuart

Ponyprof said:


> Why do you need a closer synonym? That is the word.
> 
> English has many words that are very close in meaning but very few that are exact synonyms.


  
The idea that words can overlap in meaning in some contexts (like in  a Venn diagram) but not in other contexts has been explained to kansi.


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> This sence comes with become fashionable or popular or turn into fashion so they aren't good replacements?
> 
> What about this context?
> Fortunately, my teenage son was ahead of the curve, seeing this moment coming before scientists recommended action and face coverings *became fashionable*.
> 
> Coronavirus Florida: I resisted masks. Now I don't shop without one.
> 
> Here it seems catch on can be used as well as become popular and turn into fashion?



I hesitate to say that masks are becoming fashionable. I would say they are becoming acceptable.

No one is wearing them to be fashionable. They are wearing them because they are terrified of becoming sick and dying. Huge difference. To call masks fashionable trivializes the situation. I am sure someone out there is saying this online. That doesn't make it sound OK.

I've read the article now. The author says her teenage son was following the Chinese news and ordered anime patterned masks back in March. In that case, maybe he was a kid following a trend in his peer group (which happened to be international). She is in Florida which is a state that refused to take any measures until their death count shot up. And she is writing fairly humorously about the fact that a few weeks ago everyone in public stared at her mask, but now everyone is wearing them. Using fashionable in this context is a bit of sardonic humor. It isn't how we would *seriously* describe wearing masks.


----------



## kansi

Ponyprof said:


> I hesitate to say that masks are becoming fashionable. I would say they are becoming acceptable.
> 
> No one is wearing them to be fashionable. They are wearing them because they are terrified of becoming sick and dying. Huge difference. To call masks fashionable trivializes the situation. I am sure someone out there is saying this online. That doesn't make it sound OK.


Here in Japan I think we can say that because a lot wear as a fashion.
But as you said in your country or any country except some countries in Asia they wouldn't become fashionable /turn into fashion/become popular but just catch on like nowadays?


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> Here in Japan I think we can say that because a lot wear as a fashion.
> But as you said in your country or any country except some countries in Asia they wouldn't become fashionable /turn into fashion/become popular but just catch on like nowadays?



I can't speak to what counts as a fashion trend in Japan. 

Are you saying that people wear them for foolish or trivial reasons when there is no necessity?

Or are you saying people wear colorful personalized masks and try to make a fashion statement out of a meducal necessity?


----------



## kansi

Ponyprof said:


> Why do you need a closer synonym? That is the word.
> 
> English has many words that are very close in meaning but very few that are exact synonyms.


Sorry what does exact synonyms?A word has maltiple meanings and exact synonyms have the exact same set of meanings?
Or exact synonyms have one same meaning or some same meanings but not all of the sets of meanings that they have aren't same?
I am lost in what's a synonym and the exact same synonym.



Ponyprof said:


> Or are you saying people wear colorful personalized masks and try to make a fashion statement out of a meducal necessity?


I meant this!
They wear not because they are ill but simply some of them think it cool. Not many but there are more than a few people doing it.


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> I meant this!
> They wear not because they are ill but simply some of them think it cool. Not many but there are more than a few people doing it.



Aren't they wearing them to prevent illness?

If you think people are wearing medical devices in order to look fashionable, that is a legitimate observation but it needs to be in a context where it is clear you are making that point.

You can't just say it as a general statement about the spread of mask wearing during an epidemic.


----------



## kansi

Ponyprof said:


> Aren't they wearing them to prevent illness?


They don't wear medical masks to make them look cool but wear colorful ones or black ones to make them look cool. So saying " wearing "masks"( I am not specifying what type it is".)  is becoming fashionable in Japan" does sound fine?



JulianStuart said:


> The idea that words can overlap in meaning in some contexts (like in a Venn diagram) but not in other contexts has been explained to kansi.


So catch on doesn't have an overlap area in this kind of context but has one when used in other contexts?


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> They don't wear medical masks to make them look cool but wear colorful ones or black ones to make them look cool. So saying " wearing "masks"( I am not specifying what type it is".)  is becoming fashionable in Japan" does sound fine?



If this is what you want to say, then it is fine.

You are describing a specific situation in which something medically necessary has become a fashion item among teens. In that case though you need to be more specific and say that teens are wearing colorful masks as a fashion statement, or something like that.

Where I live it's clear that masks are catching on among middle aged suburban residents who scoffed at the idea a month ago. But I wouldn't call masks here fashionable or say that they are making a fashion statement. The people I've seen wearing them are clearly not interested in fashion at all!

None of this changes the fact that fashionable is not a true synonym for catching on or becoming acceptable or becoming more common.


----------



## kansi

Ponyprof said:


> None of this changes the fact that fashionable is not a true synonym for catching on or becoming acceptable or becoming more common.


Even though a dictionary says become fashionable and the other word like catch on are synonyms, they are just different words for you?
(They may be words that share some idea or definition but they don't mean same.This is how you understand them?)


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> Even though a dictionary says become fashionable and the other word like catch on are synonyms, they are just different words for you?
> (They may be words that share some idea or definition but they don't mean same   .This is how you understand them?)


A synonym usually does not have exactly the same meaning. In some contexts they may have the same meaning but rarely are they the same in all contexts. The Collins dictionary has


> *synonym* /ˈsɪnənɪm/n a word that means the same or *nearly* the same as another word, such as _bucket_ and _pail_


 In this example you cannot conclude that a bucket is always the same as a pail.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> A synonym usually does not have exactly the same meaning. In some contexts they may have the same meaning but rarely are they the same in all contexts. The Collins dictionary has
> In this example you cannot conclude that a bucket is always the same as a pail.


A plastic backet isn't a plastic pail because there isn't such a thing but a wooden backet is a wooden pail?
So they are (ordinary) synonyms, not exact synonyms?


----------



## JulianStuart

It is bucket not backet and either (bucket or pail) can be made out of plastic, wood or metal.

Definition 1 below is pretty much the same as pail, but definition 2 is not.


> buck•et, /ˈbʌkɪt/  n. [countable]
> 
> a deep, round container with a flat bottom, an open top, and a handle;
> pail:_He put the mop in the bucket of water_.
> something, as a scoop, shaped like this:_the bucket on a steam shovel_.


----------



## heypresto

You just need to be aware that words listed in a dictionary or thesaurus as 'synonyms' are not always interchangeable. It's as simple as that. And no amount of insisting that because A is in a list of synonyms for B, A must always mean the same as B, and can always replace it in any given sentence will change that fact.


----------



## JulianStuart

heypresto said:


> You just need to be aware that words listed in a dictionary of thesaurus as 'synonyms' are not always interchangeable. It's as simple as that. And no amount of insisting that because A is in a list of synonyms for B, A must always mean the same as B, and can always replace it in any given sentence will change that fact.


----------



## Roxxxannne

JulianStuart said:


> The idea that words can overlap in meaning in some contexts (like in  a Venn diagram) but not in other contexts has been explained to kansi.





JulianStuart said:


> A synonym usually does not have exactly the same meaning. In some contexts they may have the same meaning but rarely are they the same in all contexts. The Collins dictionary has
> In this example you cannot conclude that a bucket is always the same as a pail.





kansi said:


> A plastic backet isn't a plastic pail because there isn't such a thing but a wooden backet is a wooden pail?
> So they are (ordinary) synonyms, not exact synonyms?


Bucket and pail *usually* mean the same thing; their material is not usually relevant.  *But*
-- the scooping device on a construction vehicle
-- a unit of data in computing terminology
-- the open-topped cylinder that a repair person stands in at the end of a hydraulic extension on an electrical-line repair truck
are all called buckets, not pails.
Usually bucket and pail are interchangeable, but not always, so it's unwise to assume that they -- or any other synonyms -- exactly overlap in usage.


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> it's unwise to assume that they -- or any other synonyms -- exactly overlap in usage.


  (Eventually we will get this message across)


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> Even though a dictionary says become fashionable and the other word like catch on are synonyms, they are just different words for you?
> (They may be words that share some idea or definition but they don't mean same.This is how you understand them?)



As others have pointed out, a synonym does *not* usually have the same exact meaning as the first word. It is *very very rare* for two words to mean exactly the same thing in English. So don't rely on your thesaurus.

Some of the craziest unreadable texts I've come across are obviously English texts that someone has run through a computer program that replaces key vocabulary with synonyms. I've seen this in clickbait news sites from Asian sources and I have unfortunately seen students hand in work like this. The errors are obvious because noone that could construct correct sentences would make vocabulary errors of that magnitude. Obviously some students think they can do this and not get caught plagiarizing (automatic fail). But the texts they produce are completely meaningless and absurd so they fail anyhow.

I offer this as a graphic warning against looking for synonyms. Synonyms are *similar* not identical in 99 % of cases.

Just get rid of the idea that there are identical synonyms and remember "synonyms are similar."


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> It is bucket not backet and either (bucket or pail) can be made out of plastic, wood or metal.
> 
> Definition 1 below is pretty much the same as pail, but definition 2 is not.


Then we might be able to say this to mean the same thing?

_He put the mop in the *pail* of water._


----------



## kansi

heypresto said:


> You just need to be aware that words listed in a dictionary or thesaurus as 'synonyms' are not always interchangeable. It's as simple as that. And no amount of insisting that because A is in a list of synonyms for B, A must always mean the same as B, and can always replace it in any given sentence will change that fact.


I am sorry if I sound like if B is a synonym of A, in all the sentences in which A is used we can replace A with B to mean the same thing. I know that's wrong.I know only in some contexts A and B can be interchangable and the sentence's meaning stays same.


All the questions I have asked so far were intended to ask if a specific word in a specific context can be replaced with a synonym ,without changing the original meaning of the sentence.Then I thought I would be able to diiscern the contexts I
can use two synonyms without making any changes in meaning. I Sorry if my questions so far don't sound like that.


----------



## kansi

Ponyprof said:


> Some of the craziest unreadable texts I've come across are obviously English texts that someone has run through a computer program that replaces key vocabulary with synonyms.


Well not to become like that and such
is acctually one of the biggest purposes that I have been asking questions here.


----------



## Roxxxannne

kansi said:


> Then we might be able to say this to mean the same thing?
> 
> _He put the mop in the *pail* of water._


In my regional American English, this would be a little unusual. Bucket is the much more common word in this context.


----------



## Ponyprof

kansi said:


> Well not to become like that and such
> is acctually one of the biggest purposes that I have been asking questions here.



If you only use words that you know and understand then your writing will always make sense.

Don't try to find words in a thesaurus. Learn your words in context through reading actual texts. That will give you a better sense of how and when they are used.


----------



## kansi

Roxxxannne said:


> In my regional American English, this would be a little unusual. Bucket is the much more common word in this context.


I see. So even though the meaning of the word is good for the context, it's much less common word than bucket so we should use the word "bucket".


----------



## heypresto

I think the only time I've ever heard 'pail' in BE is in the nursery rhyme:

Jack and Jill ran up the hill
To fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down and broke his crown
And Jill came tumbling after.


----------



## kansi

heypresto said:


> I think the only time I've ever heard 'pail' in BE is in the nursery rhyme:
> 
> Jack and Jill ran up the hill
> To fetch a pail of water
> Jack fell down and broke his crown
> And Jill came tumbling after.


Then it usually sounds literary?


----------



## kansi

Ponyprof said:


> Don't try to find words in a thesaurus. Learn your words in context through reading actual texts. That will give you a better sense of how and when they are used.


I see. If I look for synonyms, I'd far better to find synonyms by encountering them while reading actual texts than to find them in a thesaurus. The key is that I need to have a faily deep understanding of a context in which a seeming synonym is. Is this what you are saying?


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> I see. If I look for synonyms, I'd far better to find synonyms by encountering them while reading actual texts than to find them in a thesaurus. The key is that I need to have a faily deep understanding of a context in which a seeming synonym is. Is this what you are saying?


Yes, yes, yes  Trying to learn a language from reading a dictionary or thesaurus (even with in context examples) is not as good as extensive reading (in the absence of opportuniyptirs for actual conversation) as a tool for improving.  As for pail, it is more common in the US (and likely regionally variable, too) than in the UK, but still less common than bucket. A quick look at the hits on a google books search shows it often being used in fairy tales and accounts of manually milking cows


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> A quick look at the hits on a google books search shows it often being used in fairy tales and accounts of manually milking cows


Is it called that the word sounds literary?


----------



## heypresto

kansi said:


> Then it usually sounds literary?


Apart from in this nursery rhyme, which every British child knows (and needs it explained to them), 'pail' doesn't "usually" sound anything other than unusual. In BE, certainly, and from what JulianStuart says, in AE too.

Quite honestly, I would forget 'pail' altogether.


----------



## kansi

heypresto said:


> Apart from in this nursery rhyme, which every British child knows (and needs it explained to them), 'pail' doesn't "usually" sound anything other than unusual. In BE, certainly, and from what JulianStuart says, in AE too.
> 
> Quite honestly, I would forget 'pail' altogether.


Ah I see. it's called it sounds "unusual".

Thank you!


----------



## JulianStuart

heypresto said:


> Apart from in this nursery rhyme, which every British child knows (and needs it explained to them), 'pail' doesn't "usually" sound anything other than unusual. In BE, certainly, and from what JulianStuart says, in AE too.
> 
> Quite honestly, I would forget 'pail' altogether.


In the US it is often used for a plastic bucket which might be what, for example, 5 gallons of paint is sold in. However, as a guide to common US usage )) , Amazon shows lots of items listed as buckets when you search for "pail". As hp suggests, I would add it to your passive vocabulary (words you recognize but don't use yourself) but not your active vocabulary


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> In the US it is often used for a plastic bucket which might be what, for example, 5 gallons of paint is sold in. However, as a guide to common US usage )) , Amazon shows lots of items listed as buckets when you search for "pail". As hp suggests, I would add it to your passive vocabulary (words you recognize but don't use yourself) but not your active vocabulary


a passive vocablary and an active vocablary..what are nice phrases to describe it very clear.
Thank you!


----------

