As we see there are 2 meanings of “so-called” that can be confused or misinterpreted, of which one implies falsehood and the other doesn’t.
One. to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified.
“Western Countries belonging to the so-called Paris club”
Two. used to express one’s view that such a name or term is inappropriate.
“she could trust him more than any of her so-called friends”
Since so-called I feel is very often used to suggest that a title for something describes a meaning that isn’t necessarily accurate, what’s another term that simply expresses that something is titled something without judgment of the title?
“Referred to as…” “Known as…”
I would use “what’s known as”, e.g. “Western countries belong to what’s known as the Paris club”
Colloquially
The problem here, linguistically, is that any phrase which means this will take on the meaning of falsehood automatically, over time. It’s the same way that any respectable word that means “has a disability” eventually comes to be an insult and then a slur.
If you want to say something like that, the word “putative” is still pretty unfettered by negative connotations, but only because few people use it. If it were in common use, it would follow the same path as “so-called”. A more reliable approach in the long-term is to say what you mean using more words instead of fewer:
She could trust him more than any of her friends; although she wasn’t sure those people were really her friends, it remained to be seen.
It’s actually the length and awkwardness of the sentence structure that makes it resistant to misinterpretation.
I agree, even if you use another word like alleged, the word is in the sentence strictly to draw attention to the fact that the following information is of questionable validity, so by nature casts suspicion and distrust, even if the intent for the distrust is protective of the audience in a positive fashion.
So you’re saying verbosity allows for more exactness of meaning, at the expense of the convenient efficiency of expecting inference to be employed by the recipient(s) of the message(s)?
You’re right, but the “so-called” only becomes suspicious when it’s included unnecessarily.
From OPs example if you just omit it the sentence is fine and doesn’t imply that the friends are not actually friends.
In the first type of usage, “so-called” provides information that the reader is unaware of, so it’s use does not imply the name is inappropriate.
In the second type of usage it’s presumed the reader already knows the name, inserting “so-called” emphasises that the subject has whatever name.
I would just drop the “so-called” and put the term in quotes.
Western countries belonging to the “Paris club.”
That’s often also used in the other way though.
she could trust him more than any of her “friends”
Putative: pyoo͞′tə-tĭv adjective Generally regarded as such; supposed. Commonly thought or deemed; supposed; reputed. Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof.
Yep, this is frequently used in my industry (science), depending on the person.
“as it’s called” or “as they’re called”? It’s a bit wordier but I think conveys the meaning you’re going for without the negative connotation. I also think context should usually direct a reader/listener to or from any negative connotation for the “so called” usage. That said, it doesn’t hurt to be clearer.
aka
“Western countries belonging to the group known as the Paris Club” works too
yup. in my mind, ka is included in the aka
alleged maybe? She could trust him more than any of her alleged friends.
“what is (generally/widely/typically/often) known as” comes to mind. Any variation of that would do the job.
It can also work not to use any term, but rather to introduce the name without fanfare. This implies a neutrality of judgment. “Western countries belonging to the ‘Paris Club’.” Even in speech one can often hear the introduction of a term by subtle changes in tone of voice.
Hmm, every option I thought of has itself a dual-meaning.
Designated, denominated, entitled, dubbed. I suppose choose the one least likely to be confused for its homonym in the specific context.
Or just rewrite the sentence. Perfectly cromulent when you’re getting stuck in the thesaurus and having a hard time finding the “ideal” word.
I believe “per se” or “so to speak” can be used in that context too… per se
Western countries belonging to the Paris club so to speak.
Western Countries belonging to the “Paris Club.”
Using quotes indicates directly that this is being relayed as something someone else says or said.
It is factual and has less obvious shade than “so-called.” But someone could still say it can be used to cast shade:
My son’s “friend” stole his school lunch.
This is however irony, where you say the exact opposite of what is meant. So I’m not sure that counts.
But some hint of shade could be unavoidable since any time you report anything as something someone says, you offload accountability to a party not present, and invoke the possibility that that other party is fallible. Hearsay is inherently suspect. Why are you telling me what someone else said? Don’t you know yourself whether it is true?
But I don’t think using quotes necessarily jumps out as a way to mark something suspect.
Scientists have been searching for a “theory of everything”
the “Cambrian explosion” saw new forms of life evolve
he was enamored with “crew cab” trucks.
Pretty neutral. This might work, with the exception of deliberate irony.
She could trust him more than any of her apparent friends
“… alleged friends” ?
Quote-and-quote?
I think quote-unquote can have the same implications, unfortunately, but good one I hadn’t thought of. Maybe there’s more.
What about “commonly referred to” or “often termed”
