Just recently I was in a conversation with a number of UK mainlanders and we had a debate over what “tories” meant, apparently disproportionately ordinarily it refers to a political party and it’s not usual to use it as short for “territories” as I’ve used it (according to how the debate ended, it was half and half between them). And once again I’m reminded of how people feel to look back at their usage of a word/phrase over the years and cringe.
More tragically, me and a friend were embarrassed once upon realizing everyone was confusing “encephalitis” with “hydrocephalus” when talking to someone about their kid with hydrocephalus. Awkward because encephalitis is caused by HIV.
Just because it has been brought to the table doesn’t mean it will go anywhere else. “Tabling” a discussion suggests that we are stepping away from the table for now. We are taking away any deal we have struck, but leaving behind any issue still under contention. Maybe we will bring it up when we come back, maybe not.
We use “tabling” in much the same sense as the idiom “leaving money on the table”, meaning “concluding a transaction without demanding all consideration owed to you”.
Tabling means it’s brought for discussion, it doesn’t need to go anywhere else.
The other idiom even has to specify leaving the table.
*Hell even the prior definition had to say “later date” because it was to be discussed at the table.
It absolutely does need to go somewhere else. The issue under discussion is not yet operational. It’s not yet a law, or part of a contract. While it is on the table, it is nothing more than hot air. The participants have to come to a consensus and carry it away from the table as an agreement before it becomes actionable.
Tabling an issue means it isn’t progressing into operation. It’s still on the negotiating table, but we are moving on to other, more pressing issues for the time being.
Context also matters. If the issue isn’t currently under discussion, then yes, it makes sense that “tabling” means you are bringing it to the table; inviting discussion on that issue.
But, when the issue is already under discussion, a proposal to “table” that issue certainly doesn’t mean to reintroduce the issue we are already discussing.
…discussions are discussions. They don’t need to lead somewhere for the discussion to happen, ie the discussion to be brought to the table.
You’re describing a conversation, not a discussion. A conversation can be had for no other purpose than to have it.
A discussion has an objective, a purpose. A discussion ended without achieving that purpose has been “tabled”: it has been left on the table, at least for the time being, while the participants divert attention to more pressing issues.
My purpose in this discussion is to convince you that “tabled” can be logically used in the manner I described. As you do not seem receptive to that concept, I’m going to table this discussion and continue with my day.
It does not need to become law, it does not need to be part of a contract for it to be discussed or brought to the table, aka tabled. You know to be brought under discussion or consideration.
You’re oddly adversarial about this, so cheers.
My impression is that a tabled thing is put down and is no longer the thing at hand. It will probably be picked up later, once other things, that are on the table, are through.