Meaningless replies to good questions

All the Scandinavian languages have a short expression for the above. (Goddag mann økseskaft/God dag yxskaft).
Is there any equivalent in English for the situation when a person gives meaningless replies to perfectly sensible questions, usually because he does not want to reply or to talk about the subject.

It's probably not exactly the same, but the phrasal verb "to blow off" suggests itself: e.g. I tried to ask him about his latest project, but he just blew me off.

There's always to make a noncommital statement.

"That George W. Bush guy seems like a real nut case, don't you think?"

"Mmmmph."

I found this translation and background on a wikipedia discussion page:

Also there's Non-sequitur. Norwegian (and Swedish) have a fun expression for it: "God dag, økseskaft" (Good day, axe-handle!). It comes from a folk-tale about a deaf man who was carving an axe-handle when a stranger approached him to ask the way to town, but the deaf man assumed he was asking about what he was carving. So the conversation went "Good day! - Axe-handle."

The way this it is described there, as a non sequitur indeed, is different from what the OP says. Is it an answer that's unrelated to the question or an answer that avoids/purposefully ignores the question?

Completely beside the point, but since økseskaft apparently means axe-handle, I'm wondering whether this kind of weapon could be called something like a "god dag" in Swedish. (In Dutch it's a goedendag; which also means "good day". No idea why it's called that; perhaps medieval highwaymen were polite types.)

Edited by: shilgia, for a glaring mistake.

#3: Definitely "an answer that avoids/purposefully ignores the question" as in He answered Good Day Ax-handle to all questions from the audience.
"An answer that's unrelated to the question" I suppose would be in the case of language problems only.

#3 The goedendag is a morning star in English.

I don't know if morning stars were actually used or made very much in the middle ages. I don't think I've ever seen one in an armaments collection. They look intimidating but they I don't imagine they would be very handy.

I realize that doesn't advance this discussion at all; just thought I'd mention.

Prevaricating?

not prevaricating, which is lying or intentionally misleading.

We're looking for a non-answer, like Have a nice day, or less nicely, So's your grandma, or some other conversation-stopper.

An example of how this expression is used:

I am attending a meeting where a speaker is supposed to answer questions from the audience.

There is nothing wrong with the questions, they are perfectly sensible.
The speaker is not rude and does not use short catchphrases, but nothing he says makes much sense. (Extreme politicianspeek?)

Afterwards I would say to someone who asked me how the meeting went: The speaker just answered Good Day Axhandle to all questions.

With the clarification the OP has provided, I'd now say the closest equivalent in English is The speaker ducked the question. This is what we say when politicians "answer" a question, but fail to say anything substantive or to the point, or answer with a non-sequitur.

What about "he/she avoided/dodged/fudged/sidestepped/begged the question or beat around the bush"

All of #11 expressions are good descriptions of the situation.
The question we're all still working on is: what did he/she actually say to achieve this result (or non-result)?

Whatever...

Not so much what the speaker actually said (the speaker may have hemmed and hawed, just to throw in another expression) but what words we would put in the speaker's mouth to indicate that he said nothing meaningful.

I think we have established that there is no equivalent English expression.

Actually, I think #13 got it!

Also there's Non-sequitur. Norwegian (and Swedish) have a fun expression for it: "God dag, økseskaft" (Good day, axe-handle!). It comes from a folk-tale about a deaf man who was carving an axe-handle when a stranger approached him to ask the way to town, but the deaf man assumed he was asking about what he was carving. So the conversation went "Good day! - Axe-handle."

OK, veering off topic, but this is like one of my favorite Leo Rosten jokes. Maybe I can say it illustrates how much cultures can be alike.
Mr. Goldberg, who speaks only Yiddish, takes a transatlantic cruise. At dinner he is seated next to M. Dubois who speaks only French. M. Dubois turns to Mr. Goldberg & says "bon appétit!" Mr. Goldberg figures it's an introduction, so he replies "Goldberg." This goes on night after night until finally someone takes Mr. Goldberg aside and tells him "Listen, the French guy isn't telling you his name. He's saying 'Good Appetite,' that's what 'bon appétit' means."

"Ah!"says Goldberg and at the next meal he bows to M. Dubois and says "Bon Appetit!" M. Dubois beams and replies "Goldberg."

Is sth like "He talked a lot but told little." common in English as well?

Going off topic, wikipedia suggests that the pictured weapon is actually a subtype of morning star. At least the more common variety (without a chain) was supposedly still used in WW1 by Bosnian soldiers in Austro-Hungarian army.

Assuming wikipedia is right, then what makes a mace into a morning star is spikes. I thought (apparently along with a lot of other people) it was the chain that made a morning star. With a chain (or several), wikipedia says that what we've got (with or without spikes) is a miltary flail, not a morning star.

But the wikipedia article on flail (miltary) says that "'morning star' is an acceptable name for this weapon, especially as the name 'flail' is also used to describe a style of whip used for punishment."

I hadn't thought about its advantages to a horseman. It doesn't transmit vibrations back to the wielder on impact, so you're less likely to lose your seat.

Edited by: VinnyD

Thanks psw, I was beginning to despair! Interesting diversion on maces and whips, I will be a lot better informed next time I need to renew my stock! :-)

I definitely would have thought "whatever" as the answer to your question.

To specific queries there are moderately nonsense replies but 'whatever' (upward inflection is almost mandatory with this usage!) would cover many questions.

Personaly I hate 'whatever' it is the new age meaningless reply to dickheads, I use it all the time and get it used against me, sounds like an axe handle full of shit...with no so spiky bits and I always put the inflection down. It is not a question it is a put down of your question. What f

Personally I really hate 'whatever' for its total meaningless, but I love the fact that it is unanswerable. sneaker fish I always use it with a downward inflection, I guess because in essence it is a put down of the question, isn't it??

ok... so I did 2 posts. Its late at night.....