I'm looking for a quotation regarding the importance of having a huge vocabulary knowledge....
anything has striken you?(from wherever you wnat...better if it is from an author)......

We could make something up and claim it's from Mark Twain:

"It's important to know a bunch of fancy words. If folks can't understand what you're saying because you're using a lot of foot-and-a-half long words, they'll assume you're really intelligent and they'd better do what you say."

Sorry, I can help you, but some words I like are verbivore, logolept, and (mine own) wordhoarding (< Old English compound word-hord 'vocabulary'). (A thesaurus is literally a 'treasure box'.) The problem with these kinds of neologisms and inkhorn words is that they seldom appear anywhere other than in dictionaries.

"If you are a genuine wordaholic, an authentic logolept, and a certifiable verbivore, you are in for a lifetime of joy." [EA]
-Richard Lederer, The Miracle of Language

-joe cool

p.s. - In other words, this second model for the dictionary frees up the word-hoarding poet to modulate meanings, to recover useless linguistic junk, and even (at a certain outer limit) to engage in out-and-out fabrication. - John Kenneth Mackay

Bertrand Russell made a similar jest by suggesting that if you want to be a successful philosopher and still write simply and clearly that you must first write a book with impenetrable mathematics - not as practice for yourself, but more as a signal to your audience that you are capable of being just as obscure as the next philosopher.

the word-hoarding poet

Ah, well, I sit corrected.

unci you might also conduct a search of the WS archive for

dalehileman type-1 type-2

I would perform it for you then provide links but I'm baffled by the WS search algorithm. In short, there's not much value to learning obscure and unfamiliar (type-3) terms because using them regularly will only make you seem snooty. On the other hand, you would benefit from using wherever applicable the more descriptive or apposite (type-2). Of the last there are tens of thousands, familiar to almost everybody but seldom found in everyday conversation (type-1)

Though dividing lines are hazy, where "right on!" "fits," and "suits" might qualify as type-1; "relevant," "apt, or "pertinent" could represent an improvement as type-2; but where "ad rem," "appurtenant," or "cognate" might be more nearly exact, using these type-3 whenever you can only gives you airs

"Apposite" above admittedly falls somewhere between 2 and 3