|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2 |
Hi all, Clearly anybody who's reading a forum like this has a deep love for words, but I think that we bibliophiles run into a problem with our hobby: Language is a contract between a writer and the reader to agree on a meaning for a word, and we like rare words with obscure meanings. You'd be hard pressed to work "phlegmatic" into a conversation but there are some words like "surd" (an unvoiced sound in linguistics or an irrational number) that you probably can't even use in formal writing because it would send people grasping for the biggest dictionary they have. I wrote an article on the subject for the magazine I edit, which you can read here. I hope you find it interesting (it's filled to the brim with strange words).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Welcome, bibliophage, interesting article, interesting magazine. Stick around, you won't find yourself depayse. Welcome. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 164
member
|
|
member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 164 |
Welcome to our unique and very entertaining home. We all range from yaud's to neonates, so you should fit in just fine.
The one thing we all have in common, is the fact that we xertz new as well as old words; and most of us have maledictaphobia so tread heavily.
Enjoy,
Rev. Alimae
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631 |
Quote:
When is a big word too big?
Is that a rhetorical question to introduce us to your article, or would you like to know?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
bib: Very excellent question I too have pondered. In one's choice of a synonym, it's not the length but the familiarity
It will fall in one of three levels: 1) Everyday speech; basic English: "laugh" 2) Less often used but more expressive and likely to be understood by nearly everyone: "guffaw" 3)Snooty: "cachinnation"
Of course 3) is more likely to be longer than 1), as above. One should cultivate one's vocabulary to more often use type 2)when it better expresses the idea, though not to excess
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 293
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 293 |
Why use one word when two polysyllabic agglomerates will do?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631 |
Quote:
Some other resources for bibliophiles are A Word a Day, which features daily emails and a community of users who share their experiences. (Be warned that sometimes you don't want to hear about people's all-too-personal relationships with words.)
But Arthur Dudney is happy to come to A Word A Day and spoon feed its users a self-important article, enlarging on its author's personal view of words, and his history of "voracious reading"—and with a post-and-run thread what's more.
What a shmuck.
Last edited by Hydra; 12/05/06 02:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2 |
I really want to know what people think. As dalehiliman says, there are different levels of language, but I don't agree with his point that the third tier, the absolute rarest words, are necessarily "snooty." My point is that words can always be used inappropriately, but there is definitely a place in writing for "cachinnation"--it shouldn't always be relegated to the ghetto of snootiness. "Nattering nabobs of negativity" is a classic phrase even if nobody knows that "nabob" is a derivation from the Bengali pronunciation of the Indian royal title nawwab. But in that phrase it's the sound that's most important, I think. "Nay-bob" has built into it a feeling of "nay-saying" or something like that so you don't have to know what it means for it to work rhetorically.
But take "yaud," which is a great word meaning "worn out mare." It's a dialect word, North English and Scottish (as I learned when I looked it up in the OED), and apparently rare. So what standard would you use to decide whether to drop that word into your writing? Besides that "yaud" always fits in a discussion on rare words, it's hard to think of a rule to follow. (It reminds me of that fact that in Sanskrit there's a particular sound that's a long-vocalic 'l'--don't ask what that sounds like--which appears in exactly one place in Classical Sanskrit and that's in a entry in a grammar that says basically "no word uses the long-vocalic 'l'.") What I'm trying to understand is when "yaud" becomes a word we can use in writing that's not about words. It's not a question of snootiness but something else that I can't put my finger on. Is there an answer?
And I should add that if Hydra is offended by what he/she sees as self promotion (and shmuckiness) then he/she should suggest to an administrator that this post be deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19 |
As dalehiliman says, there are different levels of language, but I don't agree with his point that the third tier, the absolute rarest words, are necessarily "snooty."
By snooty DH means highfalutin', but I wouldn't take anything DH sez seriously, he's an anti-Turing persiflagebot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
suggest to an administrator that this post be deleted. I strongly prefer not to do that. I will say that blatant self-promotion is ... a bit much for this place, including references to one's own publications. Other than that, welcome aBoard! You've presented an idea that is well worth discussing; thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
This is certainly a question worth addressing, and in fact is one that I tackle on a regular basis. I didn't respond to your original post as I too fell victim to dietrologia -- we have some history here which causes us to be paranoid regarding people's motives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631 |
You're back. It looks like I jumped the gun in accusing you of a post-and-run thread. Sorry.
Well, here's my two cents on this subject, if you really want it.
You speak as though there were a one-size-fits-all solution to this question "When is a big word too big". With all due respect, I think the question is rather literal-minded and naive. It is like asking, "When is it inapproprite in painting to paint a rampant tiger?" or "When is it bad to use a cymbal crash in a symphony." It depends on any of an almost infinite number of considerations.
Of course, you might give a few examples and ask: "Does such-and-such a word work in this sentence?" Or, "Would a rampant tiger be inappropriate in this painting?" You might then try to draw up some general rules, but you would find it impossible: unless each of the rules were infinitely long, there would be an infinite number of exceptions to each rule.
So... just use your sprachgefuhl?
Last edited by Hydra; 12/07/06 10:03 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Bib:
Here's my standard -- as a writer I know the audience to whom I am writing. If I don't know that I am not a good writer. And if, as an astute "reader" of my audience, I truly believe that the majority (or even a significant minority of them) will know what yaud (though of course as a purist I prefer the more traditional yawd) means, then I will use it, but if and only if there is a need for it.
I would not for the life of me use it in say a column about horse-racing; in fact, I cannot see a use for it at all. It is obscure and/or antiquated, and it's a fun word to bandy about in a discussion like this, but it has no real place in literature because too few people know what it is. If your audience has to go scurrying to the OED twice on every page you have FAILED as a writer. It is the writer's duty to communicate, not to obfuscate, or even to educate about odd words (unless that's the stated purpose of the written piece, of course.)
I'd use broken-down nag or hack, but not yaud.
People who routinely use words like this just to see the look of incomprehension on the faces in the audience or to be able to smirk inwardly or outwardly when asked what the word is, are pretention boobs, in the main, and are to some extent beneath contempt. I hope Bill Buckley is reading this. Bragging is unbecoming.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631 |
Quote:
And if, as an astute "reader" of my audience, I truly believe that the majority (or even a significant minority of them) will know what yaud (though of course as a purist I prefer the more traditional yawd) means, then I will use it, but if and only if there is a need for it.
[humble opinion] I don't think an author should cater slavishly to the tastes, literacy, or ken of his readership. Where's the challenge for the reader? But more importantly, if the use of obscure words was necessary for the author to maintain a fidelity to his intentions, he should not water it down out of consideration for the lowest common denominator. If he feels generous, he should provide a glossary. (Nabokov, Burroughs, and Robert Musil have all glossed words at various times.) But failing that, he should trust that his reader has a dictionary, and, if he cares enough, will use it. [/humble opinion]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
great word ken
and so nice to see it used (i use it in a stock phrase "Beyond my ken" frequently, but...
only about as often i as i use 'grok'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Footnotes belong in technical writing, not literature.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
if the word fits, use it. if it obfuscates, don't, unless that is your intention.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631 |
Quote:
Footnotes belong in technical writing, not literature.
Don't you think that's debatable? If scholium is okay—and Shakespeare's plays are given a generous helping of it in some editions—what's wrong with the author doing it? In fact, would that make it more legitimate? Jorges Luis Borges uses pseudo-exegetical footnotes to great effect, to give a quality of realism to the faux manuscript texts of his short stories.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
bib: If you drop those words into casual everyday conversation you will be considered snooty
var: Explain anti-Turing. Is this an expr of type 3
TEd: Good for you, I appreciate a little support once in a while. God knows how hard is it to evoke
The last is of type 2
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I have often read words I didn't know, then I looked them up and knew them. If it is the word that best describes what you want to say then use it. A word is only too big if it is used to show off what big words you know or if it is out of place.
But be aware that for every reader who values a new word several more will just skip over it without bothering to look it up. Better still if the definition is inherant in the writing. Eg Twelve foals later she was sway-backed and nearly tailess, just a yaud that seemed out of place in a first class stable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Then there's those of us who look it up and, by the time we run into the word again (six months later) we've forgotten what it means and have to look it up again. No, I say, let dead words die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
Then there's those of us who look it up and, by the time we run into the word again (six months later) we've forgotten what it means and have to look it up again. No, I say, let dead words die.
Aw shoot, Faldage, "let dead words die", indeed. You are so...so... exitiousistic. And that means fatalistic, and don't you forget it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
'At's OK, Milo. I think you're nice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
A big word is too big when the context doesn't hint at its meaning; when it confuses the reader; when it's used to show off.
That's my thought, since you asked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Fal: Type-2 words (when properly used) should be used more often. When I encounter one I purposely overuse it in order to help remember
Zed: Depends on who you're talking to. If you drop a type-3 word in casual conversation, no matter how it pinpoints your meaning it will be considered snooty
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 74
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 74 |
dale, I think your use of the word 'snooty' is awfully snooty.
The Lone Haranguer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 427
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 427 |
I absolutely agree that it's all a matter of context. It reminds me of when I was studying for an MA at a university in the UK. It was a very international programme, and during our first session the instructor pointed out that the Spanish, Italian and French students were expected to "tone down" our English when writing our essays and dissertation.
I was, and still feel, indignant when I think about it: Latinate words are perfectly good counterparts to Saxon words if they are used with precision, and especially in an academic setting one expects the educated reader to make the effort to understand and learn them. Long words used properly are just as appropriate as short ones, and no one can come and tell me at this stage -- after I've written more pages of academic English than I care to recount -- that I should "tone down" my writing. I am expressing myself in a foreign language as I best know how, and I know that it's appropriate language for the academic setting in which it will be received, even if some (not many, I think), occasionally find it a bit difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Mari: If English isn't your naive tongue, you certainly handle it well
My contention is only that type 3 words should seldom be dropped into everyday conversation, while Type 2 are welcome anytime and should be cultivated
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 6 |
I must agree with those who have said, in effect, that usage depends on the audience. My profession is the law. If I'm writing a legal brief, I use words that judges and lawyers use and understand. But I alwo write essays, commentaries, op-ed pieces, etc. For those pieces the intended audience requires a different vocabulary.
I always try to remember that when writing (as opposed to having a conversation) I have only one chance to get my message across. The purpose of speaking is to be understood. The purpose of writing is to make it impossible to be MISunderstood.
Stuart Showalter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 293
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 293 |
Quote:
The purpose of speaking is to be understood. The purpose of writing is to make it impossible to be MISunderstood.
Very well put!
And that is at the crux of "legal language" that seems overly obtuse and wordy.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,352
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (wofahulicodoc),
494
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
