My little rant in this thread was [...] directed at [...] those who would dismiss a two or three word offering as, a priori, unworthy of consideration.
There is some truth to what you say; but there is also a difference between a nominal phrase and a descriptive phrase. For someone seeking to know if a particular word exists, the former is definitely worthy of consideration.
But it's also a fact that people come to Wordsmith Talk looking for
the mot juste. Very often, they find it, and that can lead to a flurry of other questions. It's exciting. What word will they discover next?
When asked, I even play along and suggest words...
How gracious!
I do think this board is big enough to accommodate both our enthusiasms.
I'm not sure if your wording implies an ungrounded assumption that my enthusiasm stands in direct contrast to yours (just the words please, as opposed to a holistic appreciation for the many aspects of language). Just to be clear, I am also interested in all of the things you mentioned (collocations, phrases, etc.), even the one's I don't really understand.
But what is the focus of these boards? Words or language? Is the distinction even clear cut? I'm not sure.
As often happens, a misunderstanding has arisen because the subject of dispute has not been clearly defined. I thought you were ranting against those who expect to discover that for every thing there's a single word and who believe that somehow the word is always superior to the description; when in fact (as you
now make clear) you are ranting against a tendency not to accept a nominal phrase instead of a single word—something quite different, and something I have not actually noticed. Perhaps I am not very observant.
I did not mean to single any one person out, and if you felt I meant you, then I most heartily apologize.
There's no need to apologize. I think open-minded debate is mutually beneficial: What can be triangulated from two oppositional standpoints is very often closer to the truth.
