|
What is the difference between having a big vocabulary and having a rich vocabulary? A logical starting place would be to look at the meaning of "rich."
"Rich" is a word evolved from the pre-Germanic word "riki" meaning "powerful," and the Old French word "riche" meaning "wealthy." Because of the strong associations between wealth and power at the time, these words combined into English as "rich."
So, to have a rich vocabulary is to have one that is, figuratively, wealthy and powerful. A rich vocabulary is contains many words, but has the forcefulness of precise language. It is both wide and deep.
The point of this blog is to discuss how to look smart, or more accurately, the wrong ways of attempting to look smart. Using $20 words is only impressive if it was $20 dollars well spent. Saying "a plethora of birds" is no more descriptive than "many birds." Flowery writing without a purpose is without substance. This is why word choice should be precise and deliberate. To use big words that don't fit only to defend them upon scrutiny is to have the wrong mindset.
But unless there is a fork or similar tool that is exploring uncharted area, one should not say "scouting utensil." There never is justification to say "a contingency of marines."
Thanks for reading.
  
|
If someone used a "big word" incorrectly, then sure, they're an idiot. Using "big words" for the sake of using big words is stupid, yes. Still, there are times where such words will convey a connotation different from a word in more common usage despite being synonymous. If the speaker understands that, then it's fine. If not, then the speaker is obviously a dumbass trying to sound smart.
|
I'm sure William Shakespeare invented a ton of words for precisely this purpose, and not just because they were nonsense words that sounded cool. He would probably laugh at our journalistic attempts at linguistic and grammatical 'precision'. My understanding is that the English language has developed by borrowing liberally from other languages, and that it is constantly under development. It might be fun to try to convey meaning as precisely as possible (for a given purpose), but there are many purposes, and many kinds of writing. Being flowery for the hell of it is completely valid so long as you're not doing it in the middle of a science journal. Unnecessary rules stifle creativity, just let go and you will be a happier person.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
It sounds like you want this.
|
On April 21 2011 00:04 Chill wrote:It sounds like you want this.
i'm just teasing ^^
|
I'm not really a linguaphile, but I do have an appreciation for linguistic excellence. So I agree with you - in principle.
I don't, however, agree with the notion that people should never use phrases like "scouting utensil", because while it does neglect the principle of avoiding unnecessary verbosity, casters (and others who talk about the game a lot, but mostly casters) pretty much have to use variants of common phrases so as not to repeat themselves too much. Besides, I actually chuckle when they use these kinds of fun, albeit nonsensical phrases to describe common occurrences. As long as they convey their meaning. Just ask Shakespeare.
That said, I'm not really sure why this is on TeamLiquid, a community made up of mostly well-spoken, mature adults. And were it anywhere else, people would scoff at the English major making a plea to use better English on the internet.
|
On April 21 2011 00:07 gods_basement wrote:i'm just teasing ^^
Then why are you posting at all?
|
Calgary25954 Posts
On April 21 2011 00:07 gods_basement wrote:i'm just teasing ^^
Oh really? Because I feel like there's a lot of merit to what you're saying actually. People use complex words incorrectly all the time to try to spice up their commentary and it tilts me, but there's got to be some middle ground.
I guess I'm trying to say: Complex and accurate > accurate > complex
|
On April 21 2011 00:08 Aylear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 00:07 gods_basement wrote:On April 21 2011 00:04 Chill wrote:It sounds like you want this. i'm just teasing ^^ Then why are you posting at all?
ur right the tl blog section is pretty serious business
On April 21 2011 00:12 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 00:07 gods_basement wrote:On April 21 2011 00:04 Chill wrote:It sounds like you want this. i'm just teasing ^^ Oh really? Because I feel like there's a lot of merit to what you're saying actually. People use complex words incorrectly all the time to try to spice up their commentary and it tilts me, but there's got to be some middle ground. I guess I'm trying to say: Complex and accurate > accurate > complex
jokes are always rooted in truth. this wasnt meant to be an attack, this was just a fun thing for me to write. I was hoping the justaposition between the analysis and the blatant fingerpointing would be funny, but i suppose thats not reflected in the text
|
I don't think it makes a person sound smart, but it's occasionally nice to use uncommon words to describe common things. I don't think any less of a person who does it, and it usually snaps me out of my daydream when I hear unusual language.
The purpose of art is "to make the stone stoney," as Shklovsky once said 
edit: In your example, "a plethora" of birds is much more descriptive, it just doesn't make sense if the birds one is looking at are all the same species. Plethora would describe that the person was seeing a large number of different birds.
|
plethora
1540s, a medical word for "excess of body fluid," from L.L. plethora, from Gk. plethore "fullness," from plethein "be full" (see poly-). Figurative meaning "too much, overfullness in any respect" is first recorded 1700. Related: Plethoric.
but nowadays people use it interchangeably with "many."
|
Calgary25954 Posts
On April 21 2011 00:19 gods_basement wrote:
plethora
1540s, a medical word for "excess of body fluid," from L.L. plethora, from Gk. plethore "fullness," from plethein "be full" (see poly-). Figurative meaning "too much, overfullness in any respect" is first recorded 1700. Related: Plethoric.
but nowadays people use it interchangeably with "many."
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define: plethora
Words (OTHER THAN METAGAME) change.
|
I always thought it had the connotation of describing a variety. I guess I've just never heard it used in any other context before.
|
On April 21 2011 00:21 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 00:19 gods_basement wrote:
plethora
1540s, a medical word for "excess of body fluid," from L.L. plethora, from Gk. plethore "fullness," from plethein "be full" (see poly-). Figurative meaning "too much, overfullness in any respect" is first recorded 1700. Related: Plethoric.
but nowadays people use it interchangeably with "many." http://www.google.ca/search?q=define: plethoraWords (OTHER THAN METAGAME) change.
i raise you the google non-web definition
Plethora
noun /ˈpleTHərə/
plethoras, plural
An excess of (something)
- a plethora of committees and subcommittees
An excess of a bodily fluid, particularly blood
Note, that i thought plethora was interchangable with many until investigating because of this thread.
However, now that i've looked deeper, it is my belief that "plethora" doesn't mean "many" any more so than "literally" means "figuratively." the only difference is the amount of time that has passed since people started misusing it.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
Oh cool. Never knew that.
|
I love words and the way they form a sentence to convey a thought. When I read a post that is well-worded, I'm impressed. Moreover, when I read a sentence wherein words are combined creatively, I'm blown away.
Furthermore, I love the word "plethora." It's fun to say. 
When I first visited down south, I remember being in a restaurant and chatting with some people who were vacationing here as well. We didn't try to impress one another with words, we simply spoke in the vernacular in which we were comfortable, albeit, with a northern accent.
A good ol' boy stood up and indignantly said "Why don't y'all take your GD big words and go back where you came from."
Guess, he was trying to eavesdrop on our convo but couldn't make heads or tails of what we were saying. lol
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
On April 21 2011 00:26 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 00:21 Chill wrote:On April 21 2011 00:19 gods_basement wrote:
plethora
1540s, a medical word for "excess of body fluid," from L.L. plethora, from Gk. plethore "fullness," from plethein "be full" (see poly-). Figurative meaning "too much, overfullness in any respect" is first recorded 1700. Related: Plethoric.
but nowadays people use it interchangeably with "many." http://www.google.ca/search?q=define: plethoraWords (OTHER THAN METAGAME) change. i raise you the google non-web definition Show nested quote + Plethora
noun /ˈpleTHərə/
plethoras, plural
An excess of (something)
- a plethora of committees and subcommittees
An excess of a bodily fluid, particularly blood
Note, that i thought plethora was interchangable with many until investigating because of this thread. However, now that i've looked deeper, it is my belief that "plethora" doesn't mean "many" any more so than "literally" means "figuratively." the only difference is the amount of time that has passed since people started misusing it.
whatever dictionary you're getting that from is made by elitists
|
Sounds like someone has been watching NASL.
Gretorp: "Indeed, the easternmost banshee now undermines the plebe line of player X".
+ Show Spoiler +..... I think he was trying to say that banshee killed some workers.
|
lol. This is exactly what annoys me when writing the essay for the SAT. I have to use words that make a point less accurately in place of the simple and accurate ones for a high grade.
That gets a 6.
Snickering audibly. That is precisely what incenses me during the scripting of my dissertation for the SAT. I am obliged to employ terminology that assemble a thrust less particularly in place of the unsophisticated and specific ones for an elevated evaluation.
That gets a 12.
Did you learn more from the second one? Don't the words used occasionally seem out of place? Then why does that make you a better writer? The important thing about writing is what the reader is left with. Your point matters more than your method of making it. With that mentality, Huck Finn would never have been published.
|
Interesting: like Chill and Chef, I thought that "plethora" related to variety rather than overabundance. I didn't realize that a lot of dictionaries, as well as the etymology, don't even reflect this sense at all. For what it's worth, though, here's the relevant definition from the OED: "Usu. with of. Originally in pejorative sense: an excessive supply, an overabundance; an undesirably large quantity. Subsequently, and more usually, in neutral or favourable sense: a very large amount, quantity, or variety."
Meanwhile, "a contingency of marines" makes no sense at all, of course.
About the main point of the OP, half-serious or not, here's a thought. Sure, there's nothing to be gained by using a big word in place of a small one, but what's to be lost (besides a couple syllables worth of time, practically negligible)? Why shouldn't any synonym be equally acceptable? I suggest that the reason for that sort of rule of thumb is because, as Chill pointed out, synonyms tend to acquire different connotations when they stick around long enough. Using only the simplest word for the most basic meaning is just an easy way to help hold synonyms apart so that they have the room to evolve into their own niches. And that's the sort of thing that makes our language not only big but rich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
