A Pompous Diatribe About Word Choice - Page 2

On April 21 2011 03:07 Bibdy wrote:
The purpose of language and communication is lost when the other party doesn't understand what the fuck you're talking about. It's really as simple as that. If you don't speak in a manner that the other person is going to understand (i.e. have enough empathy to dial it down a notch, when necessary), then there's no point even bothering to communicate.

On April 21 2011 07:23 Kipsate wrote:
Hard vocabalary is how you win a vocal/oral discussion with someone, if you suddenly use jargon , they won't be able to respond properly because they don't understand you properly. Cruise to victory and claim your win.

On April 21 2011 09:40 Bippzy wrote:
It's interesting you bring this up. I, for one, feel quite amorable to blatant abuse of extraneous written language. Perhaps, I discover it to persistently please me with its pleasant perplexities it brings to me at present. That said, a quality performance of the speech variation should feature a combination of words that has received an evaluation to match the situation. This, of course, means casting should not be too provincial, but not overly formal, or ambiguous through the use of obscure words.

Well then, after blatantly bullying the boring bloke who berated the use of large and random words, i figured i should put what i typed in my ipads notes during history today after my teacher said the not-known-by-me word, repudiate.

+ Show Spoiler +

Also, this was also done also when he also said, "how free is free?"
+ Show Spoiler +

On April 21 2011 12:25 Zim23 wrote:
The definitions of words change based on common use and understanding. It's a process that's been happening for about 50 thousand years, give or take.

On April 21 2011 07:08 Arkansassy wrote:



I tend to disagree with this idea. The purpose of reading above your level is so that you learn, no? It's the same with communication. I will not hesitate to say I don't understand and have them explain. Frankly, I'd prefer to rise up to their level, not have them talk down to mine.

On April 21 2011 23:57 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

There's tension between clear communication and teaching/learning. The more of one, the less of the other. And there are definitely situations where clear communication is strongly preferred: conducting business, sensitive communications (you have cancer! -or- I'm breaking up with you!), when time is an issue, when communication is one way.

And though you might be an eager learner, the other person might not be an eager teacher.

On April 21 2011 00:12 Chill wrote:

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 20 2011 23:23 gods_basement wrote:
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.

On April 22 2011 02:20 gods_basement wrote:


this thread is now a chance for everyone to show how irritating, pretentious, and incorrect their word choice is.

On April 22 2011 05:22 flowSthead wrote:
I think this is relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Edit: When not making an argument, such as the examples given in the above video (supermarket), clarity is the most important thing, so simplicity of language is usually the best.

Otherwise, I would say that when making an argument precision becomes important. Complexity is also important, but only after precision is established. For example, looking at say movies, if I were to say something is good or bad, I would have to be precise in what I mean by good or bad. Do I mean objectively, for everyone, or subjectively, for myself? Do I mean good or bad as related to how much I liked said movie, or to the production values? Are the things I am judging the same as the things you are judging? Perhaps I care more about dialogue while you care more about plot. Our good and bad would then be different.

Once precision is established, complexity will help you delineate and create greater precision. So for the example of "contingency of marines", you could say that the discussion started with different uses for marines. Marines as attacking and defending would be the first way you could do this, and then get more complicated: marines in a bio ball with marauders and medivacs, versus marines in a medivac doing drop harass, versus marines backing up tanks, versus marines staying in your base to chase off mutalisks/phoenixes/other air. That last one could be called a "contingency of marines" as a shorthand instead of every time having to type "the marines that defend my base from air". I chose this based on this definition from dictionary.com of contingency:

1. dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness: Nothing was left to contingency.

The chance is an air attack, or an air scout. So you leave marines behind to account for that chance. Thus, a contingency of marines.

On April 22 2011 10:32 gods_basement wrote:


fantastic video. However, i dont feel like a pedant because my only point was that using big words incorrectly only makes you look stupid. My philosophy on it is that one should understand deeply the connotation of a word before using it, and I believe that connotation is most evident from studying its etymology.

I considered this justification of a 'contingency of marines' when writing the initial post. However, I did not feel like writing such a long explanation (perhaps a bit shorter than yours), so I decided that it was not particularly accurate, glib and contrived. Wit that requires a wag of the eyebrows is not particularly witty (nor is replacing a measure word with the objects' attributes).