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."
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.
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 00:04 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
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."
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."
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."
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.
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
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."
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
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.
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 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.
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.
A) somebody uses a esoteric (see what I did there?) word just to look cool B) people choose their words poorly and give the wrong tone to their statements
I have noticed that B is a plague that infects the internet.
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 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.
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.
Note to self USE REPUDIATE YAY Note to self USE REPUDIATE NOW Ugh im not gonna remember But i really want to use repudiate I dont want to repudiate the desire to use repudiate I want to repudiate the repudiation of my desire to use repudiate repudiatively Perhaps i could repudiate the repudiation of the repudiation of my desire to use repudiation repudiatively, because that would repudiate everything, assuming my use of repudiate is not repudiatable. I repudiate this entire tangent. I repudiate the repudiation of this tangent of repudiation.
Also, this was also done also when he also said, "how free is free?" + Show Spoiler +
How free is free? Well, if you ask how adjective the same adjective is, the answer is 100%. However, when you apply curved meanings used by governments and connotations and slang, asking how adjective is adjective implies how (actual formal meaning) is (curved/connotated/slang meaning). For example, how tight is tight? How closed firmly is awesome/cool? Same thing.
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.
Note to self USE REPUDIATE YAY Note to self USE REPUDIATE NOW Ugh im not gonna remember But i really want to use repudiate I dont want to repudiate the desire to use repudiate I want to repudiate the repudiation of my desire to use repudiate repudiatively Perhaps i could repudiate the repudiation of the repudiation of my desire to use repudiation repudiatively, because that would repudiate everything, assuming my use of repudiate is not repudiatable. I repudiate this entire tangent. I repudiate the repudiation of this tangent of repudiation.
Also, this was also done also when he also said, "how free is free?" + Show Spoiler +
How free is free? Well, if you ask how adjective the same adjective is, the answer is 100%. However, when you apply curved meanings used by governments and connotations and slang, asking how adjective is adjective implies how (actual formal meaning) is (curved/connotated/slang meaning). For example, how tight is tight? How closed firmly is awesome/cool? Same thing.
I don't know if you're trolling or not, but your post is frustrating to read. its almost like you made a checklist of what i said not to do, and one by one knocked them out of the ballpark.
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.
Thoughtful people apply words to new situations, which gives us cool words. At some point, an artist described food as "rich," meaning that it conveyed certain figurative attributes. To say "EH, you can use words however you like, LANGUAGE EVOLVES!" gives us dog shit language like "literally"
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't entirely disagree with what you've said. Obviously, there are situations where it's necessary (for those of you who didn't get it) to use words to help the person with whom you're speaking, better understand. If a doctor uses medical terminology, I'm like "huh? Tell me in English please." That applies to any profession in which the layman is unfamiliar.
When I'm in an everyday conversation, however, I find it stimulating to talk with someone who has a command of the English language.
The purpose is to make oneself understood in order to get their point across; therefore, if someone is bright enough to say, "Sorry, I don't get what you mean," of course I'm going to explain it in a way that they understand. Is that not a teaching/learning exchange? Wouldn't anyone be "eager" to teach in that instance?"
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
I wouldn't say complex is valuable at all.
Maybe something like Variety+Precision >>> Precision Alone > Variety alone.
It's annoying hearing the same exact phrase used to describe something 50 times in a 20 minute game.
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."
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
Sorry if it came out that way, but I wasn't trying to suggest that you are a pedant. I just thought the video would help focus the discussion a little bit. I completely agree that using big words incorrectly does make a person seem stupid.
What I disagreed with was the notion that there can never be a proper use for "a contingency of marines". I think you were a little too focused on the wrong usages, rather than the possible right usages. The video is helpful there with the idea of ugly words like "I actioned the starcraft" or whatever the example was. "Actioned" there seems ugly the way "contingency" seems ugly in "contingency of marines". Just because it's ugly doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot be useful or clear. What I did in the second paragraph was try to establish a possible scenario where the ugly use of contingency could possibly work. It all depends on context.
Essentially, because you did not give context in your example, I did not feel like it was a valid example. But I still completely agree that not using big words properly never makes a person look good. The same thing can apply if someone tries to speak a foreign language without knowing it well. They can make themselves look like an idiot.
So I don't disagree with your point in general, just in specific. (And I don't think you are a pedant.)
Man, can't believe all this time i thought "contingency" meant like a squad/small group that were given a task, i used to say contingency of marines all the time rofl did a caster start saying this sometime? because i have no idea where i picked this up
On April 23 2011 05:11 Maliris wrote: Man, can't believe all this time i thought "contingency" meant like a squad/small group that were given a task, i used to say contingency of marines all the time rofl did a caster start saying this sometime? because i have no idea where i picked this up
On April 22 2011 05:22 flowSthead wrote: 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: 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.
On April 22 2011 17:34 flowSthead wrote: What I disagreed with was the notion that there can never be a proper use for "a contingency of marines". I think you were a little too focused on the wrong usages, rather than the possible right usages. The video is helpful there with the idea of ugly words like "I actioned the starcraft" or whatever the example was. "Actioned" there seems ugly the way "contingency" seems ugly in "contingency of marines". Just because it's ugly doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot be useful or clear. What I did in the second paragraph was try to establish a possible scenario where the ugly use of contingency could possibly work. It all depends on context.
On April 23 2011 05:11 Maliris wrote: Man, can't believe all this time i thought "contingency" meant like a squad/small group that were given a task, i used to say contingency of marines all the time rofl did a caster start saying this sometime? because i have no idea where i picked this up
Forget all the lengthy explanations: the word people are looking for is "contingent".
All of this talk about a "contingency" is a rendered a little more entertaining for the fact that one of the definitions for "contingency" is "the absence of certainty in events," contingencies abound.
EPT
