$5 Words

[Haversack]

Scotrace wrote:
""... that's 'Hedley'""

Well played, Sir!

Haversack.
(Feeder-of-Straight-Lines)

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Haversack.
(Feeder-of-Straight-Lines)

The Lounge's own Budd Abbott. lol

.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

I think I agree that it depends on intent, and you can usually tell if people are being elitist; one highfalutin word is okay, a string of them not. I often get accused of elitism myself, yet most of the time I don't really think about it. I tend to use "ergo" instead of "therefore", and some just come from the region I originate from in the UK, e.g. "whilst" instead of "while" and "amongst" instead of "among"

My place of employment is a polyglot environment, and I often joke that I need to learn Spanish, Portugese, Russian and Armenian, and a friend of mine used "ergo" on a note and I laughlingly complained about having to learn Latin as well. lol

 

[jake_fink]

True -- but that's not a license for the sort of excruciatingly bad writing that you'll find in a lot of specialized fields. In my own specialty, the history of radio and television, the shelves are littered with barely-readable academic studies that bury the substance of their ideas under a blanket of pompous lit-crit jargon, and I can rarely read one of these books without flinging it across the room, exasperated by the attitude of smug insularity that exudes from the page. The feeling I get from such works is that the author's ideas are often so flaccid they gain validity only when propped up by the overweening self-importance evident in the technique.

(See, I can do it too!)

And a fine job you make of it!

Hey, I used to write advertising -- and it's a lot harder than it looks! Any penwiper can ramble on page after page about the ineffable essence of nothing, but it takes real talent to convince people they need something they never heard of, in 100 words or less!

I'm not knocking copy writers (not too hard anyway), I'm guilty too, just pointing out that the so-called decline began before tv and even before radio. I think it started with Dryden and his heroic couplets.

Ultimately, or perhaps only penultimately, there is a lot of room on the bookshelves for all kinds of writing, and there are all kinds of readers. One rule doesn't fit all.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I think it started with Dryden and his heroic couplets.

Tennyson and his jingly verses didn't help.

.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

I'm happy when at least somebody gets my jokes. Even that doesn't always happen.

.

Ah yes. I'll often make a funny (to me, anyway) comment and have to look around the room to see if anyone is old enough to appreciate the reference.

 

[Senator Jack]

True -- but that's not a license for the sort of excruciatingly bad writing that you'll find in a lot of specialized fields. In my own specialty, the history of radio and television, the shelves are littered with barely-readable academic studies that bury the substance of their ideas under a blanket of pompous lit-crit jargon, and I can rarely read one of these books without flinging it across the room, exasperated by the attitude of smug insularity that exudes from the page. The feeling I get from such works is that the author's ideas are often so flaccid they gain validity only when propped up by the overweening self-importance evident in the technique.

Okay, let's separate apples and oranges. Lizzie, I know you'll agree there's a difference between an entire paragraph littered with $5 (unused?) words and one word that snugly fits into a sentence; my concern is with the latter. Context is the key, of course, and I believe the $5 words can be discerned if put in the right context. I hate to come across as being a bit runcible, in all this, but there it is.


Ah, runcible. What a good example. Of course we know it in the context of the Owl and the Pussycat - there's some argument as to its meaning of a spoon with tines - but it's such a damn fine word that can mean anything.
As in:

A: I don't like that guy.
B: Yes, he is a rather runcible fellow at that.

or:

A: How was your train ride?
B: Runcible. To say the least.

or:

A: She's some dish.
B: And with the most runcible cheeks at that!

A good writer will be able to use a great word, even a made-up word, so that the unfamiliar reader will be able to discern its general meaning given the context. A bad writer will simple replace a bottom shelf word with a top shelf and think himself smart. Agreed?

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Hmm ... I'll need to masticate that for a while.

.

 

[jake_fink]

Hmm ... I'll need to masticate that for a while.

.

Oo-er missus.

 

[Tomasso]

To communicate effectively you must tailor your language to your audience.

And, use lots of pictures

 

[Lincsong]

The guy who comes up the the most $5 words in the U.S. Senate is Robert Byrd of West Virginia. $5 words for a 5 cent suit.:rage:

 

[LizzieMaine]

A good writer will be able to use a great word, even a made-up word, so that the unfamiliar reader will be able to discern its general meaning given the context. A bad writer will simple replace a bottom shelf word with a top shelf and think himself smart. Agreed?

Absolutely -- but the trick is not to overdo it. Unusual words that call attention themselves for the sake of their cleverness can be the salt in the conversational stew -- but don't forget, too much salt causes high blood pressure.

For example, consider this little ditty --

Propel, Propel, Propel your craft
Placidly down the liquid solution
Ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically,
Existence is but an illusion.

That's courtesy of King Friday XIII, of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" fame (for those of you who never watch TV), a pompous old monarch who never used a five dollar word when a ten dollar word would do. It's cute and clever -- but, really, is it any *better*, does it communicate its ideas any more clearly than simply singing "Row, Row, Row your boat?"

To me, that's the key -- knowing the line between using Big Words for the sake of improving the clarity of a statement and using Big Words just because I want everybody to think I'm wicked smart with my 99.8 average in English. I can admire a felicitous turn of phrase as fulsomely as the next gal, but I also like to think that language is primarily about *communication,* not vocabulary-size-measuring contests. Or at least that's what them teacher folks learnt me in my book-schoolin'.

Meanwhile, going all the way back to the original point of this thread -- I do think that the Senator's friend was way out of line with his "a kid in Africa couldn't understand it" remark. Actually, unless he's fluent in Arabic or one of the Bantu tongues, I suspect that friend would be at a decided disadvantage in trying to communicate with said youngster.

 

[Fred G.]

I hope I did not start this thread...

I just stumbled on to this thread, I quickly scanned it, hopefully I am not repeating others here:

First, some contrition: Being the jokester that I am, recently I tried to make a funny. Someone suggested a link for the erudite Loungers... I know it means the learned, the knowledgeable-- but I joked that I was not erudite, I was Baptist.

Sorry for being flippant.

Anyway, I offer Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as a testament to the power of language: Written and spoken, it communicates so much with so few words, so simple words.

But, the occasional word out of the normal vocabulary gives writing and speaking the spice needed-- great literature should not sound like a traffic report.

The point of communication is to gain a mutual understanding. That may hard to do if the other person is not on your educational level...

Now, for a respite.

 

[scotrace]

Nice to see you around Fred G. Wondered where you got to...

 

[Senator Jack]

Propel, Propel, Propel your craft
Placidly down the liquid solution
Ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically,
Existence is but an illusion.

That's rich! Especially the last line.

All right, down to business. I'm wondering now how $5 words came to be $5 words. Let's again take ameliorate as an example.

A: Why must you exacerbate every situation?
B: I'm not exacerbating the situation. I'm just trying to make a point.

No one would accuse A of using a $5 word here, asking him why he didn't use 'worsen' or 'aggravate'. But:

A: You should try to ameliorate the situation instead.
B. What is that word? Ameliorate?

Why does 'exacerbate' fall into common usage but not 'ameliorate'? It's like saying we can say 'stop' but not 'go' or 'over' but not 'under'. What is it about ameliorate that makes it sound like you're giving everyone the high-hat? This, I find particularly intriguing.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Matthew Dalton]

A: Why must you exacerbate every situation?
B: I'm not exacerbating the situation. I'm just trying to make a point.

No one would accuse A of using a $5 word here, asking him why he didn't use 'worsen' or 'aggravate'.

I think many people that I know would.

 

[Pilgrim]

My college freshman daughter has made a vow to use the word "cromulent" at least once in a paper this year and see if she gets away with it.

For those of you who may not be stooled to the rogue, "cromulent" is a coined word used on The Simpsons. It fits wonderfully in context, as in: "That's a very cromulent point!"

I think it's a great idea.

 

[Feraud]

My college freshman daughter has made a vow to use the word "cromulent" at least once in a paper this year and see if she gets away with it.

For those of you who may not be stooled to the rogue, "cromulent" is a coined word used on The Simpsons. It fits wonderfully in context, as in: "That's a very cromulent point!"

I think it's a great idea.

Let us hope she does not get Munsoned for doing so.

 

[Senator Jack]

The other word coined on the show is 'embiggens'. I'm kind of partial to that one.

While driving toward Manhattan one afternoon, I noticed that the buildings looked 'leptic.' 'Leptos' in Greek means thin, and it is used to refer the minute hand of a clock. That's exactly what the Empire State Building looked like - the minute hand of a clock. A few years later I was writing a passage and I wanted to describe a Danish Modern desk. Thus:

...and the desk upon which she rested her rump seemed a bit too leptic to support both her and the typewriter that whirred with electric diligence.'

It sounded right to me, but upon researching the word I found its only meaning is an obscure geological one - that of a layer of bedrock. Someday, when I finally get this book finished and possibly published, I hope to add a new word to the English vocabulary.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[jamespowers]

Other words I seem to have a bad habit of using, though I don't consider them $5 words:

Truculent
Licentious
Priapic
Bailiwick
Peripatetic
Etiolate
Dubiety
Sagacious
Feckless
Epicene
Uxorious

The list goes on. Add your own.

Regards,

Senator Jack

My favorite comment in this vein was from an older man who at my choice of the anathem said: "Why do you always have to use words that try to prove how smart you are?" :eusa_doh: The funny thing is that that is the way I spoeak and write. [huh]
A few I use often enough:

Capricious
Inveigle
Reprehensible
Myopic
Solicitous

Regards,

J