usmbguest5318
Gold Member
This editorial/thread isn't about the size of one's vocabulary. Rather, it is about the adroitness with which people use the vocabulary they have. And, FWIW, this thread was inspired by @monkrule's thread requesting that members share what overused words most annoy them to see. (There are several threads on that or similar topics.)
Occasionally, members here ridicule my use of what some might call "ten dollar words." Some of those individuals have even posited that I do so to, as they put it "appear smart." Well, let me be crystalline: they could not be more wrong. I use "$10 words" because (1) they are part of my working vocabulary/vernacular, (2) they usually have one, or at most two denotations and connotations, and, most importantly in a practical sense, (3) because I'm lazy.
I suspect the first two reasons above are readily understood by most folks. The third, however, may come as a surprise. What's lazy about my word choice is that I prefer to use one word that means only and precisely the idea I intend to express rather than use a collection of words to do the same thing. The laziness comes into play when, as a writer, I evaluate the extent of comprehensiveness I aim to imbue into a piece of prose and how much time effort I want to use clarifying less precise terms. In short, the more possible meanings that readers can plausibly infer because of one's writing a "common" word rather than a "$10 word" that has only one applicable denotation and connotation, fewer be the overall quantity of words one must use to communicate one's ideas, particularly their nuances. (I frequently use possessives for the same reason: doing so helps drive one to write in the markedly clearer and more efficient active voice.)
To see what I mean, consider the following group of words: perspicacious, shrewd, astute, and sagacious. Each of those words has roughly the same denotation; however, looking at the synonym guide in Merriam-Webster, one sees that each has a different connotation, which is also part of the word's meaning. One will observe too that "keen" is synonymous with "perspicacious," but "keen" have several denotations and none of them include the connotation perspicacious has. Thus, writing "perspicacious" tells readers more about what the writer intends/thinks about the thing s/he describes as "perspicacious" than does writing "keen," and it does so with one word rather than several. Of course, sometimes a writer has no intent, or s/he has no basis for, say "perspicacious's" connotation, in which case, "keen" is the better word to use for "keen" does not convey more than the writer had in mind.
Now, this thread, as I wrote, isn't about how vast be one's vocabulary because one can communicate exactly the same ideas without ever using "SAT-vocabulary." It just takes more words to do, at least if among one's communicative objectives be comprehensiveness. By no means, of course, is everyone so disposed every time then pen a thought, and that too is a factor in word choice. At the end of the day, in all instances, what words one chooses don't matter. What matters is that one communicate as much meaning as possible, yet not more meaning than one intends.
Occasionally, members here ridicule my use of what some might call "ten dollar words." Some of those individuals have even posited that I do so to, as they put it "appear smart." Well, let me be crystalline: they could not be more wrong. I use "$10 words" because (1) they are part of my working vocabulary/vernacular, (2) they usually have one, or at most two denotations and connotations, and, most importantly in a practical sense, (3) because I'm lazy.
I suspect the first two reasons above are readily understood by most folks. The third, however, may come as a surprise. What's lazy about my word choice is that I prefer to use one word that means only and precisely the idea I intend to express rather than use a collection of words to do the same thing. The laziness comes into play when, as a writer, I evaluate the extent of comprehensiveness I aim to imbue into a piece of prose and how much time effort I want to use clarifying less precise terms. In short, the more possible meanings that readers can plausibly infer because of one's writing a "common" word rather than a "$10 word" that has only one applicable denotation and connotation, fewer be the overall quantity of words one must use to communicate one's ideas, particularly their nuances. (I frequently use possessives for the same reason: doing so helps drive one to write in the markedly clearer and more efficient active voice.)
To see what I mean, consider the following group of words: perspicacious, shrewd, astute, and sagacious. Each of those words has roughly the same denotation; however, looking at the synonym guide in Merriam-Webster, one sees that each has a different connotation, which is also part of the word's meaning. One will observe too that "keen" is synonymous with "perspicacious," but "keen" have several denotations and none of them include the connotation perspicacious has. Thus, writing "perspicacious" tells readers more about what the writer intends/thinks about the thing s/he describes as "perspicacious" than does writing "keen," and it does so with one word rather than several. Of course, sometimes a writer has no intent, or s/he has no basis for, say "perspicacious's" connotation, in which case, "keen" is the better word to use for "keen" does not convey more than the writer had in mind.
Now, this thread, as I wrote, isn't about how vast be one's vocabulary because one can communicate exactly the same ideas without ever using "SAT-vocabulary." It just takes more words to do, at least if among one's communicative objectives be comprehensiveness. By no means, of course, is everyone so disposed every time then pen a thought, and that too is a factor in word choice. At the end of the day, in all instances, what words one chooses don't matter. What matters is that one communicate as much meaning as possible, yet not more meaning than one intends.
