More nuanced, yes. More efficient, no. Not by any stretch of imagination (for example, "eat out" is 2 syllables, with 2 meanings, which are "eat somewhere other than home" [7 syllables, though i'm sure you could think of a 5 syllable expression] and a 6 syllable expression, which i'm relatively sure is used almost exclusively by people over the age of 10). There's a reason why children prefer "simple words" (Phrasal verbs). Honestly, I think the lack of education in such vocabulary and focus on "adult vocabulary" is where language learning tends to be lacking. Kids learn those constructions because it allows to stretch a limited vocabulary. Often times, second language learners neither need the nuance, or are too inexperienced to understand the nuance regardless. This is why you can see 10 year students of a given language understand all these big and complex words, but end up completely unable to communicate with anyone without a college degree. It's sad, really.Bishop149 wrote:You see here I strongly disagree, "bigger words" are generally both more efficient and more nuanced. Both things that I think are desirable in effective verbal communication. English is an incredible language in this regard due to it's frankly rediculously huge vocabulary.kohlrak wrote: There's no point in using a "bigger word" except to talk down to people. This is often why those of us who choose such words get viewed as arrogant
The japanese have figured this out, which is why it's so common on Lang-8 to see lots of posts where they insist on using and practicing phrasal verbs. These are precisely the expressions which, in this post, we're condemning. Why? Because the vocabulary stretching is invaluable. Worse yet, in reality, we often mix the "big words" with the "small words." I've noticed it seems to be way more common to do this in english than with any other language. This has lead them to understand that such constructions are absolutely necessary to communicate with us.
If it were an actual improvement, perhaps, but it is not. Ever wonder why we don't like cussing? It's this attitude. People like to blame religion, because people always use religious excuses (and the quotes from the bible inevitably refer to something much, much different that the bible quoter is actually guilty of), but when i worked at Empire Kosher Poultry, i noticed the Rabbis say cuss much, much better. This is because there are no "bad words." We just have expressions that have a level of vulgarity that we understand looses it's potency as we abuse them. Unfortunately, we also have had elitists who suggest we shouldn't use such vocabulary at any point. Expressions have their meaning and value for a reason. We discover this every time we come up with a new word of "mentally handicapped." "Special" has become a "cuss word" in certain contexts. "Retarded," which is a french word, which clearly is considered nuanced and proper in english, has become a "cuss word." "Mentally handicapped" is getting to that point very quickly. Why? Because we need derogatory terms, including ones that we are allowed to say, and especially so to refer to people we disagree with, but don't have any arguments against (notice republicans are always "stupid" and or "uneducated" despite often having more of an education than over half the people making the claims?). Any attepts to stymie this will make the nuanced term less nuanced, and will require an even less efficient term to replace it. "See through" is pretty reliable, since we don't need something derogatory for that.Any perception of arrogance I'm afraid has its basis in the insecurities of the perceiver, which can not be blamed upon the speaker. I can see why a politician might like to pander to the insecurities of the electorate (this is basically Trumps entire electoral strategy!) but I don't see it as something either healthy or desirable. Far better to educate people and help them to over come their insecurities.
Except the nuance is wrong here. Finding a way to use the word is hardly difficult, which is the nuance that "endeavour" implies. If it didn't have that nuance, it'd only be a "more polite" variation of "try," which doesn't even need a polite variation for most conversations. I think it is good to encourage people to seek more education, but we should seek more practical education than simply "let's find ways to sound smarter." That only raises the bar, which also lowers the value of people who took the time to study such nuanced vocabulary. This example also shows precisely what happens that justifies it: the nuances get lost.I dunno about you but the first thing I think if I hear a new word is NOT: "This speaker is unbearably arrogant!", but rather "Huh, I need to look that one up!" swiftly followed by "Cool, I must endeavour* to use that in future where appropriate"
*I originally wrote "try" here, see what I mean! "endeavour" conveys so much more information.
Are we sure of this? Are we sure that nuance escapes not only all Trump supporters, but Trump supporters exclusively? Actually, i think the nuance has escaped those who are not happy with his word choice: it's very nuanced in it's own way. If one needs to see someone who doesn't understand nuance, one only needs to watch the Obama-Putin breakfast video. It was the first time I felt embarrased by a US president.BugMeister wrote:- Trump's followers have no idea what "nuanced" means, let alone any ability to employ subtlety in language..
Credibility is in question. Honestly, it seems more like nonsense to me. You can pay the doctor to say anything, and the doctor's credibility comes from the fact that he has a piece of paper calling him a doctor. Given how much people with other types of doctorates disagree on both fundemental and complex things, as well as sully the very name of their fields, i don't see how doctors carry much weight, these days, and not just medical doctors.- what's all the fuss about doctor's reporting on the health of any leader?
- we've been doing this for years in the UK - we're interested in their health..
More evidence that "big words" tend to loose their nuance as they get used.UniTrader wrote:regarding the Wall and Transparency: possibly he wanted to avoid using both words in the same Sentence, because obviously Mexico will pay for the Wall so it doesnt need Transparency.
(Allergy Warning: Post might contain traces of Irony and Sarcasm)
Great point! If a tool's usage requires more work to do the task than not using the tool, the tool is designed improperly. The purpose of language is communication. That said, to be fair, "transparent" is well understood by everyone Trump is addressing. I think it has more to do with the feel of his words.brucewarren wrote:@Bishop149
From what little I know about communication theory I have to disagree about the use of big words.
Lawyers use big words in documents. Said documents are completely incomprehensible except to other lawyers. I've long thought that this is by design
There may be cases where a big word is the most appropriate choice. If there's no small word that will do the job then by all means use the big word, but in general terms smaller words are better. They are more powerful and more generally understood.
If you can't avoid a big word, at least choose a word you know your audience will also know. Use of rare words that no one else knows not only looks pretentious but it suggests that the speaker is incapable of finding the better smaller word.
The character Sir Humphrey Appleby is fond of using long words. It's a running joke in the show that he does so, not because as he believes he is an educated man, but because he is incapable of using a small one.
A very powerful speech was made by a child. A famous baseball player had been accused of something or other and the child went up to him and famously said "Say it ain't so Joe." No one present failed to understand what he said.
That said I do agree that there is a difference between avoiding a big word because you know a better short one and avoiding a big word because you don't know any in the first place.
I guess i started the cringe factor a little too hard with "big words." Point taken.Grim Lock wrote:What lawyers do i wouldn't describe as using "big words" (ugh using the term in itself makes me feel dumb) but more that they use legal terminology and that is indeed by design and anoying to the layman, but if they use simple words they generally open themselves up to all sorts of legal trouble (hence the by design)
But, to clarify this point, lawyers need to avoid words and expressions with multiple meanings. Where multiple meanings are present, interpretation can reverse the intended meaning. This is why we have arguments about the US constitution all the time, especially regarding the second amendment. What is an organized militia? Is it a group of citizens banding together separate of anything short of their internal (as in, within the militia itself) government? Is it a police force? Is it a "backup army" known as the coast guard? Back then, there was only one meaning. Now everyone has their own stance. This is also the danger that legal documents present: despite all attempts to keep them from changing, they will. Nothing you can really do to change that.
Honestly, I don't think there ever has been an administration that has had a focus on education. Educators, in an attempt to make their message "more accessible," often "dumb down" the material. This is largely why Christianity has been so violent in the past. It's also why Islam is largely violent. And, it is largely why antifa and certain leftist organisations are violent.I've rarely heard any president use terms of their caliber when adressing their population, and i agree it's wise to shy away from rarely used complex words. but if "transparent" is what we nowadays already consider a "big word" (ugh) i understand that pretty much anything any politcian says sounds like eletist nerd-speak that doesn't resonate with the people. The lesson i would take away from that is that good accesible education is more important than ever. Something that's definitly not a focus of the current administration. To quote Trump "I love the uneducated" (one can only guess the reason)
This is so accurate, i'm not even sure you get the full potential nuance of this. There's alot to be said about education being defined by the educators, and that alot of that is left to personal opinions.UniTrader wrote:Yep. More Funding should be allocated to proper Teaching of Newspeak...Grim Lock wrote:The lesson i would take away from that is that good accesible education is more important than ever.
Has the topic of post-secondary education funding and spending been discussed here, yet? It's quite an interesting topic, and it certainly explains a good portion of what's wrong with the economy today.Grim Lock wrote:No more funding should be allocated to education in general, comprehending "newspeak" will come naturallyUniTrader wrote:Yep. More Funding should be allocated to proper Teaching of Newspeak...Grim Lock wrote:The lesson i would take away from that is that good accesible education is more important than ever.
To be fair, I have yet to see a 40 year old man without a belly, even if he's fit. Some things just don't work anymore.Golden_Gonads wrote:I think it's more that Trump and his Doctor are claiming he's absolutely 110% fit, not fat, despite the fact you can see his pudgy belly. Those pictures, those videos, those real life visuals are fake news. They didn't happen, la-la-la-la-la....mrbadger wrote:But really, so what? The US has an unbelievable level of obesity. What does it matter if your president is fat anyway?
But, some people are despirate to find something to hate about someone that they don't agree with. If they can't address the argument directly, they have to try to discredit the source of the argument, as if a 5-year-oldd, mentally-challenged child suggesting that the world is round is somehow wrong in the face of a 30-year-old physics-doctorate-holder with a thing for flat earth theory.Morkonan wrote:^--- ++brucewarren wrote:...There may be cases where a big word is the most appropriate choice. If there's no small word that will do the job then by all means use the big word, but in general terms smaller words are better. They are more powerful and more generally understood...
What's important is using the right word, not the word that's being used.
Some people think that a thesaurus is a handy thing to have, which would be true if not for the fact that they may also think they must use it. The whole point of such a tool is to find the "right word." Even so, if one can't express something without that one particular word, something is wrong somewhere.
I'm reminded of a famous writer, forget the name, who's housekeeper found him naked on the floor of his study, surrounded by crumpled pieces of paper, muttering "I can't find the right word." Hey, he was a great writer, so what do I know? But, it may just be possible he was a bit too worried about it...
"Parallel" isn't really a big word, but it's a good example of a right word that has very specific connotations. It implies relative direction in a more precise way than "side by side" or "together." It's appropriate across many different types of subjects, from mathematics and geometry to more loosely defined concepts like "ideas" or even emotions. But, outside of its primary use relative to geometry, there are probably better words to use.
"Their hearts beat in parallel" vs "their hearts were intertwined" - Both are sentences attempting to express the same meaning, but both are also obviously and entirely constructed for the purposes of using specific words to communicate that meaning. The meaning is clear, regardless, but which is "right?" That's going to rely on... the rest of the words.
People here have read a lot of the words used by others on the forum. If you're sharp, if you're observant, you know the styles used by other posters and can point out when that person has constructed something around a particular word. When that happens, and if it's true, then that was probably the wrong word for that person to use. One word shouldn't distract a reader - It's not that important.
) They realised years ago, that one way of keeping costs down is to make sure the people insured actually have good access to healthy food etc. So it's been a focal point for years now. (sure it also means that because we get so old in a healthy manner now, that our pension-funds didn't take into account they'd have to pay people a lot longer, so they don't have enough money to cover for that in the future had we not raised the minum age for people dependant on those pensions (it's never simple is it!) (obviously for those with real money this is not an issue, they can rely on private/comercial companies to provide them with their pension, but for joe average it kinda sucks, i might have to work till im 69!) But then again, i get what i pay for.
