Marduk wrote:First, any time you exchange a word you lose meaning.
I disagree with this. You may change connotation or social register or range of meaning, but in terms of strict denotation, there's almost always more than one way to say something ....
I consider connotation and so on to be part of the meaning of a word. Wouldn't you? A lot more goes into verbal communication than just the denotation.
Part of the larger meaning, sure. But then we're getting into a matter of style vs. communication. And my original point (as well as Whistler's) was that if you insist on a certain style of conversation (i.e., "big words"), you're going to sacrifice communication in some contexts. Which is fine, but you have to admit that you're doing that.
Laser Jock wrote:(It's sort of like trying to translate from one language to another: you can get the basic idea across, but some of the nuances will almost invariably be lost.)
Sure, but does that mean you'll refuse to communicate in another language if you can't adequately translate your pet phrase?
I run into this a fair amount as well. I think medium warrants a mention. In this setting, or writing for the Board, I'd be much more likely to use less common words than in speech. Part of that is due to audience, part to the ease of discovery via online dictionaries, and part due to the simple fact that a sad chunk of my vocabulary is literary and I'd likely botch pronunciation.
Substitution will almost always loose some meaning, but the net loss is insignificant to the loss of a misunderstanding. Whistler's example of "spirit of the time" vs. "zeitgeist" is excellent. Toss "zeitgeist" out over the pulpit some week and you'll make connotative connections beyond "spirit of the time" with the 10% of the audience who understand the word well enough to interpret it in full. Another 25% will have partial understanding and have to explain to their neighbors that you're talking about a spirit of something. The neighbors now not only have come to a full-stop over a word they don't know, they're now thinking ghostbusters or little old ladies admonishing them to go into the light. I'd put that % at around 25, since if you've a predilection towards sesquipedalianism, your grandiloquence will be nothing better than a soporific for the audience, and your remaining 40% has given up on you and fallen asleep.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
FauxRaiden wrote:I was a plumber and I pretty much had to dumb myself down to the level of southern redneck lest I be mocked for my use of large words like, redundant and inexplicable. Not even kidding.
Heh, and yet if we were to have a conversation of the advantages of a manablock controlled pex system versus cast, any plumber would look at us like we're simple for even talking about it, and any non plumber would be lost. Large words are like jargon, fine and even preferred as long as they don't interfere with communication.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
FauxRaiden wrote:I was a plumber and I pretty much had to dumb myself down to the level of southern redneck lest I be mocked for my use of large words like, redundant and inexplicable. Not even kidding.
Heh, and yet if we were to have a conversation of the advantages of a manablock controlled pex system versus cast, any plumber would look at us like we're simple for even talking about it, and any non plumber would be lost. Large words are like jargon, fine and even preferred as long as they don't interfere with communication.
I have a wee comment on this little tangent.
My fiance is studying to be a financial planner, and he has this terrible habit of using his financial jargon around me. Drives me crazy! I've never studied anything related to finances, and I can barely tell you the details of my credit card, much less the nitty-gritty details of debt reduction, health insurance, and life insurance policies. The problem is, he doesn't always realize that he's using unfamiliar words because they are SO familiar to him. He's trying to be more clear these days, but it's definitely a work in progress
Yeah I've long since become adjusted to not using jargon when I speak about anything. As most of my jobs have been retail sales, you have to help the customer understand things like what a xenoy composite material is and the like. Nowdays I have become even more aware when I use jargon because I write scripts for work. In the scripts I have to actually explain what the jargon is so the person doesn't become lost on their first day on the job.
Tao reminded me of something I hadn't even thought of. When I use words like this, it's often because I don't know the meaning. If I'm getting most of my vocabulary from reading, I often come across words that I know where to use them and have a general idea of their definition, but I don't know how to define it exactly. On occasion people will flat out ask me what "----" means and I don't have an answer for them. At least, not a concise one.
Maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am?
Out of curiosity, does anyone else here hear a word they don't understand and feel inclined to look it up later in the day? I know whenever I hear a word I'm not familiar with, I can't help but think about it until I get the chance to look it up and have an "Oooooh" moment.
FauxRaiden wrote:Out of curiosity, does anyone else here hear a word they don't understand and feel inclined to look it up later in the day? I know whenever I hear a word I'm not familiar with, I can't help but think about it until I get the chance to look it up and have an "Oooooh" moment.
Sometimes I do that with a word that is fairly common, and then I realize how valuable it really is.
Laser Jock wrote:I consider connotation and so on to be part of the meaning of a word. Wouldn't you? A lot more goes into verbal communication than just the denotation.
Part of the larger meaning, sure. But then we're getting into a matter of style vs. communication. And my original point (as well as Whistler's) was that if you insist on a certain style of conversation (i.e., "big words"), you're going to sacrifice communication in some contexts. Which is fine, but you have to admit that you're doing that.
Laser Jock wrote:(It's sort of like trying to translate from one language to another: you can get the basic idea across, but some of the nuances will almost invariably be lost.)
Sure, but does that mean you'll refuse to communicate in another language if you can't adequately translate your pet phrase?
Oh, sure, I agree with you and Whistler there. Part of good communication is adjusting to your audience. Just like you wear nice clothes to go to church and you wear work clothes to work in the yard, you should adjust how you speak or write depending on the situation. I'm not saying that you should refuse to talk to someone who has a different/smaller vocabulary, just that when you adjust what you say, you might not be able to communicate as precisely as you'd like (but at least they'll understand you).
I think if we keep in mind that the goal of communication is to evoke a particular response (understanding, motivation, love, etc.) in a particular audience we will pick our words accordingly.
Something we need to also consider is that any time we speak to a diversity of audiences, they will also have a wide range of vocabularies. Take for example the board here, we run the gamut. So we are guaranteed to either confound a portion of our audience by being too loquacious, or circumlocute to the point of inanity. We try to find a happy medium, but it is nigh impossible to not be at least slightly guilty of one or the other with a diverse audience.
Personally, I think loquaciousness should be avoided no matter the vocabulary. Good communication shouldn't employ lots of words if fewer present the idea with more clarity.
(Clearly I'm not a great example of this but I'm merely noting my preference.)
Also, I would expect that most people that frequent the board are at least moderately conversant in "big words". I doubt that we're anywhere near the best representation of "running the gamut".
Marduk wrote:Something we need to also consider is that any time we speak to a diversity of audiences, they will also have a wide range of vocabularies. Take for example the board here, we run the gamut. So we are guaranteed to either confound a portion of our audience by being too loquacious, or circumlocute to the point of inanity. We try to find a happy medium, but it is nigh impossible to not be at least slightly guilty of one or the other with a diverse audience.
Marduk, I found this absolutely hilarious. loquacious, circumlocute, inanity, nigh. Pure awesome.
^ Ooh, I like that! I think sometimes people condition themselves to sounding overly stuffy. I'm all for educated language, but I'm also for distinctions between settings.
. . . I swear everyone in the universe suddenly started using the word facetious all of the time, without me ever having realized it existed before. I'm still not comfortable using it in my own vocabulary . . . [grumble]
Well, if you are going to necro this thread, and comment on the word facetious, I'd like to point out that I always pronounce it "fishy sauce". Just because.
I like to mispronounce words and have intentionally bad grammar, but I don't do it too often except with good friends, and even then I usually feel compelled to add a "but I really do know how to talk, really."
The Epistler was quite honestly knocked on her ethereal behind by the sheer logic of this.
Marduk wrote:Well, if you are going to necro this thread...
I was trying to figure out what "necro" meant. Then I saw the post before mine. Goodness gorsh! I think I've committed one of the biggest forum faux pas-es [sp?] there are. I'm not really sure how that happened; I guess we just don't get a jillion posts per day on this forum (thank goodness).
Anyway, moving away from excuses and back to the subject at hand: I pronounced the word pronunciation as "pro-NOUNCE-ee-ation" until about the 10th grade, and still catch myself doing it very occasionally. How ironic. (Especially because I would often critique others on their poor "pronounciation.")
I once had the hardest time pronouncing "casual" properly. Even now I sometimes have to ask if I'm pronouncing it properly. I pronounced the first syllable "caw."
The Epistler was quite honestly knocked on her ethereal behind by the sheer logic of this.
