Are you a lexiphanicist?

[champagne1982]

A poet on another web site I frequent discovered this article while reading online.

Speaking Freely
DG- Live And Uncut on Words and the Web

Never Use a Large Word When a Diminutive One Will Suffice
January 4, 2008 in Copywriting, Words


Small words have the largest impact. Small words can become the hammer to drive your point home, while big words tend to soften the blow.

Culled from a recent paper: “The panel felt the Senator was being disingenuous.”

What? Lacking in frankness or candor? He prevaricated? Equivocated? Misrepresented? Fabricated? Do any of those words come close to the power of, The panel felt the Senator lied? Everyone understands the word lie. None of the other words carry the clear meaning that lie conveys.

Large words tend to creep in when we write because we’re showing off, or we think our writing sounds better, or we look smarter if we use large words. Trade your syllables for clarity.

Instead of utilize, use.

Trade terminate for end. Don’t eliminate larger words, get rid of them. Don’t substantiate the facts, prove them. People aren’t impecunious, they’re poor. The writer wasn’t assiduous, he took great care. The lady at the DMV wasn’t obstinate, she was stubborn.

No one wants to read the words of a lexiphanicist…

I especially appreciate the irony in the title... diminutive indeed . It's true though and does illustrate the lesson quite well.

 

[Guest]

...........

 

[champagne1982]

“The panel felt the Senator was being disingenuous.”
"The panel felt the Senator lied."

What sounds worse, "disingenuous" or "lied"? I guess it depends if you voted for that particular Senator.

I like learning new words, but I don't want to have to pull out a dictionary in order to read a poem. I think the poet would miss the whole point of poetry if they used big words instead of a small one, especially if they had to pull out a thesaurus and a dictionary to get it.

hehehe... The literotica community knows that the only big word I want to read around here is cock.

 

[Guest]

............

 

[sethp]

There was a great skit on 'in living color' that had a guy trying to use huge words when clearly he had no idea what they meant. something along the lines of being clairvoyant/claire huxtable etc. Please excuse my spelling and grammer.

 

[Angeline]

A poet on another web site I frequent discovered this article while reading online. I especially appreciate the irony in the title... diminutive indeed . It's true though and does illustrate the lesson quite well.

I wonder if the author left "diminutive" in on purpose to see if anyone would catch the irony?

The rule is true, but not always (always and never are bad as a rule, to me, in poetry and life). Sometimes the right word isn't necessarily the smallest. Tone has a lot to do with which words are chosen, and if you don't want to sound clipped and concise, you might not use the lowest common denominator word. At least that's how I see it.

When I was a youngster, I was often teased for using "big" words. I wasn't trying to impress anyone. I read a lot. My dad played a game with my sister and me where we had to guess meanings of words in the dictionary he'd read to us. Hence, I had a large vocabulary at a young age. My family all talked that way, too. I'm better at recognizing now when I go overboard with vocabulary in a poem, but if you actually speak that way, the words don't seem "big" to you. Food for thought.

 

[Anschul]

A poet on another web site I frequent discovered this article while reading online. I especially appreciate the irony in the title... diminutive indeed . It's true though and does illustrate the lesson quite well.

Nice catch on the headline. I wonder if that was intentional. I know headline writers. I'll bet it wasn't. And wouldn't E.B. White be pleased.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I dunno, this kind of thing isn't carved in stone. What about Melville, Beckett, Joyce, Nabokov, Jack Vance...

Use the right word. The reduction of definitions to synonyms, for example "impecunious=poor", impoverishes language. Impecunious means "having little or no money, usually habitually."

 

[champagne1982]

I agree with Ange (surprise) that the word that fits best is the best word to use.

 

[Angeline]

I agree with Ange (surprise) that the word that fits best is the best word to use.

And I agree with you. I can't think of a poetic opinion of yours I disagree with, yknow? Given that we've been hanging around the same place for the past six years, it kinda figures.

 

[Tzara]

The point is not so simple. For example, for me the words lie and disingenuous have quite different meanings, besides being different parts of speech. In fact, much of the force of the revamped sentence in the example comes from exchanging an adjective for a verb. But it also changes the connotation of the sentence, changes the image we are given.

And the power is not simply from being short. In the sentences There are some oranges on the table and There are five oranges on the table, the words some and five are both monosyllabic, four-letter words easily understood by anyone, but the second is much more specific.

Richard Hugo talks about the difference between monosyllabic and multisyllabic words in one of his essays on poetry and does acknowledge the greater impact that monosyllabic words have. (I'd quote his statement, but I'm out of town today.) He also points out, though, that sometimes the point is to soften the language, distance it a bit. To riff off of what Mr. Rathbone said, try to imagine Lolita written in the style of Hemingway.

Use the word you need to use to say what you want said.


Oh, look! All monosyllables!

 

[rosco rathbone]

The point is not so simple. For example, for me the words lie and disingenuous have quite different meanings, besides being different parts of speech. In fact, much of the force of the revamped sentence in the example comes from exchanging an adjective for a verb. But it also changes the connotation of the sentence, changes the image we are given.

And the power is not simply from being short. In the sentences There are some oranges on the table and There are five oranges on the table, the words some and five are both monosyllabic, four-letter words easily understood by anyone, but the second is much more specific.

Richard Hugo talks about the difference between monosyllabic and multisyllabic words in one of his essays on poetry and does acknowledge the greater impact that monosyllabic words have. (I'd quote his statement, but I'm out of town today.) He also points out, though, that sometimes the point is to soften the language, distance it a bit. To riff off of what Mr. Rathbone said, try to imagine Lolita written in the style of Hemingway.

Use the word you need to use to say what you want said.


Oh, look! All monosyllables!

Good points. Something else I noticed: "Everyone understands the word "lie"."
So what? Not everyone is writing for everyone.

 

[champagne1982]

She was a kid. He drove a car.

Sugar daddy? You bet.
Blush of babes sweeter
than blush of shame.

Blush of shame not able
when blame stuck
on child who feels none.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Tzara has already nicely made the point that I thought about as soon as I started reading. Yes, use words properly and precisely, and yes, avoid obfuscation and polysyllabics for their own sake, but my initial thought was that lying and being disingenuous do not mean the same thing. One can tell the absolute truth in a disingenuous manner (not that I've ever done so. Mumble).

I'd bet that many of us around this little pond were chastised for our vocabulary, so we'll probably be a bit more defensive than most about the cry for simplification. There's obviously a difference between choosing a word for its precision and choosing a word because you like to look smart.

In poetry of course there are additional concerns, like sound and rhythm. One should probably be even more driven to use the proper word.

What's the difference between a lexiphanicist and a lexiphant?

bj

 

[Liar]

I like learning new words, but I don't want to have to pull out a dictionary in order to read a poem. I think the poet would miss the whole point of poetry if they used big words instead of a small one, especially if they had to pull out a thesaurus and a dictionary to get it.

The ones where I have to pull out a dictionary are not the ones that annoy me the most. It's when I have to reach for the encyclopedia that I can't be bothered to read on.

 

[SpeakingFreely]

Hello everyone, just to clarify a point, the title was written with purpose, not by me however, I stumbled across it while looking up some quotes about words. Bit surprised that everyone noticed "diminutive" but "suffice" was overlooked.

In my example, I would be willing to bet that the reporter chose "disingenuous" precisely because it lacks the impact of "lied", and in our litigious society, calling someone a liar often leads to a lawsuit.

My point remains that if a small word works, it is nearly always the better choice. Certainly not in poetry where rhythm, rhyme, prosody and meter can come into play, but in our every day writing, clarity should always come first and if a small word works, why choose a large one?

 

[Angeline]

Hello everyone, just to clarify a point, the title was written with purpose, not by me however, I stumbled across it while looking up some quotes about words. Bit surprised that everyone noticed "diminutive" but "suffice" was overlooked.

In my example, I would be willing to bet that the reporter chose "disingenuous" precisely because it lacks the impact of "lied", and in our litigious society, calling someone a liar often leads to a lawsuit.

My point remains that if a small word works, it is nearly always the better choice. Certainly not in poetry where rhythm, rhyme, prosody and meter can come into play, but in our every day writing, clarity should always come first and if a small word works, why choose a large one?

Well said.

 

[champagne1982]

Hello everyone, just to clarify a point, the title was written with purpose, not by me however, I stumbled across it while looking up some quotes about words. Bit surprised that everyone noticed "diminutive" but "suffice" was overlooked.

In my example, I would be willing to bet that the reporter chose "disingenuous" precisely because it lacks the impact of "lied", and in our litigious society, calling someone a liar often leads to a lawsuit.

My point remains that if a small word works, it is nearly always the better choice. Certainly not in poetry where rhythm, rhyme, prosody and meter can come into play, but in our every day writing, clarity should always come first and if a small word works, why choose a large one?

Well, I agree with you about clarity and the pompous atmosphere that surrounds big words. If you aren't addressing scholars then I think you really need to strive for the word that fits whether you are writing prose, speech or poetry.

I disagree about the use of the word "disingenuous" because of fear of litigation. I'll bet that was quoted directly out of the press release which would have been through an examination by a spin doc. It sounds like that to me, anyway. Senators have been known to tell a tale or stretch the truth but you'll never hear them "lie" once the public relations people get hold of it.

 

[Angeline]

Well, I agree with you about clarity and the pompous atmosphere that surrounds big words. If you aren't addressing scholars then I think you really need to strive for the word that fits whether you are writing prose, speech or poetry.

I disagree about the use of the word "disingenuous" because of fear of litigation. I'll bet that was quoted directly out of the press release which would have been through an examination by a spin doc. It sounds like that to me, anyway. Senators have been known to tell a tale or stretch the truth but you'll never hear them "lie" once the public relations people get hold of it.

Mebbe so, who knows really? I mean you could also argue that no spin doctor would use "disingenuous" because it suggests the senator was, at best, backpedaling from truth. Anything less than truth would be unacceptable to someone trying to defend their client. I think if you go through any newspaper--certainly one from a large city--you'll find at least one example of the headline writers having a little fun. My personal favorite was a headline I saw that said "Israel Softens on Withdrawal." Lol! That had to be intentional.

But yeah, informative writing that snows the reader with big words isn't so informative. Persuasive writing, otoh, can intentionally try to confuse the reader. That's how propaganda often works, I think.

 

[champagne1982]

Mebbe so, who knows really? I mean you could also argue that no spin doctor would use "disingenuous" because it suggests the senator was, at best, backpedaling from truth. Anything less than truth would be unacceptable to someone trying to defend their client. I think if you go through any newspaper--certainly one from a large city--you'll find at least one example of the headline writers having a little fun. My personal favorite was a headline I saw that said "Israel Softens on Withdrawal." Lol! That had to be intentional.

But yeah, informative writing that snows the reader with big words isn't so informative. Persuasive writing, otoh, can intentionally try to confuse the reader. That's how propaganda often works, I think.

We should have a headline writing contest over in the bistro and of course, synopses are encouraged... "Homes Squashed In Garden District" or "Peter Eats Wife Out Of House And Home" ... Today, Mr Pumpkin-Eater consumed 40 pies while his wife struggled to keep a roof over their head.

Thanks for clearing up my point in your last paragraph, that's exactly what I meant to say.

 

[SpeakingFreely]

There's a bit more in that simple sentence “The panel felt the Senator was being disingenuous” that suggests the author was distancing himself from the statement. "The panel" isn't specific and "was being" is passive.

There's a picture of Edward R. Murrow sitting as his desk that I've seen more than once. On one side of his desk is a simple placard that reads, "Clarity". On the other side a placard that reads "Brevity".

 

[Equinoxe]

One assumes that this advice is limited to the English language, or else Germans are in quite a bind and Finns expected to take a vow of silence. Of course, if we would all just accept our future Chinese overlords and learn Mandarin, this would be much less of an issue.

I must admit a certain distaste for the advice to never use a large word where a diminutive one will suffice (though I do adore that phrasing of it), as well as the related admonition to "be clear". Clarity is for journalists, and even there precision plays a role. Every word has its own tone and colour and each serves to express its own aspect of existence and conception. Which isn't to suggest that one should be obscurantist, but merely that there are more important considerations than being understood by the great unwashed masses—unless you're writing instructions on furniture assembly—much less on using small words. Besides, small words are not always more readily understood, or are we to use kine instead of cattle?

There's a bit more in that simple sentence “The panel felt the Senator was being disingenuous” that suggests the author was distancing himself from the statement. "The panel" isn't specific and "was being" is passive.

Actually, "was being" isn't passive in that sentence, it's past progressive in tense/aspect. There's no change in the agent-patient relationship (you can change "was being" to "is" to demonstrate that).

 

[hmmnmm]

This topic do tempt and no-nos do seduce.

Only this?: If I know of one person I write for or speak to, and they know me at least somewhat, I will have some idea whether to use a short simple word or if they might appreciate a creaky attempt to procure a more distant word.

But what if I write for or speak to two? What if I know nothing of one? Go with the one you know and maybe they can relay their version to the other - assuming they know the other. If they don't?

I think the writer or speaker is at complete liberty to choose. The reader or listener will decide how well the writer or speaker communicated: this is a very poor example/this example is miserably bereft of illustrative appeal, of this I profess not nary one smidgen of doubt.

No restrictions, man. No restrictions.

Time and place. Situational ethics. All the way.

Night.

 

[SpeakingFreely]

I'm not suggesting that Proust should have used Gunning-Fogg on his works. The example I used was from a newspaper, the audience I write for, write for an online audience.

The N.Y. Times suggests a Gunning-Fogg of 8 for their reporters, same with the Washington Post, but The Bells would have certainly lost something if Poe had switched tintinnabulation for "the tinkling sound of bells".

Then again, I'm glad I never had to read,

Give me your fatigued, your impecunious,
Your huddled masses yearning to suspire freely,

I'm all for making people think, or reach for a dictionary. Toss in an obscure reference. Break Priscian's head if you like, no need for prescriptivism either.

But if you're trying to reach those unwashed masses, use soap, not cleansing agents.

 

[JagFarlane]

A poet on another web site I frequent discovered this article while reading online. I especially appreciate the irony in the title... diminutive indeed . It's true though and does illustrate the lesson quite well.

Perhaps but maybe this is more of a point of the way society has gone. Instead of appreciating someones large vocabulary...we are instead going the simpler route. I personally enjoy using different words, if just simply for the fact that it adds a bit of spice to life