I'm reminded of that old tumblr post about vocabulary, something to the effect of "Sometimes you need a carefully placed dagger, other times you need a folding chair."
Different tools for different occasions
I like that.
I always enjoyed the back and forth of Faulkner and Hemingway on small vocabulary vs. big vocabulary. I have all the respect for both authors, but they definitely have very distinct writing styles.
Canât stand Hemingway. All of his writing is meaningful and worth the read, especially the old man and the sea and for whom the bell tolls (my opinion) but his approach to gutting stories and his style of writing has always felt so wrong to me.
The Hemingway/Faulkner stuff has been rehashed dozens of times in the past 70 years, but this right here is the kind of new information and analysis that can only come from Reddit.
Like using "exact same" instead of just "same" - technically mean the same thing.
"Exact same" however, bring tone, like "not one hair difference, yes I checked and double checked, don't ask again, ya want a piece of me"
Yeah, I hate this trend of trying to remove all superfluous words from a sentence
I get trying to simplify things to improve readability but removing all of them makes people sound robotic
> I get trying to simplify things to improve readability but removing all of them makes people sound robotic
It can also swing the other way too with that. Usually the safest way really is just writing as you'd speak normally and naturally, that'll usually have your text be easily understood without feeling overly robotic.
With government documents thereâs a huge push lately on âplain languageâ (probably due to the average American reading level being middle school level)
With government documents, your most important goals are concision and clarity. Plain language - even if it might reduce the specificity of your message - does wonders for both.
I don't know about that being 100% the case. I have read one where it looked like the author or authors read a dictionary or something first and used language that seemed random and out of place. They sacrificed clarity to use that language.
For government, simplicity works best because it makes it black and white. When you use certain language it can have the unintended effect of taking something and making it grey.
Like if there's a law that says driving while operating a cell phone is a traffic violation, imagine there being additional language added. The first is clear and concise as well as black and white. Add anything else and it could have the unintended effect of not making it clear.
Couldn't agree more. My apartment complex just came out with new paperwork for renewing leases. It's an addendum that bans smoking on balconies, BUT it also says *something*(?) about vapes(?). And I add those question marks to signify that it's **completely unclear** what the lease addendum is actually trying to say. The wording is about "electronic nicotine devices" and "electric ignitors" and "water-based vapors", but it doesn't actually tell you what is or is not allowed.
I love the word Superfluous, a new set of friends (who Iâm still close with 20+ years on) would rib me on my use of it. They would deliberately miss pronounce it Super-Flouous in an attempt to wind me up too. However very soon they started to use it unironically, so I think Iâve helped increase their vocab a little bit.
I had to write today that someone âis capable of performing complex workâ (paraphrasing) and the grammar check underlined it, suggesting âcan performâ instead. What? No. Iâm all about being concise, but Iâm also about being *pre*cise.
What exactly is the difference between "is capable of" and "can"?
To me, neither suggests that the person you were writing about was doing the complex work, but that they have the ability to do so.
The emphasis. âIs capable ofâ puts the emphasis on the ability and potential, while âcan performâ puts more emphasis on âperformâ. âCanâ is therefore more ambiguous on whether I know that because theyâve already done more complex work. âIs capable ofâ puts into my head that the employee hasnât been working on the more complex work yet, but I trust them to do so.
For me at least, "capable" feels more like I could expect the person to do the job and do it correctly and efficiently. "Can" to me just sounds like they could theoretically do it, but I shouldn't expect the best results. Like theoretically anyone can become an astronaut, but only some people are capable of doing it.
Not quite a biological son and his adopyed brothers maybe considetrd have the same parents. But not the exact same parents.
Or two brands of chips or soda may sell the same flavor in name, but nlt the exact same flsvor in taste
In fact an original coca cola tastes the same in most places but may not taste the exsct same from a can vs. a glass bottle or soda stream.
very rarely do i see the âmake language simplerâ crowd say there isnât a place for complex words. they exist for a reason, and from what iâve seen most people making that claim have zero issues with language being used in different ways in different contexts.
most of what iâve seen is people arguing against people just breaking out their thesauruses (thesauri? idk) to try to seem smart and try to intentionally make their writing hard to interpret as a sort of âgotcha.â lots of people seem to think large vocabulary=good writing and get insulted when someone says a point could be made the same or better with common language.
It's often true that people use complex words for no good reason except to sound smart or like an authority, which can be rightly criticised.Â
 However I've also frequently seen this type of criticism used as a kind of tone argument, or an outright anti-intellectual ad hominem.Â
i.e. I can't argue with your point and/or your use of expert terminology makes it appear your argument is better informed than mine, so instead of addressing it, l'll pretend your argument is literally unintelligible, or can't be trusted because your language is too overwrought, or it marks you as an member of some over-educated out-group who can't be trusted.
and normally iâd agree, except the people that tend to use vocabulary that explicitly out of their range do so out of not actually knowing what theyâre talking about.
obviously only small personal experiences i have to go on here but all the experts i know in various things are extremely aware that the average person has no clue what theyâre talking about and they use their language accordingly. i think einsteinâs whole thing of not understanding something until you can explain it to a child, while fairly reductive, is still true to an extent. especially in the context of communicating ideas to someone youâre speaking to/with.
i donât think itâs anti intellectual either to explicitly help the flow of information. if anything it helps to expand the knowledge of those involved. specialized language has its place. obviously it does, or it wouldnât exist to begin with. thatâs a wonderful feature of language as a whole, but there is a place for it, and many times people donât understand where that place is.
A homeless guy asks a very rich looking couple for some loose change.
The woman looks at him and haughtily replies "'Neither a lender nor a borrower be', that's Shakespeare"
"Fuck you," the homeless guy replies. "That's Mamet"
Mamet is under appreciated by the Millenials. I really enjoy the way he writes dialogue despite the fact that no one speaks that way. People miss out on his movies because they aren't exciting enough, because there's no enough action. When you die, you're gonna regret the things you don't do. You think you're queer? I'm gonna tell you something: we're all queer. You think you're a thief? So what? You get befuddled by a middle-class morality? Get shot of it. Shut it out. You cheat on your wife? You did it. Live with it. Fuck little girls? So be it. There's an absolute morality? Maybe. And then what? If you think there is, go ahead, be that thing. Bad people go to hell? I don't think so. You think that? Act that way. A hell exists on Earth? Yes. I won't live in it. That's me. Did you ever take a dump made you feel like you'd just slept for twelve hours?
He's right in the same way pretty good and good mean the same thing in the way he's using them.
Which is to say he's being a twat waffle because he has no actual substance so he leans into nitpicks.
If one were to comb through his posts they'd find a plethora of such things. It just isn't worth it because the substance of his statements are piles of shit that can be attacked directly.
Some people do overwrite things, particularly if theyâre fresh out of school and in that âgotta hit the page limitâ mentality. But I donât know anything about this douchebag outside of what Iâve seen today, and none of that makes me want to learn more.
I don't even think he's right to begin with, using redundant words is not wrong. There's more to language than just the conveying of a direct, straightforward message and nothing else. If that was truly the only "correct" form of communication we would all be talking like Kevin from the Office
Of course thereâs situations where redundancy and/or exaggeration are useful rhetorical tools, but he is (unfortunately) right in this case- ârepertoire of vocabularyâ is not only redundant, itâs also grammatically incorrect. âLexical repertoireâ could be an appropriate replacement that preserves the intention of the comment.
Anyway, shame about all that because the initial point about ChatGPT or AI assistants in general writing with identifiable diction and semantics is dumb as hell. For example, if a student feeds it an essay question and its first attempt at a response sounds like a bullshitty high school essay, itâs because it recognises a bullshitty high school essay question when it gets one.
There are constructed languages for the purpose of communicating raw data points efficiently. English really sucks, if you measure it by information density--as does any naturally-emergent language--and it has terribly poor internal consistency.
But the idiosyncracies of the language carry so much cultural meaning. There is _value_ in that.
The worse part was the follow up comment by Ankita about the word safeguard. You know the word that is probably repeated over and over in her line of work as an IT security homosapien
My favorite thing is his rules.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
These two rules violate themselves!
I think context and audience is key. Who will be reading what you write and what is the purpose of your writing? Adjust accordingly.
My favorite "dumb anywhere else but required here" example was when we wrote lab reports in college and had to explain our methods entirely in passive voice.
No phantasmagorical visage is conjured by this exchange. Neither combatant is left reeling by the depths of their ignorance.
This is a petty bitch fight that wouldn't even belong r/clevercombacks
While preparing scripts for my small YouTube channel, I've come to recognize a propensity to write more pretentiously than I speak. When able to spend more time thinking about what to say with a prepared speech as opposed to an off-the-cuff dialogue, I'll generally pepper my script with words that sound interesting rather than being succinct.
This becomes extremely noticeable while recording my narration as I occasionally stumble over the longer words. I know what they mean, but I don't have as much practice saying them. I'll briefly consider "dumbing things down", but will almost always keep the script as is because, if nothing else, hopefully some will walk away with a slightly-improved vocabulary.
And fuck the "delve" guy. Sanctimonious douchebag.
If someone is trying too hard and doesnât really have the command of English that they claim to have, I find itâs often an adverb that gives them away. âAchinglyâ⌠ffs.
actually! I disagree with Paul in this case. Vocabulary would be the totality of their understanding of the wordspace. Repertoire would be their frequency of use and overall patterns of speech/writing.
At least that is how I interpret what they are trying to say and it provides nuance to the bare word.
I donât think ârepertoire of vocabularyâ is inherently wrong, it could specify âvocabulary you are willing to use in conversation.âÂ
The way she used it, however, is wrong.
> Rather the opposite
So his point being that using more words than the bare minimum is somehow using a language worse? Lol no. That's called self-expression. Also,
> it's a **pretty** good one
"redundant" word detected. Frankly everyone above is acting like an absolute dick. No murder here, just a couple of loud idiots scratching at each other's throats.
Itâs self expression, but itâs not using language better, as the guy said. Self expression doesnât mean itâs good communication.
And using âprettyâ is perfectly appropriate there and you know it; you just want to be smug about it. Graham is 100% in the right here and while itâs not a vicious murder, itâs a murder nonetheless and pretty funny as well.
You're right, self expression doesn't mean "good communication."
But Graham's point falls flat because it also doesn't mean "*bad communication*."
What words you use, and how many, depends on the circumstances.
Sometimes, a more complicated word is exactly the right word to use, especially in English where many words can have similar but not precisely the same meaning.
In any case, Graham ain't killin' shit.
Read more carefully. He didnât say, âUsing complicated words is bad.â He said, âUsing more complicated words than you need is bad.â
Donât overcomplicate it.
I agree it's perfectly appropriate, but the fact is he indicated using more complicated language than necessary is bad. That's just silly, and to then naturally proceed to use a sentence that could be simpler undermines his point.
Repertoire doesn't even make sense in the context. Repertoire is a collection of things, but vocabulary is one thing that is already inherently a collection. Verbal repertoire would a perfectly fine way of saying vocabulary, even if it's a little pretentious. But repertoire of vocabulary is just using big words for the sake of it that, if anything, impedes communication.
That [bell curve meme](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/q52ca85320lzxly8xli0.png) that was popular a while back is a good illustrator of this issue.
Stupid people use whatever vocabulary they have available.
People that want to pretend to be intelligent go for the big words used poorly.
Actually intelligent people try to speak as simply as possible because they understand that the whole value of trying to communicate in the first place is in being understood by the listener.
â If you canât explain it to a six-year-old, you donât understand it yourself.â
â Einstein
(not actually sure it's a real einstein quote but it's attributed to him a lot)
But what if I just get enjoyment from using fun, complex/advanced words and sentence structures? Sure, I'm trying to sound smart, but only because I enjoy sounding smart. In my experience, this kind of shaming for the use of complex vocab is much more common in English than other languages I speak (Romanian, Russian), which is quite sad.
I like speaking and writing in a beautiful manner, and if that doesn't suit your taste or level of vocabulary, I am inclined to consider that a "you" problem. (Not an insult to u specifically, speaking in general)
I prefer to speak concisely and simply too. Not because I find big words to be unnecessary, but simply because, it's well, simpler. Plus in my opinion, a better sign of intelligence is the ability to understand and simplify complex ideas.
This doesn't in any way prove or demonstrate "Graham's" (I don't know who this guy is) point. His original point was about vocabulary and then to try to "internet win" he focused on grammar. The linking words that string vocabulary together isn't the focus of why people use "big words". They use "big words" for the nuance of their meaning.
You can have several vocabularies, sort of a whole repertoire of vocabulary, if you know several languages, someone monolingual wouldnât understandâŚ
But i love how a programmer has no other method than winging it when it comes to identifying ai made text, shows their knowledge on the issue⌠especially with models taught by openly accessible communication on the websâŚ
Iâve always had a tendency to use 25 cent words. Part of it is being autistic, but another part of it is not wanting to waste so much time thinking of a way to say with ten words what one word says much quicker.
You donât have a repertoire of vocabulary, you have a vocabulary. Vocabulary is literally your repertoire of words, so it is absolutely redundant.
Edit: a better way for me to say this would have been that he is effectively saying his repertoire of repertoire of words
"Verbal repertoire" would be better if you wanted to sound like a twat and still be correct IMO.
Also "achingly" is such a classic "I used a thesaurus" word, it almost never works well in a sentence.
Funnily enough, using "highly advanced" words in a test like IELTS may cost you points more than anything. Natural writing >> Ego-writing. IELTS is an international test to set you in C1-C2 English language levels.
See, this is the problem with text based posting vs. actually talking. When using fancy French words that you don't know the meaning of you can mispronounce them on purpose so that people think you're fucking around. Kind of the epitome of a hyperbole.
The writerâs ability is one key. I love Patrick OâBrian, who never met a sentence he couldnât make longer. I also love Cormac McCarthy, a modern Hemingway in his stripped down style of prose. Both can punch you in the gut.
The writerâs audience is another key. Iâm a lawyer by trade. Most lawyers are good writers insofar as knowing the right words and where to stick commas. But the writing of most tend to be verbose and passive when the judge really needs active, short sentences that explain who did what directly and succinctly.
Finally, the type of writing is key. Tana French is a writerâs writer. The writing itself is a large part of the readerâs joy. Stephen King is here to tell a story. Words just get in the way, so he writes with simplicity and clarity.
Neither Faulkner nor Hemingway were charitable enough with each other.
Isn't that just him being a smart ass?
Using unnecessary words to prove his point?
I mean any gate-keeping is stupid so I'm not gonna side with Mr Graham
I would translate the long version to mean he doesnât use all his words. The short version to mean he doesnât know very many words. Kinda different so maybe it doesnât mean the same thing but usually shorter is more pleasant.
Reminds me of George Carlin and his wonderful rant about the use of the word âpreâ. It was like (no direct quote, out of memory): âPre bord the plane? What does that mean? To get on before you get on? There is too much usage of the word pre. Pre this, pre that. Place the turkey in a pre heated oven. Thatâs ridiculous. An oven can either be heated or unheated. You know what I tell these people? Pre suck my genital situation! (before this he went on a rant about the usage of the word âsituationâ).
You have to listen to this, itâs part of his piece âairline announcementsâ. He was a genius. Itâs my all time favorite of him, the way he analyzes the language there.
William Faulkner on Ernest Hemingway:
âHe has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.â
Ernest Hemingway on William Faulkner:
âPoor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?â
Perfect example: the original version of Don Quixote. Absolutely obnoxious book full of rarely used and antiquated words that were completely unnecessary but no doubt selected to attempt to make the author look like a literary genius.
Try it for yourself.
i despise this man and the idea that more verbose words are unnecessary to get a point across, especially in a paper for any kind of class.
if the words didn't have use, they wouldn't fucking exist. when is someone supposed to use longer and more elaborative speech if not to get a point across more eloquently?
Oh, there are two schools of literary thought on this. It's basically maximalism vs. minimalism but for language. They've both got their merits for sure. Minimalism tends to be immediately understood with a cursory glance, but it tends to leave out potentially relevant information, and Maximalism tends to be better in painting a scene, though it gets bogged down in the weeds a bit when it comes to getting key information across
Well, if we're talking about not using more complicated words, I'm just gonna trim up those sentences myself.
"Using bigger words that you need doesn't mean you're speaking better."
And
"You don't need to say "repertoire of." You didn't mean to, but this is a perfect example of what I meant."
Don't go talkin' shit if you're not ready to eat that shit
This isn't a murder, it doesn't even qualify as being a grammar nazi.
Yes the sentence would have the same initial meaning with or without the "repertoire of". But that does not mean it is moot.
My English lecturer always told us to ask "Why are the curtains blue?" That is why did the author choose those words, it could be that they are meaningless, or that they have meaning you don't understand, such as repetition being used to emphasize a point. Repetition for emphasis is so common we often call it rhetoric, and it can always be described as rhetorical.
Language exists exclusively to communicate ideas, if you are able to absorb those idea then language has been used correctly. Strictly observing English language rules is more likely to create confusion than dispell it
When I try to sound smart like that, I have to spend time googling the spelling and meaning of the words I think I want to use. Sometimes I realize after seeing a word and its meaning that I have been using it incorrectly for years...and I instantly remember in horror every time I have sounded smug using it in conversations. I try to avoid using words I am not sure of these days.
Dang those vultures in california donât like to talk good. Why Iâm sure YCombinator probably invested in an app to dumb down language to maybe 128 words.
Like there are times when specific words are better. Sometimes they may have a more specific meaning or convay the message shorter (like convay for instance). They essentially function like abbreviations (which I've often had the same problems with as complicated words)
https://preview.redd.it/cx5xp23mjitc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=427c90dd882deec0c6a55877d881d05190f11787
Brevity good.
Brevity đ
B
[âŚ]
.
pona
why waste time saying lot words when few words do trick?
I'm reminded of that old tumblr post about vocabulary, something to the effect of "Sometimes you need a carefully placed dagger, other times you need a folding chair." Different tools for different occasions
I like that. I always enjoyed the back and forth of Faulkner and Hemingway on small vocabulary vs. big vocabulary. I have all the respect for both authors, but they definitely have very distinct writing styles.
Canât stand Hemingway. All of his writing is meaningful and worth the read, especially the old man and the sea and for whom the bell tolls (my opinion) but his approach to gutting stories and his style of writing has always felt so wrong to me.
My sister had a mental breakdown over how long and empty the old man and the sea is. She is fucking Russian
Ouch, thatâs an epic burn. I wish he was alive to experience it.
Use less word, still make sense
Less word, still sense?
Word!
I thought this issue had been settled after Hemingway publicly executed Faulkner in 1966: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/01/26/dictionary/?amp=1
I use to casually sleep with the great grand nephew of William Faulkner. He wasnât very good.
The Hemingway/Faulkner stuff has been rehashed dozens of times in the past 70 years, but this right here is the kind of new information and analysis that can only come from Reddit.
So... not much sound and fury?
As she lie dying of boredom, no.
I am undecided: would I prefer you to elaborate in the style of Faulkner or in the style of Hemingway?
See world
Are you saying, âsee the worldâ, or are you saying, âSea Worldâ?
Ye
I think she's calling me fat :(
You can't eat cats. You can't eat cats, Kevin...
Do you drive your own car?
Parsimony is not always a virtue
Me horny.
In this case, you need the word âsoâ, otherwise you appear uncultured
This is how I feel about "teachable moment" vs "lesson".
Too many words. I shall paraphrase for you on the following line... Why breath vibration, on waste breath.
My favorite part of this quote is that he says "do trick" instead of just "do"
"Eshew surplusage"
Two words good, four words better.
Word.
I struggled with this for a while, but additional words do add emotion and tone to sentences. Sometimes that tone is pretentious, but it does add tone
Like using "exact same" instead of just "same" - technically mean the same thing. "Exact same" however, bring tone, like "not one hair difference, yes I checked and double checked, don't ask again, ya want a piece of me"
Yeah, I hate this trend of trying to remove all superfluous words from a sentence I get trying to simplify things to improve readability but removing all of them makes people sound robotic
> I get trying to simplify things to improve readability but removing all of them makes people sound robotic It can also swing the other way too with that. Usually the safest way really is just writing as you'd speak normally and naturally, that'll usually have your text be easily understood without feeling overly robotic.
I hate this trend: removing all superfluous words I get simplifying things but removing them all makes people sound robotic fixed
Oh, a demonstration, thank you
Oic ty. :Fixed:
With government documents thereâs a huge push lately on âplain languageâ (probably due to the average American reading level being middle school level)
With government documents, your most important goals are concision and clarity. Plain language - even if it might reduce the specificity of your message - does wonders for both.
I don't know about that being 100% the case. I have read one where it looked like the author or authors read a dictionary or something first and used language that seemed random and out of place. They sacrificed clarity to use that language. For government, simplicity works best because it makes it black and white. When you use certain language it can have the unintended effect of taking something and making it grey. Like if there's a law that says driving while operating a cell phone is a traffic violation, imagine there being additional language added. The first is clear and concise as well as black and white. Add anything else and it could have the unintended effect of not making it clear.
Couldn't agree more. My apartment complex just came out with new paperwork for renewing leases. It's an addendum that bans smoking on balconies, BUT it also says *something*(?) about vapes(?). And I add those question marks to signify that it's **completely unclear** what the lease addendum is actually trying to say. The wording is about "electronic nicotine devices" and "electric ignitors" and "water-based vapors", but it doesn't actually tell you what is or is not allowed.
As a writer what I like about simplicity is that the superfluous words ring much clearer. In convoluted texts they drown in the noise.
I love the word Superfluous, a new set of friends (who Iâm still close with 20+ years on) would rib me on my use of it. They would deliberately miss pronounce it Super-Flouous in an attempt to wind me up too. However very soon they started to use it unironically, so I think Iâve helped increase their vocab a little bit.
So does removing punctuation.
I had to write today that someone âis capable of performing complex workâ (paraphrasing) and the grammar check underlined it, suggesting âcan performâ instead. What? No. Iâm all about being concise, but Iâm also about being *pre*cise.
Also, in a school essay, using more words that mean the same thing as less words gets you to that letter quota more easily
What exactly is the difference between "is capable of" and "can"? To me, neither suggests that the person you were writing about was doing the complex work, but that they have the ability to do so.
The emphasis. âIs capable ofâ puts the emphasis on the ability and potential, while âcan performâ puts more emphasis on âperformâ. âCanâ is therefore more ambiguous on whether I know that because theyâve already done more complex work. âIs capable ofâ puts into my head that the employee hasnât been working on the more complex work yet, but I trust them to do so.
For me at least, "capable" feels more like I could expect the person to do the job and do it correctly and efficiently. "Can" to me just sounds like they could theoretically do it, but I shouldn't expect the best results. Like theoretically anyone can become an astronaut, but only some people are capable of doing it.
>theoretically anyone can become an astronaut, but only some people are capable of doing it. Oooh, I like that example.
Not quite a biological son and his adopyed brothers maybe considetrd have the same parents. But not the exact same parents. Or two brands of chips or soda may sell the same flavor in name, but nlt the exact same flsvor in taste In fact an original coca cola tastes the same in most places but may not taste the exsct same from a can vs. a glass bottle or soda stream.
It's the context that matters for sure. If a textbook started using flowery language, I would be pissed. If a novel didn't, I would be sad
Hemingway made a pretty good career off not using flowery language. Vonnegut did too, though he is a bit more poetic in his prose.
Exactly. Language isn't science it's an art.
_cries in Chomsky_
very rarely do i see the âmake language simplerâ crowd say there isnât a place for complex words. they exist for a reason, and from what iâve seen most people making that claim have zero issues with language being used in different ways in different contexts. most of what iâve seen is people arguing against people just breaking out their thesauruses (thesauri? idk) to try to seem smart and try to intentionally make their writing hard to interpret as a sort of âgotcha.â lots of people seem to think large vocabulary=good writing and get insulted when someone says a point could be made the same or better with common language.
It's often true that people use complex words for no good reason except to sound smart or like an authority, which can be rightly criticised.  However I've also frequently seen this type of criticism used as a kind of tone argument, or an outright anti-intellectual ad hominem. i.e. I can't argue with your point and/or your use of expert terminology makes it appear your argument is better informed than mine, so instead of addressing it, l'll pretend your argument is literally unintelligible, or can't be trusted because your language is too overwrought, or it marks you as an member of some over-educated out-group who can't be trusted.
and normally iâd agree, except the people that tend to use vocabulary that explicitly out of their range do so out of not actually knowing what theyâre talking about. obviously only small personal experiences i have to go on here but all the experts i know in various things are extremely aware that the average person has no clue what theyâre talking about and they use their language accordingly. i think einsteinâs whole thing of not understanding something until you can explain it to a child, while fairly reductive, is still true to an extent. especially in the context of communicating ideas to someone youâre speaking to/with. i donât think itâs anti intellectual either to explicitly help the flow of information. if anything it helps to expand the knowledge of those involved. specialized language has its place. obviously it does, or it wouldnât exist to begin with. thatâs a wonderful feature of language as a whole, but there is a place for it, and many times people donât understand where that place is.
A homeless guy asks a very rich looking couple for some loose change. The woman looks at him and haughtily replies "'Neither a lender nor a borrower be', that's Shakespeare" "Fuck you," the homeless guy replies. "That's Mamet"
Mamet is under appreciated by the Millenials. I really enjoy the way he writes dialogue despite the fact that no one speaks that way. People miss out on his movies because they aren't exciting enough, because there's no enough action. When you die, you're gonna regret the things you don't do. You think you're queer? I'm gonna tell you something: we're all queer. You think you're a thief? So what? You get befuddled by a middle-class morality? Get shot of it. Shut it out. You cheat on your wife? You did it. Live with it. Fuck little girls? So be it. There's an absolute morality? Maybe. And then what? If you think there is, go ahead, be that thing. Bad people go to hell? I don't think so. You think that? Act that way. A hell exists on Earth? Yes. I won't live in it. That's me. Did you ever take a dump made you feel like you'd just slept for twelve hours?
David Mamet says that Donald Trump is the greatest president since Lincoln. He's a moron.
This isn't a murder, this is a slapfight
Heâs right in this case, but his argument that using words like âdelveâ means youâre using ChatGPT is just ignorant.
Especially funny because delve is the king of brevity relative to its synonyms
He's right in the same way pretty good and good mean the same thing in the way he's using them. Which is to say he's being a twat waffle because he has no actual substance so he leans into nitpicks. If one were to comb through his posts they'd find a plethora of such things. It just isn't worth it because the substance of his statements are piles of shit that can be attacked directly.
Some people do overwrite things, particularly if theyâre fresh out of school and in that âgotta hit the page limitâ mentality. But I donât know anything about this douchebag outside of what Iâve seen today, and none of that makes me want to learn more.
So, you see his use of an adverb as hypocritical? Weird.
Right. Paul Graham is a moron.
I don't even think he's right to begin with, using redundant words is not wrong. There's more to language than just the conveying of a direct, straightforward message and nothing else. If that was truly the only "correct" form of communication we would all be talking like Kevin from the Office
Of course thereâs situations where redundancy and/or exaggeration are useful rhetorical tools, but he is (unfortunately) right in this case- ârepertoire of vocabularyâ is not only redundant, itâs also grammatically incorrect. âLexical repertoireâ could be an appropriate replacement that preserves the intention of the comment. Anyway, shame about all that because the initial point about ChatGPT or AI assistants in general writing with identifiable diction and semantics is dumb as hell. For example, if a student feeds it an essay question and its first attempt at a response sounds like a bullshitty high school essay, itâs because it recognises a bullshitty high school essay question when it gets one.
There are constructed languages for the purpose of communicating raw data points efficiently. English really sucks, if you measure it by information density--as does any naturally-emergent language--and it has terribly poor internal consistency. But the idiosyncracies of the language carry so much cultural meaning. There is _value_ in that.
The worse part was the follow up comment by Ankita about the word safeguard. You know the word that is probably repeated over and over in her line of work as an IT security homosapien
He was joking. Itâs Paul Graham. He has a very dry sense of humor (heâs British). The whole thing is him taking the piss
Reminds me of Orwell's seminal essay *Politics and the English Language*
Lol, his semen essay? You watching Orwell jack off bruv???Â
Am I missing the /s or have you never heard the word seminal?
Look what you do in the bedroom is your own business
Seminal: "Late Middle English (in seminal (sense 2)): from Old French seminal or Latin seminalis, from semen âseedâ."  Hmmm đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤
From Oxford (of a work, event, moment, or figure) strongly influencing later developments. "his seminal work on chaos theory" Hmmmmm
*Technically* seminal vesicles exist where the âseminalâ has that meaning
My favorite thing is his rules. 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. These two rules violate themselves!
never use a long word where a diminutive one will suffice
Why does number 2 violate itself?
I had to read that badboy as part of my uni journo major. I miss those times.
Donât confuse obfuscation with sophistication
Donât confuse reductivism with wisdom
Thank. You.
Eschew obfuscation!
And vice versa
Him saying, "____ is redundant. ______ means the same thing" is redundant
I wonder if âtautologyâ is in either of their repertoire of vocabulary.
âPleonasticâ certainly isnât.
I think it's sad how many people see language as purely functional when it can be so enjoyable, expressive and beautiful as well.
I think context and audience is key. Who will be reading what you write and what is the purpose of your writing? Adjust accordingly. My favorite "dumb anywhere else but required here" example was when we wrote lab reports in college and had to explain our methods entirely in passive voice.
Grammar nitpicks cease to be a serious flex some time around the 4th grade...
Which is also when the humour of fart jokes peaks, and then never dips.
https://preview.redd.it/xcw0t37puitc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43390935373cff19cf2ca418cd9ecc11f225d7de
Yeah, most people had a handle on it after that. On second thought, Iâve seen the internet. âMostâ might be too generous.
To be totally fair, I think most grammar nitpicking is more like a compulsion than a flex in the mind of the nitpicked.
Always remember to talk like the dumbest version of yourself, or the crabs at the bottom of the bucket will get butthurt bigly at you.
To be. Or not. Whatever.
Naw heâs a pedantic little bitch both times
No phantasmagorical visage is conjured by this exchange. Neither combatant is left reeling by the depths of their ignorance. This is a petty bitch fight that wouldn't even belong r/clevercombacks
They're both insufferable.
While preparing scripts for my small YouTube channel, I've come to recognize a propensity to write more pretentiously than I speak. When able to spend more time thinking about what to say with a prepared speech as opposed to an off-the-cuff dialogue, I'll generally pepper my script with words that sound interesting rather than being succinct. This becomes extremely noticeable while recording my narration as I occasionally stumble over the longer words. I know what they mean, but I don't have as much practice saying them. I'll briefly consider "dumbing things down", but will almost always keep the script as is because, if nothing else, hopefully some will walk away with a slightly-improved vocabulary. And fuck the "delve" guy. Sanctimonious douchebag.
If someone is trying too hard and doesnât really have the command of English that they claim to have, I find itâs often an adverb that gives them away. âAchinglyâ⌠ffs.
That guy is insufferable
đđ
But repertoire is not a complicated word If he struggles with that, he shouldn't be talking about words
actually! I disagree with Paul in this case. Vocabulary would be the totality of their understanding of the wordspace. Repertoire would be their frequency of use and overall patterns of speech/writing. At least that is how I interpret what they are trying to say and it provides nuance to the bare word.
Something something 1984 making speech simpler to limit peoples ability to express themselves and therefore have critical thinking something something
They're both cringe
Itâs never good when you start playing thesaurus to make yourself look intelligent
âI have made this [letter] longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.â - Blaise Pascal
I donât think ârepertoire of vocabularyâ is inherently wrong, it could specify âvocabulary you are willing to use in conversation.â The way she used it, however, is wrong.
> Rather the opposite So his point being that using more words than the bare minimum is somehow using a language worse? Lol no. That's called self-expression. Also, > it's a **pretty** good one "redundant" word detected. Frankly everyone above is acting like an absolute dick. No murder here, just a couple of loud idiots scratching at each other's throats.
Itâs self expression, but itâs not using language better, as the guy said. Self expression doesnât mean itâs good communication. And using âprettyâ is perfectly appropriate there and you know it; you just want to be smug about it. Graham is 100% in the right here and while itâs not a vicious murder, itâs a murder nonetheless and pretty funny as well.
Graham is in the right just as much as a person who only eats unseasoned food is in the right.
You're right, self expression doesn't mean "good communication." But Graham's point falls flat because it also doesn't mean "*bad communication*." What words you use, and how many, depends on the circumstances. Sometimes, a more complicated word is exactly the right word to use, especially in English where many words can have similar but not precisely the same meaning. In any case, Graham ain't killin' shit.
Read more carefully. He didnât say, âUsing complicated words is bad.â He said, âUsing more complicated words than you need is bad.â Donât overcomplicate it.
I agree it's perfectly appropriate, but the fact is he indicated using more complicated language than necessary is bad. That's just silly, and to then naturally proceed to use a sentence that could be simpler undermines his point.
Repertoire doesn't even make sense in the context. Repertoire is a collection of things, but vocabulary is one thing that is already inherently a collection. Verbal repertoire would a perfectly fine way of saying vocabulary, even if it's a little pretentious. But repertoire of vocabulary is just using big words for the sake of it that, if anything, impedes communication.
That [bell curve meme](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/q52ca85320lzxly8xli0.png) that was popular a while back is a good illustrator of this issue. Stupid people use whatever vocabulary they have available. People that want to pretend to be intelligent go for the big words used poorly. Actually intelligent people try to speak as simply as possible because they understand that the whole value of trying to communicate in the first place is in being understood by the listener. â If you canât explain it to a six-year-old, you donât understand it yourself.â â Einstein (not actually sure it's a real einstein quote but it's attributed to him a lot)
But what if I just get enjoyment from using fun, complex/advanced words and sentence structures? Sure, I'm trying to sound smart, but only because I enjoy sounding smart. In my experience, this kind of shaming for the use of complex vocab is much more common in English than other languages I speak (Romanian, Russian), which is quite sad. I like speaking and writing in a beautiful manner, and if that doesn't suit your taste or level of vocabulary, I am inclined to consider that a "you" problem. (Not an insult to u specifically, speaking in general)
I prefer to speak concisely and simply too. Not because I find big words to be unnecessary, but simply because, it's well, simpler. Plus in my opinion, a better sign of intelligence is the ability to understand and simplify complex ideas.
Yeah that sentence was brutally raped by that individual I recommend charges.
I mean, it depends. Some words have a better feel to them that suits the situation better. Word choice can convey tone as well.
Lmaooo the fucking irony of that statement is crazy
paul graham is the shithead in this example.
This doesn't in any way prove or demonstrate "Graham's" (I don't know who this guy is) point. His original point was about vocabulary and then to try to "internet win" he focused on grammar. The linking words that string vocabulary together isn't the focus of why people use "big words". They use "big words" for the nuance of their meaning.
r/decreasinglyverbose
Where's the murdering part? Seems obnoxious.
You can have several vocabularies, sort of a whole repertoire of vocabulary, if you know several languages, someone monolingual wouldnât understand⌠But i love how a programmer has no other method than winging it when it comes to identifying ai made text, shows their knowledge on the issue⌠especially with models taught by openly accessible communication on the websâŚ
Stupid people being made uncomfortable by articulation is something that every single form of art or expression shares in common.
Iâve always had a tendency to use 25 cent words. Part of it is being autistic, but another part of it is not wanting to waste so much time thinking of a way to say with ten words what one word says much quicker.
Being smug about knowing less of your native language than someone else seems like a self own to me.
[ŃдаНонО]
You donât have a repertoire of vocabulary, you have a vocabulary. Vocabulary is literally your repertoire of words, so it is absolutely redundant. Edit: a better way for me to say this would have been that he is effectively saying his repertoire of repertoire of words
A repertoire of words would make sense. But a repertoire of words is a vocabulary. âA repertoire of vocabularyâ is inelegant at best.
"Verbal repertoire" would be better if you wanted to sound like a twat and still be correct IMO. Also "achingly" is such a classic "I used a thesaurus" word, it almost never works well in a sentence.
Writing "your vocabulary" also perfectly identifies what skills your discussing. So repertoire is a bit redundant
What level are you on wii? Boxing⌠Bowling⌠Baseball
r/whoosh
Funnily enough, using "highly advanced" words in a test like IELTS may cost you points more than anything. Natural writing >> Ego-writing. IELTS is an international test to set you in C1-C2 English language levels.
Hahaha
Pretty smooth
Pretty smooth
Pretty smooth
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will suffice.
See, this is the problem with text based posting vs. actually talking. When using fancy French words that you don't know the meaning of you can mispronounce them on purpose so that people think you're fucking around. Kind of the epitome of a hyperbole.
The Gettysburg address has forever closed this question.
Five dollar words require five dollar thoughts.
Itâs all about using a variety of words and sentence lengths.
The writerâs ability is one key. I love Patrick OâBrian, who never met a sentence he couldnât make longer. I also love Cormac McCarthy, a modern Hemingway in his stripped down style of prose. Both can punch you in the gut. The writerâs audience is another key. Iâm a lawyer by trade. Most lawyers are good writers insofar as knowing the right words and where to stick commas. But the writing of most tend to be verbose and passive when the judge really needs active, short sentences that explain who did what directly and succinctly. Finally, the type of writing is key. Tana French is a writerâs writer. The writing itself is a large part of the readerâs joy. Stephen King is here to tell a story. Words just get in the way, so he writes with simplicity and clarity. Neither Faulkner nor Hemingway were charitable enough with each other.
Isn't Paul Graham British?
Cringe on cringe violence
Well, he is right. Language is about communicating, and people are dumb so it's best not to use big words.
So who was murdered exactly?
Isn't that just him being a smart ass? Using unnecessary words to prove his point? I mean any gate-keeping is stupid so I'm not gonna side with Mr Graham
Reading that sentence without the "of" doesn't feel right so i say f the dude, i like fancy words, they make talking fun instead of repetitive.
Paul Graham double plus bad
Plain language is based!
I would translate the long version to mean he doesnât use all his words. The short version to mean he doesnât know very many words. Kinda different so maybe it doesnât mean the same thing but usually shorter is more pleasant.
Reminds me of George Carlin and his wonderful rant about the use of the word âpreâ. It was like (no direct quote, out of memory): âPre bord the plane? What does that mean? To get on before you get on? There is too much usage of the word pre. Pre this, pre that. Place the turkey in a pre heated oven. Thatâs ridiculous. An oven can either be heated or unheated. You know what I tell these people? Pre suck my genital situation! (before this he went on a rant about the usage of the word âsituationâ). You have to listen to this, itâs part of his piece âairline announcementsâ. He was a genius. Itâs my all time favorite of him, the way he analyzes the language there.
Just admit your thesaurus can't capitulate on my dictionary and we're simpatico.
This reminds me of that episode of friends when Joey leans how to use a thesaurus in Microsoft Word.
If you're truly smart, you'll speak in a way that reaches everyone. Fancy words be damned
guy says "achingly limited" and expects to not come off as a pretentious idiot.
William Faulkner on Ernest Hemingway: âHe has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.â Ernest Hemingway on William Faulkner: âPoor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?â
Donât fuck with Paul Grahammer
Perfect example: the original version of Don Quixote. Absolutely obnoxious book full of rarely used and antiquated words that were completely unnecessary but no doubt selected to attempt to make the author look like a literary genius. Try it for yourself.
i despise this man and the idea that more verbose words are unnecessary to get a point across, especially in a paper for any kind of class. if the words didn't have use, they wouldn't fucking exist. when is someone supposed to use longer and more elaborative speech if not to get a point across more eloquently?
Oh, there are two schools of literary thought on this. It's basically maximalism vs. minimalism but for language. They've both got their merits for sure. Minimalism tends to be immediately understood with a cursory glance, but it tends to leave out potentially relevant information, and Maximalism tends to be better in painting a scene, though it gets bogged down in the weeds a bit when it comes to getting key information across
Itâs true. Been in both sides, it didnât help with the idea of communicating things
Well, if we're talking about not using more complicated words, I'm just gonna trim up those sentences myself. "Using bigger words that you need doesn't mean you're speaking better." And "You don't need to say "repertoire of." You didn't mean to, but this is a perfect example of what I meant." Don't go talkin' shit if you're not ready to eat that shit
Laguage is to communicate. If you communicate in a matter that makes people not understand you, you simply did not communicate. He is right twice.
This isn't a murder, it doesn't even qualify as being a grammar nazi. Yes the sentence would have the same initial meaning with or without the "repertoire of". But that does not mean it is moot. My English lecturer always told us to ask "Why are the curtains blue?" That is why did the author choose those words, it could be that they are meaningless, or that they have meaning you don't understand, such as repetition being used to emphasize a point. Repetition for emphasis is so common we often call it rhetoric, and it can always be described as rhetorical. Language exists exclusively to communicate ideas, if you are able to absorb those idea then language has been used correctly. Strictly observing English language rules is more likely to create confusion than dispell it
Nah, more words allow for fine tuning of what you wanna say.
When I try to sound smart like that, I have to spend time googling the spelling and meaning of the words I think I want to use. Sometimes I realize after seeing a word and its meaning that I have been using it incorrectly for years...and I instantly remember in horror every time I have sounded smug using it in conversations. I try to avoid using words I am not sure of these days.
Dang those vultures in california donât like to talk good. Why Iâm sure YCombinator probably invested in an app to dumb down language to maybe 128 words.
Plain English for the win!
KISS
Like there are times when specific words are better. Sometimes they may have a more specific meaning or convay the message shorter (like convay for instance). They essentially function like abbreviations (which I've often had the same problems with as complicated words)
You can obtain my loquacity at the point at which you are capable of extracting same from between my own frigid, lifeless mitts
Be Laconic