Is English's large vocabulary unhealthy for the language rather than healthy? Very often native speakers don't even understand the meanings of words, and it seems some authors choose obscure synonyms "just because", when there isn't even any difference in the meaning.
Is English's large vocabulary detrimental
Its the truth about English speakers not understanding the meaning of words and English elites using obscure (the more un-Anglo-Saxon the better) synonyms just because.
No, it's not unhealthy to have a large vocabulary at your disposal. It's like having a wide array of choices in any other part of life; it's up to you whether you choose to take advantage of it.
Don't all languages have a large vocabulary, so the average person knows only a subset of them?
<<No, it's not unhealthy to have a large vocabulary at your disposal. It's like having a wide array of choices in any other part of life; it's up to you whether you choose to take advantage of it. >>
That's exactly the problem: you have to have it at your disposal, first. That takes a lot of time, even for native speakers. (I'm not a native speaker, so for me, it's much more a problem.)
Having a wide array of choices can be confusing sometimes, in language as in life, you simply don't know which one to take. You maybe aren't aware the connotations a certain choice has. So, if you pick them randomly, you might take the wrong one because of the unexpected connotations.
If you want to be understood, you need to take the common choices, otherwise you seem to your listeners to be a rubbish-talking moron at best.
That's exactly the problem: you have to have it at your disposal, first. That takes a lot of time, even for native speakers. (I'm not a native speaker, so for me, it's much more a problem.)
Having a wide array of choices can be confusing sometimes, in language as in life, you simply don't know which one to take. You maybe aren't aware the connotations a certain choice has. So, if you pick them randomly, you might take the wrong one because of the unexpected connotations.
If you want to be understood, you need to take the common choices, otherwise you seem to your listeners to be a rubbish-talking moron at best.
<<Having a wide array of choices can be confusing sometimes, in language as in life, you simply don't know which one to take. You maybe aren't aware the connotations a certain choice has. So, if you pick them randomly, you might take the wrong one because of the unexpected connotations. >>
Agreed, some words in English don't even have a nuance in meaning, but are brooked only for their "air of superiority" (i.e. the other person is unaware of what the meaning of the words is).
Such is the fall with words like 'conviviality', 'cupidity (rimes with "stupidity")', 'ebullient', 'osculate', 'perfidious', and 'saxicolous (sounds like "Saxon". Makes em think the're superior to Saxons, who obviously should be living under rocks)', and 'sesquipedalian (of course.)'.
Agreed, some words in English don't even have a nuance in meaning, but are brooked only for their "air of superiority" (i.e. the other person is unaware of what the meaning of the words is).
Such is the fall with words like 'conviviality', 'cupidity (rimes with "stupidity")', 'ebullient', 'osculate', 'perfidious', and 'saxicolous (sounds like "Saxon". Makes em think the're superior to Saxons, who obviously should be living under rocks)', and 'sesquipedalian (of course.)'.
<<Such is the fall with words like 'conviviality', 'cupidity (rimes with "stupidity")', 'ebullient', 'osculate', 'perfidious', and 'saxicolous (sounds like "Saxon". Makes em think the're superior to Saxons, who obviously should be living under rocks)', and 'sesquipedalian (of course.)'. >>
Exactly. (Though I don't think "perfidious" fits with those other - I've encountered it on numerous occasions)
When one uses such words, it is as though they are intentionally sending their readers to a dictionary. They know that no one will understand, and this makes them feel superior. But anyone can get a dictionary or thesaurus and grab an obscure word (there are usually several on every page of a big dictionary), and stick it in their writing, and even the most educated people won't understand, or will have to guess at meaning from the context. Each person's array of these kinds of words is only a small proportion of all of them, and there will be only tiny areas of overlap between any two people, and either of them will be able to choose some words that the other won't know.
Exactly. (Though I don't think "perfidious" fits with those other - I've encountered it on numerous occasions)
When one uses such words, it is as though they are intentionally sending their readers to a dictionary. They know that no one will understand, and this makes them feel superior. But anyone can get a dictionary or thesaurus and grab an obscure word (there are usually several on every page of a big dictionary), and stick it in their writing, and even the most educated people won't understand, or will have to guess at meaning from the context. Each person's array of these kinds of words is only a small proportion of all of them, and there will be only tiny areas of overlap between any two people, and either of them will be able to choose some words that the other won't know.
should the English language get rid of the Latinates and saxonize completely its vocabulary? Icelandic could be taken as an example, it's a pure Germanic language with no latin words.
<<should the English language get rid of the Latinates and saxonize completely its vocabulary? >>
It wouldn't hurt.
<<Icelandic could be taken as an example, it's a pure Germanic language with no latin words. >>
Icelandic is not 100% pure. There are a few foreign, and Latinate words (eg. Names of Months, nón ("midafternoon"), aphotækar ("pharmacist"), ferma & konfirmera ("confirm"), etc. albeit, there are very few of them.
It wouldn't hurt.
<<Icelandic could be taken as an example, it's a pure Germanic language with no latin words. >>
Icelandic is not 100% pure. There are a few foreign, and Latinate words (eg. Names of Months, nón ("midafternoon"), aphotækar ("pharmacist"), ferma & konfirmera ("confirm"), etc. albeit, there are very few of them.
I like "ebullient". It's a bit like "coruscate"; very rarely is it the right word, but when it is there's nothing better. The immense vocabulary of English must be daunting to the person learning the language, but it does offer native speakers incredible nuance in speech, due to connotations.
<<but it does offer native speakers incredible nuance in speech, due to connotations. >>
But who knows what the connotations are? If most people don't even know what 'osculate' means in the first place, how can they be expected to know what connotations it has?
But who knows what the connotations are? If most people don't even know what 'osculate' means in the first place, how can they be expected to know what connotations it has?
Osculate means kiss. I didn't even have to look it up; I read it in a short story a long time ago (I even remember which one!). That's how most native speakers learn all the extra vocabulary they may not use in day to day conversation -- or may never even utter aloud -- we've encountered it while reading. We know a lot more vocabulary than we may actually use. But there it is, if we want it. And if we wish to make the effort, we can learn more -- or not, as we choose. That's what's great about having such a variety available. It's entirely up to you if you want to learn it.
As for nuances, it's mostly the more common words that have subtle shifts in meaning. Osculate is such an uncommon word that all it means is kiss. It's not like a buss or a smack, where you get a distinct mental picture of what kind of kiss it is. Osculate conjures up no distinct mental images, as that's generally how it is for the real buck-fifty words; they lose much of their visceral impact by being used so rarely.
Sure, pulchritudinous means beautiful, but only in a very straightforward way, because most people will have to think back to remember what it means at all (I remember learning that word, too -- on a vocabulary list in middle school.) It doesn't really have any particular nuance to it. However, other synonyms for beautiful, like pretty, lovely, attractive, gorgeous, stunning, shapely, etc. DO all have slightly different nuances -- because they are the common words that we use all the time to convey various shades of meaning.
Nuance isn't something rarified and available only to the academics. It's everyday stuff, so it appears mainly in everyday words. The words that are hardly ever used, by contrast, are usually the ones that seem colorless and stilted to us.
As for nuances, it's mostly the more common words that have subtle shifts in meaning. Osculate is such an uncommon word that all it means is kiss. It's not like a buss or a smack, where you get a distinct mental picture of what kind of kiss it is. Osculate conjures up no distinct mental images, as that's generally how it is for the real buck-fifty words; they lose much of their visceral impact by being used so rarely.
Sure, pulchritudinous means beautiful, but only in a very straightforward way, because most people will have to think back to remember what it means at all (I remember learning that word, too -- on a vocabulary list in middle school.) It doesn't really have any particular nuance to it. However, other synonyms for beautiful, like pretty, lovely, attractive, gorgeous, stunning, shapely, etc. DO all have slightly different nuances -- because they are the common words that we use all the time to convey various shades of meaning.
Nuance isn't something rarified and available only to the academics. It's everyday stuff, so it appears mainly in everyday words. The words that are hardly ever used, by contrast, are usually the ones that seem colorless and stilted to us.
There is one nuance in using "osculate" or "pulchritudinous". That the author is a pretentious c... Instead of using it, if you're looking for the neutrality, why not just use the dictionary definition instead?
pulchritudinous - possessing great physical beauty
osculate - touch with the lips or press the lips against someone's mouth or other body part as an expression of love, greeting
Same effect, without the "I'm a c..." marker.
pulchritudinous - possessing great physical beauty
osculate - touch with the lips or press the lips against someone's mouth or other body part as an expression of love, greeting
Same effect, without the "I'm a c..." marker.
This leads to the question ''What defines a dictionary of English?''
There may be several kinds of dictionaries, some for pupils, some for high school students, some for university students of the various kinds of subjects of study, some especially for special professions, arts, etc., but not necessarily for students, dictionaries for learners of English, fun dictionaries ...
What are the rules a word is included in such a dictionary?
You can always take a word form Latin, Romance, Germanic, every other language of interest, even conlangs, anglicize it an you've created a new word and put that into a dictionary. Then it's an English word, because it goes according to the English word building rules. (Of course, you can do that for every other language respectively.) In that sense, every dictionary is unlimited. Does that words bear any meaning, are they unambiguous? Can another English (native) speaker deduce it's meaning?
But this is not a practical definition of dictionary.
It's better to go for a narrow definition of what's an English word. The rest are just loan words or fun or geek terms or whatever, even if an English native speaker (with Latin and Greek background knowledge) may be able to deduce their meanings or remember them from a word list memorized in school.
There may be several kinds of dictionaries, some for pupils, some for high school students, some for university students of the various kinds of subjects of study, some especially for special professions, arts, etc., but not necessarily for students, dictionaries for learners of English, fun dictionaries ...
What are the rules a word is included in such a dictionary?
You can always take a word form Latin, Romance, Germanic, every other language of interest, even conlangs, anglicize it an you've created a new word and put that into a dictionary. Then it's an English word, because it goes according to the English word building rules. (Of course, you can do that for every other language respectively.) In that sense, every dictionary is unlimited. Does that words bear any meaning, are they unambiguous? Can another English (native) speaker deduce it's meaning?
But this is not a practical definition of dictionary.
It's better to go for a narrow definition of what's an English word. The rest are just loan words or fun or geek terms or whatever, even if an English native speaker (with Latin and Greek background knowledge) may be able to deduce their meanings or remember them from a word list memorized in school.
<Such is the fall with words like 'conviviality', 'cupidity (rimes with "stupidity")', 'ebullient', 'osculate', 'perfidious', and 'saxicolous' >
"Such is the case", you mean, maybe.
Anyway, what's the problem? All useful. If you know maths, you know osculate. Probably botanists know saxicolous. Perfidious Albion. MPs' cupidity. Ebullient BoJo. We're...convivial vivisectionists.
Just words. Don't get agitated, people.
"Such is the case", you mean, maybe.
Anyway, what's the problem? All useful. If you know maths, you know osculate. Probably botanists know saxicolous. Perfidious Albion. MPs' cupidity. Ebullient BoJo. We're...convivial vivisectionists.
Just words. Don't get agitated, people.