The Demise of English? (A Call to Arms!)

[HardScienceFan]

agreed
same over here
the vocabulary is shrinking,the use of the language is abominable,
even by educated people........

[Woodfoot]

This may sound dumb but i remember the first time i read The swiss family Robinson, each unknown word was described with perfection.
Your Onager reminded me of it, i am sure there is one in the story, well my version there was which would have been about 30 years ago
The point i am making is that it depends on the writer and the type of story being written.
Some writers assume that the readers are intelligent enough to deduce whilst some just like to elaborate.
If you find it hard going then go back to education or find another author!

[j. d. worthington]

To be honest, I have little patience with such a complaint to begin with. After all, the vast majority of popular media (whether television, music, film, or books) is already geared toward such a low common denominator that to complain about what is a bit above that level is to deny those who want a little something meatier from their reading than (as has been noted above) pabulum. Strained peas are fine, but Poppa likes a little steak now and again, too.....

[Lith]

I know what a virgule is, but it's very, very unlikely I'll ever use the word in conversation. That shouldn't be from using it in written fiction, if it's the exact word I need to use.

Actually, I'm not finding that in my Webster's. It only redirects me to "diagonal" or something. Rummaging around in my memory banks, that's French for comma, isn't it?

My complaint about writers using large vocabularies isn't in the world of fiction, but when I was in school, they made us read some very turgid material, lesson of which is that architects may be able to build buildings, and may have large vocabularies, but they still aren't good writers. It's interesting to note that the most influential ones were typically the easier ones to read.

Anyway, one more reason to outlaw television...

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Lith

Actually, I'm not finding that in my Webster's. It only redirects me to "diagonal" or something. Rummaging around in my memory banks, that's French for comma, isn't it?

Close. It's a stroke or slash, /. See here. We used to say "stroke" here in the UK, but the advent of the personal computer, and then the WWW, has seen "slash" become more common.

[scalem X]

In my opinion, it depends. I agree with any word used, if only it doesn't carry the plot. If you say: 'The trebuchet propelled a boulder into the air.' There might be less commotion than when you say: 'Anna had always liked trebuchets.' (and then go on, not explaining what a trebuchet is (I know it's not a very good example)).
Now in the other cases:
From time to time I have to look up a word while reading. It does bother me. I curse myself for not knowing the word. But at least it teaches me something.

When I write in English, I don't think I'll be having problems with people not understanding me, but in Dutch they do seem to bother. But I still think I'm right, the conversation went like this:
-Reader: you use too much difficult and bombastic words
-Me: *rereads text* really?
-Reader: yeah, totally!
-Me: can you give me an example from my text?
-Reader: *gives some examples*
-Me: but those are normal words *mutterIhopethisisn'tyourmothertongueforyoursakemu tter*

Like Ace said: shouldn't you be happy if a book learns you something, rather than annoyed?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by iansales

Close. It's a stroke or slash, /. See here. We used to say "stroke" here in the UK, but the advent of the personal computer, and then the WWW, has seen "slash" become more common.

So a virgule is a solidus.

I only mention this becase a couple of decades ago, the name solidus was used in a document I read that described the MML (Man Machine Language, which should confirm just how long ago this was) to be used on telecommunications equipment. There was also the "reverse solidus", now known as the back-slash. (At least the number of syllables is going down: solidus - virgule - stroke/slash. )

[Leisha]

I like books where, as Giovanna says, the author puts the unfamiliar word in a context that is easy to understand. I'm not against books that push the boundaries of my vocabulary, but I have difficulty remembering words and their meanings once I've read them (never used to have that trouble). So, for people who have memory problems, learning new words can present a problem: I read and "learn" a word, but then, even just a day later, it escapes me, no matter how many times I tried to memorise it. (I've already forgotten your two examples, Teresa, except that one means a small cart. )

Which is frustrating for someone who used to have a great memory. Books that have many unfamiliar words written without context are infuriating because, upon every re-read, I have to look up the definitions again. I'd like to believe that it's the author's job to widen a reader's vocabulary, but it's no good throwing words around if it interrupts the flow of the story. Good writers will show us what these words mean, so we can understand how they fit in.

Sorry if my views annoy some people.

[Teresa Edgerton]

But that's just it, Leisha, very often when people complain about words they don't understand, the context gives a pretty good idea of what the author is talking about.

And it isn't about memorizing unfamiliar words ... it's about surrounding ourselves with influences that make those words familiar, and then passing them on.


Anyway, like scalem, I'm often astounded by the words that other people consider "too obscure." With some of the words I use in my writing, I know they're a bit archaic, and I put them there because I feel they add to the atmosphere, or because they are the only words that say exactly what I want to say (there is no modern equivalent), or simply because I think they are beautiful. But some of the words that other people find difficult ... they're just part of my ordinary vocabulary, the words I think when I'm holding an internal dialogue with myself. I feel like I've known them all my life.

(My children -- who are all in their twenties and thirties -- sometimes complain because I "use too many long words." The last time I remember this happening, the word in question was gaudy. When I pointed out that it only had two syllables, my daughter gave me an evil look.)

Yet I am sure that the people who don't understand everything I say know many words that I don't. If we trim everything down to include only the words we have in common, a part of the language will die.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

If we trim everything down to include only the words we have in common, a part of the language will die.

Funnily enough, though, the OED just keeps on growing....

Keep at it, Teresa - if only half your readers bother to look up a word they don't immediately recognise, at least that's more that know it now than before!

[HardScienceFan]

i thought the thesaurus became extinct in the Upper Cretaceous

[Leisha]

But that's just it, Leisha, very often when people complain about words they don't understand, the context gives a pretty good idea of what the author is talking about.

Ah, when I see words I'm unfamiliar with, a good majority of the time they seem to have been thrown in there as an adjective, which doesn't help me visualise what that adjective is trying to tell me. However, I'm not complaining about authors who do use "big words", and use them effectively. I love those authors.

And perhaps "memorise" was the wrong word. But in the modern age, the average young person (and I mean a typical youth here, the type who hates reading, sadly) doesn't come across grand words like inscrutable, interminable, and guady in everyday life (one of my sisters looked at me strange when I said "synergy" to her the other day - and she’s older than me). And by reading a word in a book I'm not familiarising myself with it, and nor will I have the chance, because by the time I've read the book the word has escaped my mind.

I wish this didn't happen, but it does.


However, as I writer, I agree that some words feel appropriate, in which case you'd be daft not to use them.

I hope I’m making sense. I keep making loads of errors tonight, so forgive me if my point is not clear. But I do agree with most of what you say.

[Lith]

Heh, I tripped someone up on macabre last week. There was a pause, and then she asked me if that was like morbid...

But I've never seen the first two examples. I guess I need to read more goat-centered fiction.

The only instance I can think of where a fiction author tee'd me off with big words was China Mieville's Iron Council, but that might have been partly due to other reasons, as well as having to reach for the dictionary five times on one particular page. I kept getting the feeling he wasn't using the words quite right. However, with most authors I've known, that hasn't been the case, and the general meaning is clear enough.

[Leisha]

I'm guilty of using "interminable" in my book (not published). But I'm positive it's easy enough to understand, given the context it's in...


Five times in one page does seem ridiculous, though. Although I'm very tempted to find that book now, just so I can see it for myself.

[scalem X]

Interesting that you bring up the example of morbid and macabre, Lith. I'd never use morbid, but I would use macabre (I understand both, but still). It's weird, because in Dutch you have them both ('macaber' and 'morbide'), so it's not language deficiency. Just personal preference I guess?