[HN Gopher] Using the wrong dictionary (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
Using the wrong dictionary (2014)
Author : cosmojg
Score : 214 points
Date : 2021-12-30 06:33 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jsomers.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (jsomers.net)
| [deleted]
| metabagel wrote:
| If you're an American, you should be using the excellent American
| Heritage Dictionary.
| parentheses wrote:
| the devil's dictionary is a solid turn the other way, sparse
| though it may be
| evancoop wrote:
| This would suggest that we are not simply using the wrong
| dictionaries, but in fact, learning to deploy language inaptly
| from grade school onward. Students are examined on definitional
| understanding rather than the "hues" to which the author alludes.
| Command of language would necessarily include details of how one
| word is subtly different from another.
|
| How should our system of teaching language be altered?
| Vrondi wrote:
| TL:DR: by expecting/allowing less, we offer less, and get less
| from our students.
|
| The first place to stop would be to stop lowering our
| expectations of all children. The more the drive standards down
| to the lowest common denominator in order to pass the greatest
| number of students each year, the more the lower the bar that
| the brightest are given an opportunity to achieve. It also
| lowers the level of language students of all abilities are
| exposed to, and reduces what they can achieve. I strongly
| believe in remedial teaching as needed for diverse subjects,
| but the USA educational systems often target offerings to the
| lower end of the masses, and do a disservice to the
| academically gifted and academically challenged in the process.
| Read the writing of Mark Twain, Frances Hodgson Burnett, and
| other authors of what were considered children's (elementary
| school age) books 100-150 years ago. Notice the rich and
| colorful language in them. Notice that everyone thought that
| 8-9 year old children should be reading them. Then notice that
| while we have some exceptions in modern publishing, the general
| language standard has been simplified greatly on average in
| children's books. If you aren't exposed to colorful and complex
| writing, you'll never get better at understanding it.
|
| In the past, many schools also employed more time with the
| teacher reading novels years above their grade level to
| children, then verbally discussing it in chunks. This prepares
| them for later reading them on their own and writing about what
| they've read, as verbal language comes more easily to most. If
| you read a chapter a day of the first Harry Potter book to a 5
| year-old who really can't read it on their own yet, then talk
| about what happened in each chapter as you go, and ask
| them/allow them to describe why characters did certain things,
| you help increase their own language ability in both
| comprehension and expression.
|
| Some public schools now frown on this, as they dogmatically
| stick to the official list of reading levels. Some teachers are
| simply too overwhelmed by the sheer number of students they
| must deal with, the other social needs of students they must
| deal with, and the rest of the modern mess.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| The system of school is to create a passable drone to do as
| they are told.
|
| To find color in the world you have find it yourself it can't
| be taught.
| Apreche wrote:
| I loaded up the suggested Webster's 1913 dictionary on my ereader
| to test it out. I picked two random words on the current page of
| the book I'm reading. Neither "condolences" or "constraint" were
| in that dictionary. Quality of definitions doesn't help if you
| don't have the quantity because the dictionary is over 100 years
| old.
|
| I also agree with other commenters regarding the OED.
| mkwarman wrote:
| I just checked the copy of Websters Revised Unabridged
| Dictionary (1913) I loaded into a free app from the URL
| included in the article. "Condole", "condoled", "condolement",
| "condolence", "condoler", "condoling", "constrain",
| "constrainable", "constrained", "constrainedly", "constrainer",
| "constraining", "constraint", and "constraintive" are all
| present when searching for the root of both of those words. You
| can also search here:
|
| https://www.websters1913.com/words/Condolence
|
| https://www.websters1913.com/words/Constraint
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Linguee is also great because it gives many examples of words in
| the context where they are used. (Context which isn't necessarily
| high quality though.)
|
| And of course if you want to go deeper into a word, Wikipedia
| usually has its etymology... though I guess that for English that
| old Webster might be better ?
| Asraelite wrote:
| I've found Wiktionary to be far more objective than other
| dictionaries about its etymology. If there are multiple
| competing theories, it will say as much, instead of simply
| presenting one chosen possibility without qualifying it.
| asxd wrote:
| > Notice, too, how much less certain the Webster definition seems
| about itself, even though it's more complete -- as if to remind
| you that the word came first, that the word isn't defined by its
| definition here
|
| I like this. A dictionary with an opinion, rather than a
| definition.
| terinjokes wrote:
| The dictionary I use goes with:
|
| * arctic: Designating the celestial north pole, and the Pole Star
| that marks its position in the sky.
|
| * sport: Diversion, entertainment, fun.
|
| * magic: The use of ritual activities or observances which are
| intended to influence the course of events or to manipulate the
| natural world, usually involving the use of an occult or secret
| body of knowledge;
|
| * example: A person's conduct, practice, etc., regarded as an
| object of imitation or as an influence on the behaviour of others
|
| While not as expressive as Webster's, I was surprised by their
| color compared to the facsimiles given of other modern
| dictionaries.
| kangalioo wrote:
| Those definitions are pretty but incomplete, right? It totally
| excludes the physical meaning of sport, and it forgets that an
| "example" doesn't need to come from a person
| terinjokes wrote:
| For all of these, this is just the first definition. They all
| had several more, that got more specific.
| gjm11 wrote:
| It seems a pity for a definition of "arctic" not to mention the
| connection with bears. (Greek _arktos_ means "bear". The
| Arctic is the north because the constellation called the Great
| Bear, or Ursa Major, is in the north, and one of its stars is
| pretty much right over the north pole.)
|
| Just to give some idea of what a more comprehensive dictionary
| might offer, here's the definition of "sport" from the Chambers
| Dictionary (1991; I really must buy a newer edition...), one of
| the most thorough single-volume UK-English dictionaries, for
| "sport":
|
| sport, v.i. to play (arch.): to frolic (also v.t. with _it_ ;
| arch.): to make merry: to practise field diversions: to trifle:
| to deviate from the normal. -- v.t. to amuse (obs.): to wear,
| use, exhibit, set up, publicly or ostentatiously: to wager: to
| squander (rare): to force open (obs). -- n. recreation:
| pastime: dalliance, amorous behaviour: play: a game, esp. one
| involving bodily exercise: mirth: jest: contemptuous mirth: a
| plaything (esp. fig.): a laughing-stock: field diversion:
| success or gratification in shooting, fishing, or the like: a
| sportsman: a person of sportsmanlike character, a good fellow:
| an animal or plant that varies singularly and spontaneously
| from the normal type: (in pl.) a meeting for races and the
| like.
|
| Here's the Shorter Oxford (two volumes, a bit less concerned
| than _Chambers_ with cramming in as many words and senses as
| possible, hence less terse; more concerned with showing the
| historical development of the language, hence things like M18
| meaning "first found in the middle 18th century"):
|
| 1 a Diversion, entertainment, fun; an activity providing this,
| a pastime. LME. b Lovemaking, esp. sexual intercourse, viewed
| as a game. M16-L18. c A theatrical performance; a show, a play.
| Only in L16. 2 a A matter providing amusement or entertainment;
| a joke. arch. LME. b Jesting, joking; merriment. arch. L16. 3 a
| An activity involving physical exertion and skill, esp. one in
| which an individual competes against another or others to
| achieve the best performance. Later also, participation in such
| activities; such activities collectively. E16. b In pl. A
| meeting consisting of various athletic and occas. other
| sporting contests. See also _sports day_ below. L16. c The
| recreation of hunting, shooting, or fishing. M17. 4 a A thing
| tossed about by natural forces as if a plaything. M17. b An
| object of amusement, diversion, jesting, etc.; a laughing-
| stock, a plaything. L17. 5 BIOLOGY. A plant (or part of a
| plant), animal, etc., which exhibits some abnormal or striking
| variation from the parent stock or type, esp. in form or
| colour; a spontaneous mutation; a new variety produced in this
| way. (Earliest in _sport of nature_ below.) Cf SPORT verb 7b.
| M17. 6 a A gambler, a gamester. US. b A person who follows or
| participates in (a) sport; a sportsman or sportswoman. L19. c A
| toung man; a fellow. US. L19. d. A fair-minded, geneous person;
| a lively, sociable person. See also _good sport_ below. colloq.
| L19. e Used as a familiar form of address, esp. between males.
| Chielfly Austral. & NZ. E20. 7 The sports section of a
| newspaper. Freq. in pl. (treated as sing.) colloq. E20. 8 In
| pl. (treated as sing.) A sports car; a sports model of a car.
| colloq. M20.
|
| Followed by several citations illustrating the various
| meanings, and then a lengthy set of phrases such as "in sport",
| "the sport of kings", "sports bar". Those are all just for the
| _noun_ ; there is then a section of similar length for the use
| of "sport" as a verb.
|
| The full OED's entry is much longer still, mostly because it
| provides many citations for each meaning, from the oldest its
| editors have been able to find up to (where possible) something
| like the present day. E.g., the OED's version of the
| hunting/shooting/fishing meaning (3c in the SOED) is "Success,
| pleasure, or recreation derived from or afforded by an
| activity, originally and esp. hunting, shooting, or fishing.
| Frequently with adjectives expressing the level of success."
| and it has 17 citations ranging from approx 1450 to 1998.
|
| [EDITED to fix a minor error.]
| terinjokes wrote:
| Sorry if I wasn't clear in my original post. This was just
| looking at the first definition of the words, much like the
| examples given in the article. As you noted, the full OED
| definition is much longer, and the bear connection is
| mentioned in the etymology section.
| allochthon wrote:
| I like much of what the author is getting at. Not all
| dictionaries are not equivalent, and you can really see the
| difference when you start paying attention. But his prose is
| overwrought and distracting.
|
| The best acting doesn't draw attention to itself as acting; you
| just see the character. The best music, in my view, doesn't draw
| attention to itself as music; you're just immersed in it. The
| best English prose doesn't draw attention to itself as writing;
| you're just immersed in a description of something, or a story
| about something, or an account of something. It's understated to
| the point of being easy to underestimate.
| Youden wrote:
| The dictionaries the author starts with seem to be the concise
| dictionaries which are intended to be that way. I don't blame him
| since the full dictionaries (e.g. OED) are hidden behind paywalls
| but the full dictionaries are really, really good. The entry for
| "flash" in the OED for example contains literary examples of the
| kind the author seems to want, like "red the gaze that flashes
| desolation". The OED also includes several senses of the word and
| its etymology.
|
| The OED costs $100/year for US residents or PS100/year for
| everyone else [0] but you can often get access through a library.
| The San Francisco Public Library has a proxy you can use if you
| have a library card there [1].
|
| [0]: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/oxford-english-
| dicti...
|
| [1]: http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org
| shever73 wrote:
| I'm happy to see this comment here. The OED is a wonderful
| resource and, as mentioned, can often be accessed via a library
| membership. I just need to enter my Dublin library card number
| and I get full, free access.
|
| Another great writing resource is etymonline.com, which gives a
| bare definition along with a full etymology drawn from
| different sources.
| kragen wrote:
| Also I scanned the OED and put it on the Internet Archive so
| everyone can access it for free and build on it. The whole
| thing is in the public domain now, at least in the US, though
| of course not the second and third editions.
| janandonly wrote:
| That must have been a gargantuan task..
| stavros wrote:
| This is a bit off topic, but why do I need a subscription to
| access a dictionary? How often should I be expecting the
| language to change? Not to mention that the UX got much worse
| since the 90s, when I had a program on my desktop to instantly
| look up words.
| Veen wrote:
| The OED is a historical dictionary that records over 1000
| years of the language's development. It aims to be a complete
| dictionary of the English language from its origins to today.
| It frequently adds new entries and new examples of older
| words. I don't know that PS100 per year is a reasonable
| price, but it's not an inexpensive endeavour to run; it
| employs many lexicographers.
|
| Most people don't need the full OED and should probably just
| buy one of the smaller Oxford dictionaries. The Concise
| Oxford English Dictionary is an excellent single-volume
| dictionary of modern English based on the Oxford Dictionary
| of English (which is not the same as the Oxford English
| Dictionary. The OED is a historical dictionary, while the ODE
| is a dictionary of contemporary English).
| stavros wrote:
| Ah I see, I didn't know the two were distinct, thank you.
| pm215 wrote:
| Language changes slowly but constantly: words evolve new
| sentences, new phrases are coined, others become less
| current. The OED is so big that the only practical way to
| revise it is continuously, a few entries at a time. Every
| quarter there are hundreds of changes:
| https://public.oed.com/updates/ . As with software, it turns
| out that financing a product that needs continuous updates is
| more effectively done with a subscription than by selling
| products as one-off transactions. (FWIW the print version of
| the 2nd edition OED is 20 volumes and is listed on the OED
| site at 860 quid.)
| Veen wrote:
| One of my favourite possessions is the Compact Oxford English
| Dictionary, which is the full 20 volume OED microprinted into 2
| large volumes. It comes in a case with a magnifying glass. It's
| too unwieldy for everyday use, but it's a pleasure to browse
| through it.
| pm215 wrote:
| If you're in the UK then many public libraries have
| subscriptions to the OED which include "remote access". This
| means you can log in from anywhere just by putting your library
| card number into the OED's login form. So check that before
| signing up for a hundred quid a year :-)
| Vrondi wrote:
| This is also true for many colleges & universities in the
| USA. If you have any university affiliation, check with your
| university library system first.
| OJFord wrote:
| I look up 'ordinary' words like those (as opposed to those I
| don't know the meaning of beforehand) all the time, probably more
| than unknown words. But not for 'Draft #4' reasons, I look out of
| curiosity for etymology, older meanings, how common an
| alternative pronunciation might be, etc.
| yawnxyz wrote:
| I've been reading Brene Brown's "Atlas of the Heart" - a book
| that tries to wrangle the definition of emotion words. It's a
| sort of dictionary crossed with Brene's own stories and her
| research. Really good read for those into language and psycholgy.
| messo wrote:
| I just read a book from 1854 covering a dry agricultural topic.
| To my suprise, the language was more poetic and rich than most
| modern prose! It was a delight to read and never felt contrived
| or difficult to follow. Extending our personal vocabulary can
| spice up a text ... just make sure it doesn't get too spicy.
| notimetorelax wrote:
| I'm a foreigner - what does "a diversion of the filed" mean?
| chernevik wrote:
| "Field" can mean those participating in an event, says the
| runners in a race -- "he outpaced the field"
| taylorius wrote:
| A diversion - something that is separate from the main
| activity, something done for amusement's sake.
|
| The field - outdoors, countryside, perhaps an actual field,
| though not necessarily.
| tankenmate wrote:
| I think in this context "the field" means in the sense
| similar to "the field of study", i.e. the encompassing
| boundaries of an endeavour. So in this case long distance
| canoeing is an off the beaten track distraction from the
| sport of canoeing (or in the contrapositive, an off the
| beaten track distraction from long distance travel). The
| phrase is enticing because it could be interpreted either
| way; and still have largely the same meaning.
| taylorius wrote:
| I was thinking in the context of "field sports", such as
| hunting shooting etc.
|
| As you say though, both are plausible, and that ambiguity
| is part of what makes the phrase so interesting.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| In this sense any diversion would have a "field" so saying
| "diversion of the field" would be redundant. As a
| definition of sport, it is much more likely that "field"
| means the outdoors (there probably were not many indoor
| sports at that time).
|
| However, this shows why this dictionary is not actually
| good for modern, practical use, IMO.
| anonnyj wrote:
| *field
|
| Something like "Something you do to to pass time/have fun,
| played on a field."
| wiml wrote:
| I think it's "diversion" in the (unusual) sense of "an
| enjoyable activity", and "field" in the sense of "an open
| outdoor area with grass or crops". Which is a kid of ...
| poetic? ... definition of a "sport" (e.g. football, a leisure
| activity you do on a grassy square).
| kragen wrote:
| I don't think that's an unusual sense of "diversion" 150
| years ago. It's the main sense of the cognate in Spanish or
| French.
| mdoms wrote:
| I'm a native English speaker. I looked at that sentence for a
| solid minute and couldn't figure it out.
| I_complete_me wrote:
| I think substituting the term with "fieldsport" would lose
| nothing.
| donkarma wrote:
| It made instant sense to me, I read it as something you
| wouldn't usually do in a field of study, unexpected.
| thewakalix wrote:
| A diversion is an activity done for fun or enjoyment, rather
| than for money or similar. A sports field is the area in which
| the sport is carried out, and has the connotation of "outside"
| from its other meaning as a meadow.
|
| A definition of "sport" as "an activity undertaken for
| enjoyment, in a specific environment, commonly outside" is
| pretty decent in my view.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| I find Urban Dictionary are to be pretty useful!
| Asraelite wrote:
| Unironically I think Urban Dictionary is great.
|
| There's a very high barrier to entry for slang terms when it
| comes to being added to mainstream dictionaries, which means
| I'm often left confused about the meaning of a word I've
| encountered, unable to find it in these dictionaries. If it
| weren't for Urban Dictionary I would never learn many of their
| meanings.
| logifail wrote:
| I was given a copy of Chambers Dictionary[0] by my sister for my
| 18th birthday, I still have it. According to wiki, it is "widely
| used by British crossword solvers and setters, and by Scrabble
| players[..] It contains many more dialectal, archaic,
| unconventional and eccentric words than its rivals, and is noted
| for its occasional wryly humorous definitions".
|
| I've always loved its definition of "eclair":
|
| > "a cake, long in shape but short in duration"
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_Dictionary
| crtasm wrote:
| Anyone know of a good offline version for linux? (besides just
| searching within an ebook copy)
| interfixus wrote:
| There is one linked in the article. Stardict format; any
| reasonable dictionary software will read it.
| crtasm wrote:
| That appears to be a 2007 copy of Websters? I'm looking for
| Chambers. Seems that there isn't an ebook of it, just phone
| apps.
|
| Discovered that their 13th edition accidently left out ~500
| words:
|
| https://chambers.co.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/09/Chambers-M...
| Jabbles wrote:
| Does your modern version have that definition still?
| eatmygodetia wrote:
| Yes. They removed a lot of the fun definitions in the
| nineties, but by popular demamd they were brought back!
| VladimirGolovin wrote:
| A good eclair is certainly short in duration.
| serverlessmom wrote:
| Wow! That's certainly a good one. A couple old favorites of
| mine are: mullet - a hairstyle that is short at the front, long
| at the back, and ridiculous all around, and regift - to give
| (an unwanted present) as a gift to another person, in a process
| which is likely to continue almost indefinitely.
| nichijou wrote:
| Except that I totally didn't get what "eclair" is.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| In which case you're probably looking for an encyclopedia,
| rather than a dictionary.
| zamadatix wrote:
| You'd go to an encyclopedia to find out the history,
| origins, detailed variations, regional specialities and so
| on about the topic of eclairs not to understand what an
| eclair itself is. A dictionary should perfectly well
| describe a thing without needing to pull out an
| encyclopedia and if you look at a updated/modern version of
| the Chambers Dictionary you'll get just such a definition:
| "A long cake of choux pastry with a cream filling and
| chocolate or coffee icing."
| wombatmobile wrote:
| The word you are looking for is 'patisserie'.
| rvba wrote:
| A very nice trend is that medical terms are named in a more
| descriptive way - "shoulder joint" is much easier to understand
| than some latin term or something named after a doctor/patient.
|
| "Wilson's disease" is much harder to understand than "excess
| copper buildup disease"...
| itwrangler wrote:
| Thanks for posting this :-)
| kieckerjan wrote:
| Reminds me of Mark Forsyth's quip in his delightful book _The
| Elements of Eloquence_: "To write for mere utility is as foolish
| as to dress for mere utility"
| teddyh wrote:
| Utility has an esthetic all of its own.
| nanna wrote:
| And here's how to integrate Webster's into Emacs :)
|
| http://mbork.pl/2017-01-14_I'm_now_using_the_right_dictionar...
|
| Actually there's more than one way, of course. See the comments
| here:
|
| https://irreal.org/blog/?p=6546
| dang wrote:
| Past related threads:
|
| _You're probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19763435 - April 2019 (87
| comments)
|
| _Using the wrong dictionary_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7772557 - May 2014 (138
| comments)
| suction wrote:
| I couldn't disagree more with this piece, especially the idea of
| a "draft #4" where you go through what you've written and replace
| all "pedestrian" words with less common ones from the dictionary.
| I know these writers, and how they "write" - it's painful to read
| and oozes pretentiousness. You can always tell when someone tries
| to fake having a wider vocabulary.
| DarylZero wrote:
| > You can always tell when someone tries to fake having a wider
| vocabulary.
|
| Doubt it. I know I've been accused of using a thesaurus when I
| was just compulsively and thoughtlessly posting stream of
| consciousness on social media.
|
| I think people who think such things just have small
| vocabularies. They can't imagine others have any fluency with
| words they don't know.
| jacobolus wrote:
| Before folks vote up this facile, misguided criticism, at least
| read the referenced essay https://jsomers.net/mcphee-draft-
| no-4.pdf
|
| The whole point of published writing is to put enough effort
| into one-to-many communication to be clear, concise, and
| expressive. Finding the _right_ words (not the fanciest or
| rarest words) helps writing to better transmit intention from
| author to reader.
|
| Careful revision and editing should be celebrated as expressing
| appreciation for readers, not sneered at as inauthentic.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| > Before folks vote up this facile
|
| Word not found.
|
| Did you mean: shallow?
| boffinAudio wrote:
| facile | 'fas^Il, 'fasIl | adjective 1 ignoring the true
| complexities of an issue; superficial: facile
| generalizations. * (of a person) having a superficial or
| simplistic knowledge or approach: a man of facile and
| shallow intellect. 2 (especially of success in sport)
| easily achieved; effortless: a facile seven-lengths
| victory.
|
| I guess someone needs a better dictionary (this was sourced
| from Dictionary.app on MacOS, btw...)
| avgcorrection wrote:
| > [tl;dr: shallow]
|
| Exactly.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > facile | 'fas^Il, 'fasIl | adjective 1 ignoring the
| true complexities of an issue; superficial: facile
| generalizations. * (of a person) having a superficial or
| simplistic knowledge or approach: a man of facile and
| shallow intellect. 2 (especially of success in sport)
| easily achieved; effortless: a facile seven-lengths
| victory.
|
| >
|
| > I guess someone needs a better dictionary (this was
| sourced from Dictionary.app on MacOS, btw...)
|
| I think you are reinforcing the authors point. That
| definition most certainly does not present a mental image
| of prose in which the best word is 'facile'. Instead it
| makes me think that 'facile' is almost indistinguishable
| from 'ignorant'.
|
| Compare that definition to the one from Websters
| 1913-1928 definition: Fac"ile (?) a.
| [L. facilis, prop., capable of being done or made, hence,
| facile, easy, fr. facere to make, do: cf. F. facile. Srr
| Fact, and cf. Faculty.] 1. Easy to be done or performed:
| not difficult; performable or attainable with little
| labor. *Order . . . will render the
| work facile and delightful.* Evelyn.
| 2. Easy to be surmounted or removed; easily conquerable;
| readily mastered. *The facile gates of
| hell too slightly barred.* Milton.
| 3. Easy of access or converse; mild; courteous; not
| haughty, austere, or distant; affable; complaisant.
| *I meant she should be courteous, facile, sweet.*
| B. Jonson. 4. Easily persuaded to good or
| bad; yielding; ductile to a fault; pliant; flexible.
| *Since Adam, and his facile consort Eve,
| Lost Paradise, deceived by me.* Milton.
| *This is treating Burns like a child, a person of so
| facile a disposition as not to be trusted without a
| keeper on the king's highway.* Prof.
| Wilson. 5. Ready; quick; expert; as, he is
| facile in expedients; he wields a facile pen.
|
| Which definition more accurately represents the word as
| it is used in prose? 'Facile' and 'delightful' go
| together quite well. 'Ignorant' and 'delightful' do not.
| boffinAudio wrote:
| Indeed, this demonstrates that words are note code -
| their meaning changes with use over time, unlike
| software.
|
| We can certainly compare definitions and arrive at our
| own conclusions about the effectiveness of communication
| their usage imbues - but an omitted definition? We cannot
| argue over words that are not defined, whether by
| omission in literature (dictionaries) or by virtue of the
| reader being, to put it blunt, simply too lazy to check
| another dictionary ..
| avgcorrection wrote:
| See also Spanish "facil" which means "easy".
|
| Some apparently less common senses that Merriam Webster
| gave me:
|
| - archaic : mild or pleasing in manner or disposition
|
| - ready, fluent
|
| - poised, assured
|
| So what's a "facile piece of writing"? Something that was
| easy to write? Maybe _too_ easy to write? Or easy to
| read? (Or too easy to read...)
|
| Well, something being easy is definitely an insult in the
| minds of pretentious people.
| goblin89 wrote:
| Words are lossy.
|
| Thinking ambiguity can be removed if you only use common
| words is misguided. You will get writing that is bland
| and lacks nuance and you may limit the palette of what
| you can convey, but even then without a fixed exhaustive
| definition for every word there is ambiguity in shades of
| meaning.
|
| For example, what exactly does "common" mean above?
| "bland"? (writing is not a food, is it?) what precisely
| does it mean for writing to have "nuance"? and so on.
|
| It depends on overall style, but I generally enjoy
| writing that thoughtfully sprinkles around less common or
| even invented (DFW) words. It keeps me on my toes--human
| memory is not perfect, if I haven't had to consult the
| dictionary in a while then my vocabulary must be
| degrading.
| Quekid5 wrote:
| It obviously has a shared history with the Spanish word
| (comes from Latin. The negative connotation in the phrase
| "facile piece of writing" would be "over-easy", as in:
| "over-simplified". ("Too easy" doesn't quite have the
| right connotation.)
|
| When used derogatorily it also carries an implication
| that something is 'pretending to be easy' while not
| actually being so. It might also tie in with Facsimile,
| but that might be a false etymology on my part. Which I
| guess ties this back to pretentiousness, but not quite in
| the way you meant to :).
| shadowofneptune wrote:
| I am not concerned ... with offering any facile solution
| for so complex a problem. --T. S. Eliot
|
| Miss Adebayo visited and said something about grief,
| something nice-sounding and facile: Grief was the
| celebration of love, those who could feel real grief were
| lucky to have loved. --Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Half of
| a Yellow Sun
|
| "Joker" takes off from a facile premise and descends into
| incoherent political trolling as a result of scattershot
| plotting and antics--its director, Todd Phillips, appears
| not to see what he's doing. --The New York Times
|
| Unless you read a lot into definition 4 of Webster's, the
| app dictionary, or even the word 'shallow,' gives a
| result much more accurate to how I've seen the word
| actually used. With more than a century and a half since
| the dictionary was first published, seems like plenty of
| time for a shift in meaning to happen.
| kragen wrote:
| Those quotes give a much better sense of the word's
| current usage than either dictionary definition, I think.
| Myself, I find this usage of "facile" grating, preferring
| Webster's definition, but that's because I spend a lot of
| time reading Spanish, French, and books from before
| 01900; Eliot's quote can be plausibly interpreted either
| way, perhaps showing how the shift began.
| jacobolus wrote:
| Facile in modern English means "too easy", like a
| shortcut that leads to the wrong destination.
|
| This meaning has diverged from French/Spanish, where the
| word still just means "easy".
| howLongHowLong wrote:
| It's interesting how the modern usage hasn't crossed over
| into it's noun form, "facility," which, though
| essentially the same word, has overtones of competence
| rather than laziness or ignorance. (Or maybe no one uses
| that word, and it's sense hasn't changed bc I only read
| it in books?)
| Vindicis wrote:
| I'll just toss into the fray the OED entry for Facile:
|
| facile, a.
|
| ('faesaIl, -Il)
|
| Forms: 5-6 facyl(l)e, 6-8 facil(l, 5- facile.
|
| [a. Fr. facile, ad. L. facil-is easy to do; also of
| persons, easy of access, courteous, easy to deal with,
| pliant, f. facere to do.]
|
| 1.1 That can be accomplished with little effort; = easy
| 11. Now with somewhat disparaging sense. +Formerly used
| as predicate with inf. phrase as subject, and in phrase
| facile and easy. 1483 Caxton AEsop 97 It
| is facyle to scape out of the handes of the blynd.
| 1538 Starkey England i. iv. 133 As the one ys ful of
| hardnes and dyffyculty..so the other ys facyle and esy.
| 1577 Holinshed Scot. Chron. I. 449/1 They..thought it
| easie and facile to be concluded. 1641 Prynne Antip.
| Epist. 4, I gathered with no facil labour, the most of
| those Materials. 1676 Worlidge Cyder (1691) 236 The
| more facile making of the linnen manufacture. a 1703
| Beveridge Serm. xci. Wks. 1729 II. 126 All other acts of
| piety will be facile and easy to him. 1856 Froude
| Hist. Eng. I. 357 Having won, as he supposed, his facile
| victory. 1876 C. M. Davies Unorth. Lond. 250 The work
| appears facile.
|
| 2.2 Of a course of action, a method: Presenting few
| difficulties. 1559 W. Cuningham Cosmogr.
| Glasse 109 The waye is very facile, and without great
| laboure. 1607 Topsell Four-f. Beasts (1673) 152 Yet
| have they found out this facile and ready course. 1639
| Fuller Holy War iii. ii. (1647) 112 His Holinesse hath a
| facile and cheap way both to gratifie and engage
| ambitious spirits. a 1718 Penn Tracts Wks. 1726 I. 703
| It will render the Magistrates Province more facil.
| 1807 Vancouver Agric. Devon (1813) 463 Baiting..in the
| manner performed on the continent, is an infinitely more
| economical and facile mode of administering refreshment
| to a jaded animal. 1860 Tyndall Glac. ii. ix. 271 The
| facile modes of measurement which we now employ.
|
| +b.2.b Easy to understand or to make use of. Obs.
| 1531 Elyot Gov. i. v, As touchynge grammere there is at
| this day better introductions and more facile, than euer
| before were made. 1579 Digges Stratiot. ii. vii. 47 We
| have by the former Rules produced this playne and facile
| Aequation. 1633 Sc. Acts Chas. I, c. 34 The short and
| facile grammer. 1644 Milton Educ. 100 Those poets
| which are now counted most hard, will be both facil and
| pleasant. 1676 Worlidge Cyder (1691) 103 To make this
| curious Machine more useful and facile. 1786 T.
| Woolston Let. in Fenning Yng. Algebraists' Comp. (1787)
| p. v, It having been long considered as a most facile
| Introduction to Algebra. 1797 A. M. Bennett Beggar
| Girl (1813) II. 24 The harp and the piano-forte were
| equally facile to Rosa.
|
| 3.3 Moving without effort, unconstrained; flowing,
| running, or working freely; fluent, ready.
| 1605 B. Jonson Volpone iii. ii, This author..has so
| modern and facile a vein Fitting the time and catching
| the court~ear. 1657 Austen Fruit Trees ii. 204 One man
| excells..in a facile and ready expression. 1796 Ld.
| Sheffield in Ld. Auckland's Corr. (1862) III. 371
| Your..happy facile expression in writing. 1820 L. Hunt
| Indicator No. 31 (1822) I. 246 On the facile wings of our
| sympathy. 1865 Swinburne Atalanta 1641 Deaths..with
| facile feet avenged. 1873 Symonds Grk. Poets v. 144
| Stesichorus was one of those facile and abundant natures
| who excel in many branches of art. 1886 Stubbs Med. &
| Mod. Hist. iii. 57 To the facile pen of an Oxford man we
| owe the production of the most popular manual of our
| history.
|
| 4.4 Of persons, dispositions, speech, etc.: +a.4.a Easy
| of access or converse, affable, courteous (obs.). b.4.b
| Characterized by ease of behaviour. c
| 1590 Greene Fr. Bacon i. iii, Facile and debonair in all
| his deeds. 1638 Featly Transubt. 219 A young Gentleman
| of a facile and affable disposition. 1782 F. Burney
| Diary 12 Aug., My father is all himself--gay, facile, and
| sweet. 1844 Disraeli Coningsby iii. v, Manners, though
| facile, sufficiently finished. 1876 Holland Sev. Oaks
| x. 134 He was positive, facile, amiable.
|
| c.4.c Not harsh or severe, gentle, lenient, mild. Const.
| to; also to with inf. 1541 Elyot Image
| Gov. 88 Your proper nature is mylde, facile, gentyll, and
| wytty. 1631 Weever Anc. Fun. Mon. 116 She was of a
| more facile and better inclined disposition. 1655
| Fuller Ch. Hist. v. v. SS7 Q. Elizabeth..A Princesse most
| facil to forgive injuries. 1670 Milton Hist. Eng. Wks.
| 1738 II. 80 However he were facil to his Son, and
| seditious Nobles..yet his Queen he treated not the less
| honourably. 1851 Sir F. Palgrave Norm. & Eng. I. 297
| The guilty sons were too happy to avail themselves of his
| facile tenderness.
|
| 5.5 Easily led or wrought upon; flexible, pliant;
| compliant, yielding. 1511 Colet Serm.
| Conf. & Ref. in Phenix (1708) II. 8 Those canons..that do
| learn you..not to be too facile in admitting into holy
| orders. 1556 Lauder Tractate 251 Be nocht ouir facill
| for to trow Quhill that ye try the mater throw. c 1610
| Sir J. Melvil Mem. (1683) 103 Facil Princes..promote them
| [Flatterers] above faithful Friends. 1648 J. Beaumont
| Psyche xvii. cxcvii, Alas, That facil Hearts should to
| themselves be foes. 1671 Milton P.R. i. 51 Adam and
| his facil consort Eve Lost Paradise. 1805 Foster Ess.
| ii. vi. 192 The tame security of facile friendly
| coincidence.
|
| b.5.b in Scots Law. 'Possessing that softness of
| disposition that he is liable to be easily wrought upon
| by others' (Jam.). 1887 Grierson
| Dickson's Tract. Evidence SS35 Proof that the granter of
| a deed was naturally weak and facile..has been held to
| reflect the burden of proving that [etc.].
|
| c.5.c transf. Of things: Easily moved, yielding, 'easily
| surmountable; easily conquerable' (J.).
| 1667 Milton P.L. iv. 967 Henceforth not to scorne The
| facil gates of hell too slightly barrd.
|
| +6.6 quasi-adv. Easily; without difficulty. Obs.
| c 1523 Wolsey in Fiddes Life ii. (1726) 114 His
| countries, whose parts non of the Lords or Commons would
| soe facile inclyne unto. 1548 Hall Chron. (1809) 316
| Whatsoever were purposed to hym they..might easely se and
| facile heare the same. 1560 Rolland Crt. Venus ii. 80
| The Muses..mair facill your mater will consaif, Fra time
| that thay heir your enarratiue.
| [deleted]
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Poor writers use a dictionary in the way you describe. Using a
| dictionary does not make you a poor writer. I was satisfied
| with the example in the article that this wasn't just a hack to
| purvey overly mellifluous verbiage.
| function_seven wrote:
| It's not about using less common words. It's about finding
| variants that better capture the essence what you're trying to
| say, or add life to the prose.
|
| > _He explains that for him, draft #4 is the draft after the
| painstaking labor of creation is done, when all that's left is
| to punch up the language, to replace shopworn words and phrases
| with stuff that sings._
|
| None of that suggests the writer is looking to use obscure
| words. I know the writers you're talking about as well; they're
| just doing it badly, or mimicking what they _think_ a good
| writer does.
|
| Compare:
|
| _Todd opened the curtains and the room got brighter_
|
| with:
|
| _Todd parted the curtains and sunlight streamed into the room_
|
| Both describe the same thing, and both use ordinary words. But
| the second one paints a better image in your mind. Of the
| curtains revealing the window behind them, of the way the room
| gained illumination, etc. It's livelier.
|
| Or, let's say your marketing team proposes a new slogan: "Our
| intention is to make sure you're satisfied". A good writer
| takes a crack at it and comes up with "We aim to please".
|
| First one sounds corporate and boring, the second one is
| friendly and informal. But both use words that everyday people
| would understand.
|
| If you've just finished a draft of a few thousand words, a lot
| of dull phrasing will have made it into the writing. While
| writing those drafts you were focused on the narrative or plot
| or whatever. Draft #4 is when you comb through it and look for
| crusty phrases, replacing them with "stuff that sings". It
| needn't be garrulous ;)
| Retric wrote:
| The issue is authors who spend to much time with a thesaurus
| rarely actually understand the words their choosing. It's the
| difference between an artist painting using charcoal and a
| child using markers. The second is more colorful, yet crude.
|
| Further writing is about the goal, describing a hallucination
| using stilted language for example can actually make things
| more vivid. _Todd opened the curtains and the room got
| brighter._ Was the room illuminated by the sun, moon,
| streetlights, or did the walls suddenly glow? We don't know
| as things have been abstracted to show effects rather than a
| clear causal chain. The important bit is to be making
| stylistic choices not simply imitating competence and hoping
| nobody noticed the difference.
| function_seven wrote:
| Yeah those authors exist. I don't think McPhee or the OP
| are among them.
|
| A thesaurus is a tool like any other. A good writer knows
| how to wield it, poor ones will just cut themselves.
|
| The "Draft #4" methodology doesn't in itself suggest that
| the writer is good or bad.
| froh wrote:
| That's the key difference between technical writing and
| literature:
|
| Technical writing needs to be simple, to the point, short
| sentences, same word for the same concept, always.
|
| Literature has a priviledge of poetic entertainment. It may
| indulge on linguistic expression and the readers will vote with
| their feet what they love and what they hate.
| Timwi wrote:
| I am so glad to have read your comment. You took the words
| right out of my mouth. I was very confused by the phrase
| "diversion of the field" as both "diversion" and "field" can
| have so many diverse and incompatible meanings.
|
| The author asks: "Who decided that the American public couldn't
| handle 'a soft and fitful luster'?". I'm gonna go out on a limb
| and say the correct answer to that question is "research".
| Linguists and child psychologists have studied the effect of
| dictionary definitions on learning and realized that simpler
| definitions are more useful to school students than the
| author's dream of "stuff that sings", and that a clear and
| succinct definition like "a quality that evokes pity or
| sadness" is more comprehensible, and hence more useful, than
| whatever Webster's blurb is trying to express.
|
| It should be ironic that the author would use "fustian" as his
| prime example -- a word which, prior to reading this article, I
| had never encountered before, but after seeing the
| paraphrasing, "It's using fancy language where fancy language
| isn't called for", I now know exactly how to describe this
| piece.
| lelanthran wrote:
| The goal of the modern dictionary is quite different to the
| goal of Websters original dictionary.
|
| The modern (english) dictionary aims to serve as a list of
| definitions and meanings of words for someone who requires a
| list of definitions of words. This means that the
| explanations and example usages have to be short and simple
| because the person using it may not have a full command of
| the language.
|
| The original Websters dictionary, as far as I can tell,
| serves to document the language _for existing native-
| language_ users. This lets it be more expressive in the words
| definition (because you can use more expressive language),
| with the expectation that the user of the dictionary already
| has some sort of mastery with the language.
| netmare wrote:
| I'd say that modern dictionaries are made for readers,
| while older ones were for writers.
| taylorius wrote:
| Perhaps modern dictionaries' definitions are more accessible
| to someone with a child's grasp of English, as you say.
| However JSomers makes an excellent point, that Webster's
| definitions are more accurate, as well as being examples of
| great writing.
|
| One solution - Basic and Advanced dictionaries?
| boffinAudio wrote:
| One is not a child forever, especially if words old and new
| carry the years.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| barbecue_sauce wrote:
| I was advised in AP English to "eschew obfuscation."
| [deleted]
| boffinAudio wrote:
| > You can always tell when someone tries to fake having a wider
| vocabulary
|
| Is it really 'fake' if they're actually using the words
| appropriately in whatever prose they are creating?
|
| At what point do you address your own hubris when you encounter
| a word you don't use, or even understand, and rapidly make the
| conclusion that the writer is pretentious?
|
| Surely the assessment of anothers pretentiousness happens
| _after_ examining ones own hubris on the subject matter, or
| perhaps to put it another way - lack of the sophistication
| observed in others ... ?
| Veen wrote:
| The goal is not to replace common words with less common ones,
| but imprecise words with more precise ones, especially those
| with connotations and implications that more closely fit the
| surrounding writing.
|
| There's a place for plain, utilitarian writing, but your
| complaint is a bit like saying Vermeer is a pretentious wanker
| because he paid more attention to colour and symbolism than the
| illustrator who did the images for my microwave's instruction
| manual.
| tomxor wrote:
| Although I agree with the siblings, in that (done well) it
| should better convey the intended meaning, while also capturing
| the readers imagination with a little artistry - I know what
| you are getting at.
|
| Sometimes I come across those articles, trying way too hard to
| add flourish to their writing, but they only achieve a veneer.
| It does not improve their communication and as you say, it's
| entirely pretentious. But these are not the same types of
| writing, one is genuine, the other mimicry.
| kragen wrote:
| > _I know these writers, and how they "write" - it's painful to
| read and oozes pretentiousness._
|
| Are you thinking, perhaps, of Mark Twain? I've never heard
| anyone say he was "painful to read" or "oozes pretentiousness";
| you could be the first. Yet it was Twain who wrote, "the
| difference between the almost right word and the right word is
| really a large matter--'tis the difference between the
| lightning-bug and the lightning," which is what this "draft #4"
| business is all about. (He stole the phrasing from a friend of
| his, but the sentiment was his own, in a letter in 01888 to
| George Bainton:
| https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/09/02/lightning/)
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| Yes, but no doubt you're aware of Twain's companion piece to
| that quote: "Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent
| word will do."
| taylorius wrote:
| Giving words a cost is a great way of thinking about how to
| write. Make expensive words pay their way - they must add
| enough value to the writing to justify their "cost".
| kragen wrote:
| It was a common vernacular figure of speech in Twain's
| time and for decades afterwards. I haven't ever heard of
| a writer budgeting a dollar figure for each paragraph and
| adding up the cost of each sentence.
| taylorius wrote:
| I think what I wrote sounded a bit literal. I don't think
| anyone really does that "full time" as it were. I was
| just parroting Mark Twain's phrase really. :-)
| kragen wrote:
| Absolutely, and that is often the point of rummaging
| through the dictionary. On another occasion Twain put it
| more... eloquently? Here he does ooze pretentiousness:
|
| > _In promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or
| articulating your superficial sentimentalities and
| amicable, philosophical or psychological observations,
| beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your
| conversational communications possess a clarified
| conciseness, a compact comprehensibleness, coalescent
| consistency, and a concatenated cogency... Sedulously avoid
| all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous
| vacuity, ventriloquial verbosity and vaniloquent vapidity._
|
| McPhee's essay Somers was commenting on warns against the
| same danger:
|
| > _In the search for words, thesauruses are useful things,
| but they don 't talk about the words they list. They are
| also dangerous. They can lead you to choose a polysyllabic
| and fuzzy word when a simple and clear one is better. The
| value of a thesaurus is not to make a writer seem to have a
| vast vocabulary of recondite words._
|
| So clearly McPhee was not advocating the unnecessary use of
| hundred-dollar words [correcting for inflation since
| Twain's time].
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| Sure, I have zero doubt that McPhee is a goldmine of good
| writing advice. I don't know who Somers is and it feels
| to me like the heart of TFA is basically a hack to make
| your writing seem more "literary".
| kragen wrote:
| Somers, too, implicitly criticizes "using fancy language
| where fancy language isn't called for"--"fustian" isn't a
| compliment when used of prose. The adjectives paired with
| it in Wiktionary tell the story: "Dutch fustian",
| "wretched fustian", "mere fustian", "genteel fustian
| which lacks either poetic resonance or demotic realism".
|
| But he doesn't really give _any_ writing advice in his
| essay. He doesn 't recommend that you write fustian or
| that you write like Hemingway or indeed that you write at
| all; instead, he recommends that you _read_ the
| dictionary because _it will be fun_. So, if we 're
| talking about _writing advice_ , we need to look at
| McPhee's essay, not Somers's.
| yesenadam wrote:
| I have to mention the elephant in the room - how you,
| kragen, habitually write e.g. "01888" when "1888" will do
| -- you "choose a polysyllabic and fuzzy word when a
| simple and clear one is better".
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Y10K proofing. It's a practice of the Long Now
| Foundation:
|
| https://longnow.org/ideas/02013/12/31/long-now-years-
| five-di...
| Anon1096 wrote:
| Regardless of what it's for, writing 5 digit years is the
| kind of choice that makes your writing "ooze
| pretentiousness" just like choosing to use hundred dollar
| words last seen a century ago.
| mlyle wrote:
| Nah. It's a little conceit. It's a small dash of
| eccentricity to add spice to an unusual point. It invites
| one to ask the question, "why do you habitually use 5
| digit years?"
|
| You, on the other hand, are veering directly into ad-hom
| and that's not nice. We can talk about how we like to use
| language without calling out other peoples' language
| choices.
| bdowling wrote:
| Poe's Law in action. Any elaborate parody not clearly
| marked as such will be taken seriously by someone.
| elric wrote:
| > I couldn't disagree more with this piece, especially the idea
| of a "draft #4" where you go through what you've written and
| replace all plain words with difficult ones. I know these
| writers, and how they "write" - it's painful to read, they want
| to make themselves seem better than they are. You can always
| tell when someone tries to pretend to know more words than they
| really do.
| icambron wrote:
| John McPhee isn't a pretentious writer at all, though, and I
| encourage you to try him out to test your theory. Getting rid
| of pedestrian words doesn't require you to replace them with
| ostentatious words, merely more vibrant, descriptive ones.
| adzm wrote:
| The whole point here is not to mindlessly replace words but to
| be able to find words that more accurately describe what you
| are trying to convey. The expanded definitions and examples are
| great starting points for digging deeper into both the language
| and the underlying motivation.
| suction wrote:
| I understand it wasn't meant to be "mindlessly", I don't
| appreciate you putting words in my mouth.
|
| Still, if you don't have the more accurate word in your
| vocabulary, then don't use it. It will sound stilted and
| unnatural in the context of your sentence.
| asxd wrote:
| I get what you're saying, and agree. When I was in middle
| school I'd shamelessly use MS Word to replace words in my
| reports with fancy sounding synonyms that I had never heard
| of before. I kind of cringe at the memory. But on the other
| hand, that's also kind of how I got them to be in my
| vocabulary. I feel like once you commit to a new word in
| your own writing, you start seeing it everywhere and
| getting a feel for how it's naturally being used.
| boffinAudio wrote:
| Exactly. This curmudgeonly proposal that ones vocabulary
| remain immutable is for the dags and curs whose life has
| not been rewarded by the virtues of newly discovered
| language.
| robocat wrote:
| Making up words is fun for the writer, but it often not
| fun for the reader. Like the popular perception of
| poetry. Few people have a deep knowledge of their own
| language or other languages, so their inventions come
| across as childish.
|
| Your own usage of "dags" is frustrating because as a
| reader from Australasia, "dag" has a common meaning.
| Example usages: "You're a dag", "Fred Dagg", "rattle your
| dags", "clean up those daggy sheep". And back on topic,
| the common meaning in Australasia is not mentioned in the
| online American Merriam-Webster dictionary!
| pdpi wrote:
| There's an important subtlety here -- you're meant to be
| replacing the words that don't sit right with you. Your
| starting point is that it's already potentially stilted and
| unnatural and you're trying to fix that.
|
| Most importantly though -- this is a tool, and not a
| replacement for taste and judgment. Seen from that
| perspective, it's a much more potent tool than what a
| traditional dictionary offers.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| "He has never been known to use a word that might cause
| the reader to check with a dictionary to see if it is
| properly used"
|
| -- William Faulkner, of Ernest Hemmingway
|
| "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come
| from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar
| words. I know them all right. But there are older and
| simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."
|
| -- Hemmingway, of Faulkner
|
| https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/01/26/dictionary/
| kragen wrote:
| To quibble a bit, in American English, Webster's _is_ the
| traditional dictionary. That 's why most American English
| dictionaries have "Webster" in their name, even if, as
| Somers writes, their "contents bear no relation to
| Webster's original." It's the leaden, imprecise form of
| definition Somers criticizes that is a break with
| Webster's tradition.
| pdpi wrote:
| Hah, that is, perhaps, a perfect example of the article's
| point!
|
| "Conventional" might've been a better choice of word than
| "traditional", or something else that better conveys the
| meaning of "in common usage today", without the "in the
| olden days" baggage that comes with "traditional"
| kragen wrote:
| Indeed!
| DarylZero wrote:
| "common"
| boffinAudio wrote:
| But, how is one expected to expand ones vocabulary if not
| by using newly discovered words, appropriately and
| correctly?
|
| Are you sure you're not just proposing a form of anti-
| intellectualism more appropriately aligned with the
| characters in an Orwell dystopia?
|
| Language is important - it should not be degraded by
| throwing words away - or, indeed, around.
| konschubert wrote:
| There is a difference between active and passive vocabulary
| though. Just because you can't think of a word right now,
| doesn't mean that you and your readers wouldn't easily
| understand it.
|
| That being said, for anything that you want to be sure your
| readers understand, "write like you talk".
| http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > That being said, for anything that you want to be sure
| your readers understand, "write like you talk".
|
| Most people's speech (excluding times where they have
| carefully written it in a manner _different_ than
| unprepared speech) not only isn 't colorful, it's unclear
| by words alone, though often helped by tonal, pacing,
| and, in person, nonverbal cues, and, in interactive
| contexts, interaction with active audience members, all
| of which are lost in text.
|
| "Write like you talk" can be good advice for people who
| are dealing with a couple specific problems (either a
| form of analysis paralysis stopping them from getting
| anything written, or habitual overwriting) but otherwise
| it's just bad advice that ignores the radical differences
| in medium.
| boffinAudio wrote:
| What's some good advice, then?
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| I don't think it's meant to be taken quite that
| literally. For me, it's about using vocabulary that you
| are comfortable with, phrases and rhythms that you use in
| everyday life. It's not an instruction to transcribe
| every sound that comes out of your mouth.
|
| People get caught up in the gravity of writing. I've seen
| amazing pub storytellers churn out unreadable dross
| because they think they need to be "literary". It's true
| that there are differences in the mediums, but they're
| not as great as people make out. Unless it's High Art (in
| which case everything is up for interpretation), it's all
| just transferring information from my brain to yours with
| as little spillage as possible.
|
| Writers "speak" to us most directly when we "hear" their
| "voice" as we read. And some of the most atrocious
| nonsense I have read is by people who claimed to have
| "found their voice". You don't need to look for it. You
| use it every day. Follow that and you will avoid writing
| ridiculous, ambiguous things like "diversion of the
| field" when you really mean "sport".
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| > You don't need to look for it. You use it every day.
|
| This only goes for young kids in their native language.
|
| In the other cases, it would just take too much time to
| get better at it, without that minimum of effort. (Which
| you might not be forced to do after high school.)
|
| Not to mention that language is not just for
| communicating, but also for thinking.
| liups wrote:
| phgn wrote:
| For anyone trying to install Websters' Dictionary on a modern
| mac, downloading it from https://github.com/mortenjust/webster-
| mac worked for me.
| cosmojg wrote:
| There's another option with better CSS up on the front page
| right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29733648
|
| Direct link: https://github.com/cmod/websters-1913
| kubb wrote:
| Thanks, you're a cool person and your comment should be as high
| as possible.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| "A thought flashed through me, which I clothed in act"
|
| I can read and understand phrases like these, because I can read
| the same language. But I can never create anything with the same
| ring, or richness of metaphor, when I compose my own. It saddens
| me greatly. I wonder how one gets the mind for it.
| leephillips wrote:
| I don't know of your habits, so this advice may not apply to
| you. But we are living through a slow-motion crisis in
| language, in the English-speaking world. It is caused by mostly
| everyone reading, routinely, constantly, and nearly
| exclusively, garbage prose. This description applies to nearly
| all journalism, technical discussion, essays of opinion, and
| any writing related to politics, computers, society, or
| technology. And we imitate what we read, even if not
| consciously. Eventually, we lose the ability to express
| ourselves well.
|
| Spend some time every day reading Shakespeare, Joyce, or
| Nabokov. Maybe some PG Wodehouse or Oscar Wilde. After a year
| or so, it will start to seep in. You will notice your own
| writing becoming more beautiful, and more precise (which is
| largely the same thing.) I can guarantee this, because you
| care, and that's 90% of what's required.
| quercusa wrote:
| That's good advice. The apparently effortless prose of a
| Wodehouse or McPhee is only achieved through a lot of work.
| [deleted]
| cosmojg wrote:
| Make a habit of drawing connections between disparate concepts,
| but be careful not to go _too_ crazy with it.
| walterbell wrote:
| iOS version of 1913 Webster's:
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/websters-1913/id1397172520
|
| content and layout: http://www.websters1913.com/
| minimilian wrote:
| It's nice for once to see a web page with decent typography.
| DonBarredora wrote:
| kubb wrote:
| I looked up the definition of 'light'.
|
| > Light was regarded formerly as consisting of material
| particles, [...] but it is now generally understood to consist
| [...] in the propagation of vibrations or undulations in a
| subtile, elastic medium, or ether [...].
|
| Feels like being taken to a different age. In fact the most
| apparent weakness of such a dictionary is that it doesn't reflect
| the changes in the language since it was written.
| presentation wrote:
| This is the essence of why anime is better in Japanese than with
| subs/dubs - not only is the wording much better than a straight
| translation but the voice acting is much more passionate in turn.
| lopis wrote:
| It's becoming annoying to watch any netflix animes because the
| subtitles focus on the official translations instead of what's
| being said. After 15 years of watching anime, I can understand
| several expressions and sentence structures, and English
| translations are really lacking. English is a good
| international language because it's simple, not because it's
| subtle, and it shows.
| feupan wrote:
| The thing about translations is that they're not written by
| the author. You can translate something and convey the same
| approximate meaning, but it will always be an approximation,
| sometimes reduced, of the original intent of the writing.
|
| Sometimes you just can't translate feelings well, even if an
| apparent direct translation exists. Swear words are a glaring
| example. You can translate motherf* either word for word or
| with a similar swear word, but it either won't feel native or
| it won't have the same connotation.
|
| English itself is fine. I recently read "The Gradual
| Extinction of Softness" [1] and I was unable to translate it
| into my language and maintain the same _feeling._
|
| 1: https://hippocampusmagazine.com/2021/11/the-gradual-
| extincti...
| taylorius wrote:
| "English is a good international language because it's
| simple, not because it's subtle, and it shows."
|
| I can't let that pass :-)
|
| English as an international language is not the entirety of
| English. The English language is enormously subtle - but
| people rarely (these days) learn it to the required level.
| Ironically, (in my view) its adoption as an international
| tongue is one cause of this. People learn it to a functional
| level, to get on in business and life, and that's the job
| done. Sadly this reduced, simplified English will likely
| become what English is (this is already happening) . A bit of
| a poisoned chalice, becoming the international language.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| There's a word for that : "Globish" !
|
| ;)
| taylorius wrote:
| Thank you, I hadn't heard of that!
| taylorius wrote:
| Ok, just looked it up - and I see the phrase was coined
| by a Frenchman from the Grand Ecole. From the article -
| Nerriere describes Globish as a device that will 'limit
| the influence of the English language dramatically'.
|
| plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose... :-)
| [deleted]
| walterbell wrote:
| Hence _lowest_ common denominator.
|
| But upward mobility remains :)
| taylorius wrote:
| We can hope! :-)
| jacobmartin wrote:
| 'Hal, you are here because I am a professional conversationalist,
| and your father has made an appointment with me, for you, to
| converse.'
|
| 'MYURP. Excuse me.'
|
| Tap tap tap tap.
|
| 'SHULGSPAHHH.'
|
| Tap tap tap tap.
|
| 'You're a professional conversationalist?'
|
| 'I am, yes, as I believe I just stated, a professional
| conversationalist.'
|
| 'Don't start looking at your watch, as if I'm taking up valuable
| time of yours. If Himself made the appointment and paid for it
| the time's supposed to be mine, right? Not yours. And then but
| what's that supposed to mean, "professional conversationalist"? A
| conversationalist is just one who converses much. You actually
| charge a fee to converse much?'
|
| 'A conversationalist is also one who, I'm sure you'll recall,
| "excels in conversation." '
|
| 'That's Webster's Seventh. That's not the O.E.D.'
|
| Tap tap.
|
| 'I'm an O.E.D. man, Doctor. If that's what you are. Are you a
| doctor? Do you have a doctorate? Most people like to put their
| diplomas up, I notice, if they have credentials. And Webster's
| Seventh isn't even up-to-date. Webster's Eighth amends to "one
| who converses with much enthusiasm." '
|
| -- _Infinite Jest_ by David Foster Wallace
| V-2 wrote:
| vocabulary.com is pretty nice in its more casual, chatty
| approach.
| janandonly wrote:
| Some years ago this same article came up on HN. I remember
| downloading a special app to run Webster's 1913 version on my iOS
| device.
|
| I also remember being very jealous of macOS users for having a
| dedicated dictionary.app. Now I happen to have a Mac myself so
| guess what daddy is going to do this evening? Indeed, get himself
| an upgrade .
| j0ej0ej0e wrote:
| Is there a less bureaucratic one for british english?
| e-dant wrote:
| Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-30 23:02 UTC)