Words that deserve wider use(wordwarriors.wayne.edu)
wordwarriors.wayne.edu
Words that deserve wider use
https://wordwarriors.wayne.edu/list
119 comments
What is perhaps also interesting is that nearby cities can use the same language with entirely different histories, nuances and meanings.
This in fact explains why so many groups fail to communicate clearly!
This in fact explains why so many groups fail to communicate clearly!
I only finished the As before coming back to comment: it’s an interesting list, but some words are certainly more deserving of seeing greater uptake than others. I question the presence of quite a number of entries, some for being quite pedestrian and quotidian, others for being milquetoast, and a handful for being way too archaic or downright alien - if they’re not in any standard dictionary (online or offline) are you just being a word snob if you use them?
One that surprised me is “agog” - I know it well, but I have literally only seen it as “agog with …” with the blank often being “excitement,” but now I learned that that’s a superfluous use of words, as agog already means just that.
But all that said, it’s a fun list. Thanks for sharing it!
One that surprised me is “agog” - I know it well, but I have literally only seen it as “agog with …” with the blank often being “excitement,” but now I learned that that’s a superfluous use of words, as agog already means just that.
But all that said, it’s a fun list. Thanks for sharing it!
> but I have literally only seen it as “agog with …”
I've never seen it used that way; I've only seen it used like "They were all agog at x..."
I've never seen it used that way; I've only seen it used like "They were all agog at x..."
[deleted]
Piffle. I myself use many of these words on a daily basis.
Seriously though if you want a read something by an author who really went for it and used maybe 75-85% of this list, get a copy of the Gormenghast series of books by Mervyn Peake. Just don’t come blaming me afterwards that you lost a chunk of your time.
Seriously though if you want a read something by an author who really went for it and used maybe 75-85% of this list, get a copy of the Gormenghast series of books by Mervyn Peake. Just don’t come blaming me afterwards that you lost a chunk of your time.
Gormenghast was enjoyable to read on the kindle, where you simply tap a word to see its definition
“Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule.” - Stephen King
If I have to look a word up in a dictionary that is often the fault of the writer, too.
Word lists like this are gatekeeping understanding. What’s more fun are those words used by some groups a lot, but not widely known. I was reminded of this when walking down a road in London and seeing a TfL sign that read “This is a temporary bus stop in use whilst repairs are made to the nearby permanent bus stop”. Most non-Brits have never used or heard the word “whilst”, and yet it’s used all the time in the U.K.
There are more fun words out there too for which no English translations exist, but we should totally make mainstream English. I won’t list as there are so, so many… glad hygge is doing well in the U.K. though.
If I have to look a word up in a dictionary that is often the fault of the writer, too.
Word lists like this are gatekeeping understanding. What’s more fun are those words used by some groups a lot, but not widely known. I was reminded of this when walking down a road in London and seeing a TfL sign that read “This is a temporary bus stop in use whilst repairs are made to the nearby permanent bus stop”. Most non-Brits have never used or heard the word “whilst”, and yet it’s used all the time in the U.K.
There are more fun words out there too for which no English translations exist, but we should totally make mainstream English. I won’t list as there are so, so many… glad hygge is doing well in the U.K. though.
>“Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule.” - Stephen King
>If I have to look a word up in a dictionary that is often the fault of the writer, too.
And when should I freeze my vocabulary and declare that all the words I haven't yet memorized are worthless? At the age of seven? Perhaps twelve?
>If I have to look a word up in a dictionary that is often the fault of the writer, too.
And when should I freeze my vocabulary and declare that all the words I haven't yet memorized are worthless? At the age of seven? Perhaps twelve?
You are engaging in wrong think. Such words have never existed.
We have always been at war with David Foster Wallace.
We have always been at war with David Foster Wallace.
There's a great line in Patricia Lockwood's recent DFW essay where she says "He makes people feel they are in real possession of the word ‘volute’, that their vast untapped icebergs of vocabulary and perceptual detritus are readily available to them."
> We have always been at war with David Foster Wallace.
Genius. My hat, Sir.
Genius. My hat, Sir.
I think "wrong" was banned. Perhaps not thoughtcrime but just ungood?
The point is to use the words that your readers will understand and that express your ideas the clearest. If you assume that your readers are somewhat similar to yourself (often reasonable), then you having to look up words means that your readers likely will have to as well.
Good writing is about expressing and transferring ideas. It is not supposed to be intellectual masturbation, though some may treat it as such.
Good writing is about expressing and transferring ideas. It is not supposed to be intellectual masturbation, though some may treat it as such.
> Good writing is about expressing and transferring ideas.
Not everything is a scientific paper. Good writing can also be art. There's a reason why Shakespeare wrote his 18th sonnet and not just "I think you're very beautiful".
Not everything is a scientific paper. Good writing can also be art. There's a reason why Shakespeare wrote his 18th sonnet and not just "I think you're very beautiful".
>Not everything is a scientific paper.
I didn't say it was. I said that writing is about expressing transferring ideas.
>Good writing can also be art.
True. And good art is about... expressing and transferring ideas.
I didn't say it was. I said that writing is about expressing transferring ideas.
>Good writing can also be art.
True. And good art is about... expressing and transferring ideas.
Shakespeare had an exceptionally large vocabulary. He constantly used words his audience / readers didn't understand. And that's okay with you, because he was "expressing and transferring ideas". Except that it's not okay with you, because he didn't "use the words that [his] readers will understand and that express [his] ideas the clearest".
The idea a non-fiction text such as a scientific paper wants to express is (mainly) empirical.
The idea a fiction text such as Shakespeare's works wants to express is (mainly) emotional.
The exact meaning of words is more important in the former case than the latter, though not unimportant in the latter.
Shakespeare is one of the biggest outliers when it comes to reach as a function of complexity of language, and I don't think that generalizing from that specific anecdote is useful, especially as pertains to modern writers. I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.
The idea a fiction text such as Shakespeare's works wants to express is (mainly) emotional.
The exact meaning of words is more important in the former case than the latter, though not unimportant in the latter.
Shakespeare is one of the biggest outliers when it comes to reach as a function of complexity of language, and I don't think that generalizing from that specific anecdote is useful, especially as pertains to modern writers. I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.
> I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.
It's very easy to get published today, I just got published and so did you.
But sure, your advice is probably good if you are concerned mainly with commercial success. I would venture to guess, though, that most great, enduring writing comes from something inside the writer that they feel they have to express, rather than from looking outside themselves for the right "product-market fit." Some writers find a simple, lapidary style, others prefer more ornate language. Both can be great and I don't think we should call one right and one wrong.
It's very easy to get published today, I just got published and so did you.
But sure, your advice is probably good if you are concerned mainly with commercial success. I would venture to guess, though, that most great, enduring writing comes from something inside the writer that they feel they have to express, rather than from looking outside themselves for the right "product-market fit." Some writers find a simple, lapidary style, others prefer more ornate language. Both can be great and I don't think we should call one right and one wrong.
I think the quote is emphasizing that writing isn't about meticulously picking out words, but first and foremost about telling an interesting story. Editing, rewriting, looking up words can be done later.
Words don't fall out of use by accident, I'd say most words get the level of usage that they rightfully deserve. Every word on that list has a more widely understood alternative that people commonly use instead. The primary purpose of language is facilitate communication, and using words that most people don't understand works against that goal. Alternatively you're free to use language in service of your own curiosity of obscure words, or perhaps just to showcase your own superior vocabulary to other people. But don't be surprised if that makes you a less effective communicator.
>Words don't fall out of use by accident
Of course they do. Unless you're suggesting that there's some kind of deep state conspiracy to alter the English language one word at a time.
>and using words that most people don't understand works against that goal
Most people don't speak much English at all. Should everyone stop using all but the most common thousand words? Most native speakers aren't experts in any particular field. Should all technical writing spend dozens of words to imprecisely replace each bit of specific jargon? Should no one ever coin a new term simply because it won't already be in wide use?
Of course they do. Unless you're suggesting that there's some kind of deep state conspiracy to alter the English language one word at a time.
>and using words that most people don't understand works against that goal
Most people don't speak much English at all. Should everyone stop using all but the most common thousand words? Most native speakers aren't experts in any particular field. Should all technical writing spend dozens of words to imprecisely replace each bit of specific jargon? Should no one ever coin a new term simply because it won't already be in wide use?
Just the other day I introduced an non-native English speaking friend to the word myopic. You'd think "short-sighted" would win out as the clearer term, but myopic consistently beats it on Google Trends. I would expect a writer to alternate between them if they needed to repeat the concept and wanted to clearscribe.
Why expect that? It's about twice as long.
Also a bit harder on the tongue and ears, as compared to "myopic".
So the writing isn't repetitive.
> Unless you're suggesting that there's some kind of deep state conspiracy to alter the English language one word at a time.
Not at all. There’s an entirely democratic process used to decide which words are commonly used an understood, everybody simply chooses for themselves what words are useful for them to include in their vocabulary.
> Most people don't speak much English at all.
I wasn’t specifically talking about English. My comments would apply to any non-dead language.
Regarding the rest of your comment, people modify languages all the time. They invent new words or bring old ones into use (or stop using old ones), and whether they survive depends entirely upon how popular they are within the culture. This isn’t specific to the broader English speaking culture either, subcultures have their own vocabularies whether they are technical subcultures, or some music subculture, or zoomer meme culture… they all invent vocabularies to suit their communication needs.
A better title for this page would be “a list of (mostly) discarded words that I (we?) like”. In regards to how effective these words are at facilitating communication, I see no argument presented here for why they get less recognition or use than they deserve. Because most English speakers wouldn’t understand most of these words, and using a word that somebody doesn’t understand is always going to be a less effective way of communicating with them than using a word that they do (and all of the words I saw on that list have actually widely understood alternatives).
Not at all. There’s an entirely democratic process used to decide which words are commonly used an understood, everybody simply chooses for themselves what words are useful for them to include in their vocabulary.
> Most people don't speak much English at all.
I wasn’t specifically talking about English. My comments would apply to any non-dead language.
Regarding the rest of your comment, people modify languages all the time. They invent new words or bring old ones into use (or stop using old ones), and whether they survive depends entirely upon how popular they are within the culture. This isn’t specific to the broader English speaking culture either, subcultures have their own vocabularies whether they are technical subcultures, or some music subculture, or zoomer meme culture… they all invent vocabularies to suit their communication needs.
A better title for this page would be “a list of (mostly) discarded words that I (we?) like”. In regards to how effective these words are at facilitating communication, I see no argument presented here for why they get less recognition or use than they deserve. Because most English speakers wouldn’t understand most of these words, and using a word that somebody doesn’t understand is always going to be a less effective way of communicating with them than using a word that they do (and all of the words I saw on that list have actually widely understood alternatives).
Agree with all.
> entirely democratic process
Yup. Language change theory. Via emergent consensus, the most democratic process.
> entirely democratic process
Yup. Language change theory. Via emergent consensus, the most democratic process.
"With dictionaries, I spend a great deal more time looking up words I know than words I have never heard of—at least ninety-nine to one. The dictionary definitions of words you are trying to replace are far more likely to help you out than a scattershot wad from a thesaurus. If you use the dictionary after the thesaurus, the thesaurus will not hurt you."
John McPhee, Draft No. 4
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/29/draft-no-4
John McPhee, Draft No. 4
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/29/draft-no-4
Stephen King is trying to sell millions of books to many people so I understand why he would say this and mean it.
But I don’t think it applies everywhere, or even where I operate.
I want to communicate clearly. So using a precise word is valuable.
I, and many people I interact with, actually like looking up words and learning things. So it’s a feature not a bug to learn a new word when reading someone’s message.
Of course not everyone is the same, so it boils down to “know your audience.”
But I don’t think it applies everywhere, or even where I operate.
I want to communicate clearly. So using a precise word is valuable.
I, and many people I interact with, actually like looking up words and learning things. So it’s a feature not a bug to learn a new word when reading someone’s message.
Of course not everyone is the same, so it boils down to “know your audience.”
"The difference between the right word and almost right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain
Stephen King writes pulpy, accessible fiction. I don't have context for the quote, but it's probably in the context of horror writing. Even if not, he's not the beginning and end of all writerly advice. He's just one guy. Smart and successful, but singular.
There are as many styles and motivations as there are writers. All are inherently valid. Whether they serve specific goals is a separate consideration. If you want to write horror like Stephen King, listen to Stephen King until you develop your own voice.
There are as many styles and motivations as there are writers. All are inherently valid. Whether they serve specific goals is a separate consideration. If you want to write horror like Stephen King, listen to Stephen King until you develop your own voice.
There’s nothing wrong with using less common words. Using those words in the wrong context is.
Having a wide vocabulary is like having a well stocked tool box, you take out the most approximate tool for the job.
English is such a hodgepodge of languages and so with such a multitude of ways to express the same idea, that it is a shame to not use that full range where appropriate.
Expecting everyone to speak at and express themselves at the lowest common denominator feels like gate keeping to understanding personally.
Having a wide vocabulary is like having a well stocked tool box, you take out the most approximate tool for the job.
English is such a hodgepodge of languages and so with such a multitude of ways to express the same idea, that it is a shame to not use that full range where appropriate.
Expecting everyone to speak at and express themselves at the lowest common denominator feels like gate keeping to understanding personally.
It is good to use a large vocabulary with precision. But what does precision require? Your audience needs to understand your words. Emotions are best described in the simple and direct language that they respond to. Therefore, simple language is usually best.
Many exceptions exist. Jargon should be used in a professional context. Archaic language helps to set stories in the past. Your point may be enjoying the complexity of speech. For example, Terry Pratchett would not be Terry Pratchett without excessive footnotes. Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun was loved in part for words like those in https://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WolfeWiki.Obsc....
But exceptions are exceptions because they are exceptional. Most of what we say is not exceptional.
You say that expressing yourself in simple language "feels like gate keeping to understanding personally."
I find the opposite. Complex language often hides muddled thinking. It takes work to clarify my thoughts into simple language. Once I have done so, my understanding becomes more precise. Therefore my thinking has been improved by trying to speak simply.
Many exceptions exist. Jargon should be used in a professional context. Archaic language helps to set stories in the past. Your point may be enjoying the complexity of speech. For example, Terry Pratchett would not be Terry Pratchett without excessive footnotes. Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun was loved in part for words like those in https://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WolfeWiki.Obsc....
But exceptions are exceptions because they are exceptional. Most of what we say is not exceptional.
You say that expressing yourself in simple language "feels like gate keeping to understanding personally."
I find the opposite. Complex language often hides muddled thinking. It takes work to clarify my thoughts into simple language. Once I have done so, my understanding becomes more precise. Therefore my thinking has been improved by trying to speak simply.
Rare words should really only be used when they add value significant enough to counter their rareness. If there is a common word which is almost exactly the same in meaning then it should be used.
Especially in technical writing. Something like “the flange of a train wheel”, while flange is an uncommon word you may have to look up, you’ll be left knowing exactly what I’m talking about in a way that generic terms wouldn’t.
Especially in technical writing. Something like “the flange of a train wheel”, while flange is an uncommon word you may have to look up, you’ll be left knowing exactly what I’m talking about in a way that generic terms wouldn’t.
I know what Stephen King is saying here, but I disagree with your stance. I have read books that I need a dictionary with me to read them, and there are definitely words that, like in this list, deserve a wider use, but have very few spaces where they can be used properly.
I'm not sure how people learn how to write or read without using a dictionary and/or Thesaurus like this.
The more I think about it, I'm not sure how language would even develop in the first place if this were true.
The way I learned to write was by scouring the related words in the Thesaurus to find the closest word to convey the feeling I had.
Isn't every new word learned and invented using a similar process?
I'm just imagining the first ancient human inventing a word for "wolf" and another member of the tribe silently thinking to themselves that this overly intellectual showoff is just gatekeeping, but sadly can't express his thoughts without physicaly lashing out.
The more I think about it, I'm not sure how language would even develop in the first place if this were true.
The way I learned to write was by scouring the related words in the Thesaurus to find the closest word to convey the feeling I had.
Isn't every new word learned and invented using a similar process?
I'm just imagining the first ancient human inventing a word for "wolf" and another member of the tribe silently thinking to themselves that this overly intellectual showoff is just gatekeeping, but sadly can't express his thoughts without physicaly lashing out.
These are "words that deserve wider use". If this site is successful then some of these words become popular, and eventually people don't need to look them up anymore.
I would agree for communication, but not art.
It's kind of telling that King, whose writing nobody has ever accused of being high art, is saying this. Don't get me wrong, I like King, but using obscure words is a valid artistic choice.
It's kind of telling that King, whose writing nobody has ever accused of being high art, is saying this. Don't get me wrong, I like King, but using obscure words is a valid artistic choice.
> “Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule.” - Stephen King
Right, and no musician should use any notes from outside the pentatonic scale.
This sounds like Bill Gates "640K ought to be enough for anybody".
I suspect that the unstated preface of King's aphorism was, "If you want to maximize book sales".
Right, and no musician should use any notes from outside the pentatonic scale.
This sounds like Bill Gates "640K ought to be enough for anybody".
I suspect that the unstated preface of King's aphorism was, "If you want to maximize book sales".
The problem with that statement is variance in taste, education, and ambiguity in the real world. Stephen King is making the classic mistake of an introvert projecting a blanket statement based on the mistaken pretense of a uniform vocabulary. There is no such thing. Average Americans have a vocab is about ~43k words, but they aren't the same subset of words or the same number. Furthermore, the vocabular size of the individual is variable up to a 99.99% confidence upper limit that stretches to around 200k.
Although it's fairly certain most Americans won't understand "cyberdisinhibitionism", "consanguineous", "antidisestablishmentarianism", or "insouciance" without additional context, some people's "~50k innate concepts" can receive an adjuvant through performative, logorrheic elucidation. The idiom "a word to the wise" implies the property that sharper instruments require less explanation to make the connection, while most others need a little more assistance.
And there are multilingual people who engage in loaning and coining words. Furthermore, the question of counting colloquialisms like "hangry" muddies the water.
So there is no clever rule except to write to the anticipated audience be it a PhD dissertation in cosmology, an article for "The Atlantic", or a children's bedtime stories for 8-year-olds.
Although it's fairly certain most Americans won't understand "cyberdisinhibitionism", "consanguineous", "antidisestablishmentarianism", or "insouciance" without additional context, some people's "~50k innate concepts" can receive an adjuvant through performative, logorrheic elucidation. The idiom "a word to the wise" implies the property that sharper instruments require less explanation to make the connection, while most others need a little more assistance.
And there are multilingual people who engage in loaning and coining words. Furthermore, the question of counting colloquialisms like "hangry" muddies the water.
So there is no clever rule except to write to the anticipated audience be it a PhD dissertation in cosmology, an article for "The Atlantic", or a children's bedtime stories for 8-year-olds.
I find it delightful learning new words as I read different authors. I've expanded my vocabulary so much in the last few years reading slightly older books which use words which have fallen slightly out of common use. Words like sinecure, estovers, usufruct. Without learning from reading I don't know how I would come across these useful little tidbits. In fact I think that's how I've learned every word I know.
I agree with this quote. Never force your audience to dig through a thesaurus.
However, as a writer, you can use rare words if you give enough contextual hints.
For example: "His personality was itself a gamble. You could never predict his famous bouts of bliss. Beware mercurial people like that."
However, as a writer, you can use rare words if you give enough contextual hints.
For example: "His personality was itself a gamble. You could never predict his famous bouts of bliss. Beware mercurial people like that."
> “This is a temporary bus stop in use whilst repairs are made to the nearby permanent bus stop”. Most non-Brits have never used or heard the word “whilst”, and yet it’s used all the time in the U.K.
This feels like it would still mean the exact same thing if "while" were used instead of "whilst". I have no idea if there's some subtle difference in British English or if they're just synonyms with very close spelling to each other, but it doesn't strike me as particularly profound.
This feels like it would still mean the exact same thing if "while" were used instead of "whilst". I have no idea if there's some subtle difference in British English or if they're just synonyms with very close spelling to each other, but it doesn't strike me as particularly profound.
I think those "rules" are a bit harsh, the gist of those is that as a writer you shouldn't force yourself to use difficult words if they don't fit or you don't understand them.
Doesn't your comment contradict itself? If I'm British (which I am) and I write in a way that some reasonable bar of educated British adult can understand me, as you've said yourself that doesn't necessarily mean that my American audience will not need a dictionary or to phone a friend for some words. I've gone global, and so I'm a failure?
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
Your Indonesian is pretty good, sir. Have an upvote.
A very nice list. I looked for vamoose, and was not disappointed. Then I looked for petrichor (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34147465) and suddenly I was...
What it lacks is some context/flavor. Does the word sound British or American? Does it sound old-fashioned? funny? sarcastic? As a non-native English speaker, with many of these words – even if I knew their meaning – I can't really tell without further research,
What it lacks is some context/flavor. Does the word sound British or American? Does it sound old-fashioned? funny? sarcastic? As a non-native English speaker, with many of these words – even if I knew their meaning – I can't really tell without further research,
Nice list. Mildly surprised to see some terms in there that I thought were in common usage.
Also, the word "Absquatulate" ("to discreetly leave a gathering or party without informing the host") may be obscure, but I'd argue that's because it was replaced by the term "Irish goodbye".
Also, the word "Absquatulate" ("to discreetly leave a gathering or party without informing the host") may be obscure, but I'd argue that's because it was replaced by the term "Irish goodbye".
In some contexts, this idea might also be known as "the law of two feet". Although perhaps absquatulation has a more negative connotation.
The thing with lists like this, with words you've never seen or heard before, is the worry you're not saying them correctly. This list could be enriched with sounds showing how they are pronounced correctly.
If the word is so rare, there’s a very good chance the listener hasn’t heard it spoken either. Think of it as your opportunity to seed a pronunciation that you like.
(The nice and frustrating thing about English is that ultimately there are no rules. There’s no Academy sitting on a throne deciding how billions of English users speak and write — but on the flip side, nobody can fix the catastrophic spelling of this language either.)
(The nice and frustrating thing about English is that ultimately there are no rules. There’s no Academy sitting on a throne deciding how billions of English users speak and write — but on the flip side, nobody can fix the catastrophic spelling of this language either.)
[deleted]
Am I overly cynical in thinking that Anecdoche is synonymous with debate?
There are some very useful words in this list, but I kinda wish they were ordered by some metric for usefulness rather than alfabetically.
I guess ordering them by popularity would kinda defeat the purpose though...
There are some very useful words in this list, but I kinda wish they were ordered by some metric for usefulness rather than alfabetically.
I guess ordering them by popularity would kinda defeat the purpose though...
More accurately, synonymous with recent US Presidential debate.
Civil debate, people take turns and listen to each other; Anecdoche. everybody talks at once, nobody listens.
I've been a reader | writer | speaker of commonwealth English for decades, this has the feel of a list of words less familiar to American English speakers; there are a few words I've not come across - most might feature in an episode of Have I Got News for You (panel programm that rips and riffs on contemporary UK news events) or other chatty talkfests.
Civil debate, people take turns and listen to each other; Anecdoche. everybody talks at once, nobody listens.
I've been a reader | writer | speaker of commonwealth English for decades, this has the feel of a list of words less familiar to American English speakers; there are a few words I've not come across - most might feature in an episode of Have I Got News for You (panel programm that rips and riffs on contemporary UK news events) or other chatty talkfests.
I dunno, I'd rather start with words that are rare but that other people will know; if nobody understands you, how useful can they be? (Edit: In fairness, an unknown word could have value, but it feels like pushing the line between being clever and egotistical)
I notice the definitions for Moot are contradicting.
definitions: Open to debate (adj.). Having no legal significance (n.).
And even when searched in Google I get...
1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty. 2. having little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision.
Am I wrong here? I always looked at moot as not mattering. But if it is open for debate, then does it not still matter? To me, moot means no worth debating any longer.
definitions: Open to debate (adj.). Having no legal significance (n.).
And even when searched in Google I get...
1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty. 2. having little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision.
Am I wrong here? I always looked at moot as not mattering. But if it is open for debate, then does it not still matter? To me, moot means no worth debating any longer.
I have never seen moot as "open to debate" in everyday conversation or printed material. It's always meant no longer relevant, in my personal experience.
I wonder if the "open to debate" meaning is an older one that's fallen out of use, or used in certain technical fields (e.g. law), or depends on geography (e.g. British).
I wonder if the "open to debate" meaning is an older one that's fallen out of use, or used in certain technical fields (e.g. law), or depends on geography (e.g. British).
Entmoot (Tolkien)
Got me curious. The Wikipedia page for the term basically says that the word means the different things depending on being used in an American legal or British legal context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness
Seems like the word could be classified as a contronym in some sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness
Seems like the word could be classified as a contronym in some sense.
Perhaps worth noting the term's etymology as a cousin of "meeting", and from there seeing how it can come to mean both something that's worth talking about later and something that's not worth talking about now.
[deleted]
It would be great to categorise this list by origin language.
It seems like a third each are just relatively modern French or Latin words pronounced in an English manner; of little interest to people who know Roman languages, but then there are the remaining third of “real” English words which seems to come out of a mirror world and are delightful! Mogshade, mollycoddle, mugwump, …
It seems like a third each are just relatively modern French or Latin words pronounced in an English manner; of little interest to people who know Roman languages, but then there are the remaining third of “real” English words which seems to come out of a mirror world and are delightful! Mogshade, mollycoddle, mugwump, …
It is sad how few words see regular use anymore.
I am certainly guilty of this myself.
I like being lazy.
Also, it makes for easier conversations in a lot of cases
since other are lazy as well.
I recently read a book by Charles Stross in the Laundry Files series. part of the book took place in the 1850s somewhere, (I think). It was filled with words and slang I didn't know. Presumably Stross did some research on English back in those days.
In a completely different context, I have read various letters that date from somewhere 1800 somewhere 1930s. More on the older side.
I am surprised by how eloquent they were. Thet had a much larger vocabulary than we see these days. I think helped by snail mail being a bit more formal and a lot slower process than banging away and emailing on a laptop. It gave the writer more time and more impetus to the writing process.
It may be skewed by the fact that the leter are mostly from the upper middle class.
I recently read a book by Charles Stross in the Laundry Files series. part of the book took place in the 1850s somewhere, (I think). It was filled with words and slang I didn't know. Presumably Stross did some research on English back in those days.
In a completely different context, I have read various letters that date from somewhere 1800 somewhere 1930s. More on the older side.
I am surprised by how eloquent they were. Thet had a much larger vocabulary than we see these days. I think helped by snail mail being a bit more formal and a lot slower process than banging away and emailing on a laptop. It gave the writer more time and more impetus to the writing process.
It may be skewed by the fact that the leter are mostly from the upper middle class.
These are beautiful. I use about 60% of them in conversation because they add richness, charm, and hilarity to otherwise mundane things. If you really want to get into the culture, read literary fiction from up to about the mid-20th century. Tiktok generation kids seem like native speakers with second language vocabularies, and a lot of them think in banal cliches. Words encode valuable cultural concepts, and I've found people who militate for simple language are often propagandists of one sort or another.
I always thought an Abecedarian was someone who liked alphabets.
The only words deserve more use are words that are fun to pronounce, like Bazinga, Bamboozle, Hullabaloo, Twang, Wackadoo, Lil Wayne.
"Alight" is already widely used in Britain with meaning "disembark"
Got to Z plus two lowercase words at the end.
About 10% of the list are actively used. Rest are stuffy.
About 10% of the list are actively used. Rest are stuffy.
I find it interesting to speculate why those words are not in widespread use. Many of them seem to either have more commonly used near-synonyms (acedia - apathy, indifference or ennui), or be somewhat unwieldy to use (absquatulate would be an useful word, but is way too long and sounds way too pompous).
Some of them, however, combine being rare, accessible and not easily replaced by other words. For example, calumny, copious and crux. I wish to see those words having wider use, as they would be handy to express concepts that generally require longer sentences to get across.
Some of them, however, combine being rare, accessible and not easily replaced by other words. For example, calumny, copious and crux. I wish to see those words having wider use, as they would be handy to express concepts that generally require longer sentences to get across.
My university graduation ceremony was ended by the dean with the following: "Congratulations, now, there is another ceremony starting in 1 hour, so it is time to depart with decorum and alacrity."
Erudite to a fault.
Erudite to a fault.
Came here for “cromulent”.
Was disappointed. But you’re not.
Was disappointed. But you’re not.
Cromulent has some adoption, but it would be neat to see it further embiggened.
Write your Congresscritter.
If I am speaking or writing to you, it’s because I want you to understand what I think or get you to do something or to help me learn something.
If I use words like “bildungsroman,” I significantly lower my chances of success because you are much more likely to stop reading or make a bad assumption about my meaning than you are to appreciate my cleverness and look for your thesaurus.
Ironically, this comment uses “bildungsroman” to make its point because I know you don’t know what it means (me neither) but that’s rare craftsmanship:)
If I use words like “bildungsroman,” I significantly lower my chances of success because you are much more likely to stop reading or make a bad assumption about my meaning than you are to appreciate my cleverness and look for your thesaurus.
Ironically, this comment uses “bildungsroman” to make its point because I know you don’t know what it means (me neither) but that’s rare craftsmanship:)
An important factor is knowing your audience. Writing a book review? Go ahead and use "bildungsroman". A scientific paper? Neodymium, amygdala, or ionosphere will probably be understood.
The goal of a writer shouldn't be to confuse their readers or make them feel dumb, but they also shouldn't sacrifice a perfectly fitting word that 90% of the audience understands for a weaker substitute that 100% understand.
I often look up words when reading. Sometimes new words, and sometimes words I have a rough understanding of but am curious about their dictionary definition. I almost never see as the author's failure or mine.
Many of the words in this list I've never seen before, but I don't think that means they should necessarily be discarded. And I wouldn't want writers to avoid words like bowdlerize, vestigial, avuncular, defenestrate, palimpsest or sinecure just because they could be replaced by a more common word or phrase that means almost the same thing.
The goal of a writer shouldn't be to confuse their readers or make them feel dumb, but they also shouldn't sacrifice a perfectly fitting word that 90% of the audience understands for a weaker substitute that 100% understand.
I often look up words when reading. Sometimes new words, and sometimes words I have a rough understanding of but am curious about their dictionary definition. I almost never see as the author's failure or mine.
Many of the words in this list I've never seen before, but I don't think that means they should necessarily be discarded. And I wouldn't want writers to avoid words like bowdlerize, vestigial, avuncular, defenestrate, palimpsest or sinecure just because they could be replaced by a more common word or phrase that means almost the same thing.
Nice word, even better if italicised (since a loan word) and capitalised (since a German noun).
At least one of these words is also on a list of words that should never be used. "nonplus" has acquired two contradictory meanings. Nonplussed means both "surprised, confused" and "unperturbed". AFAICT most people only know one of the two meanings, and in my experience it's pretty evenly split between which meaning they know.
Maybe a third meaning: minus in George Orwell's Newspeak.
They should make a screensaver out of that list...
English is a marvellous language and there is often a specific word that conveys exactly the desired meaning, but instead we resort to saying “very good” when we mean brilliant, or “sad” when we should use morose.
I’m all for writers using whatever word is appropriate and if I need to use a dictionary then that’s a win for me, I learned a new word.
Use better words. Teach me. :)
I’m all for writers using whatever word is appropriate and if I need to use a dictionary then that’s a win for me, I learned a new word.
Use better words. Teach me. :)
One time my wife made an offhand remark about how she used to perambulate her old neighborhood or something like that.
I kissed her and told her "One of the things I love about you is your casual ability to use words like 'perambulate' in sentences."
She's a peripatetic with speech tending toward the sesquipedalian.
I kissed her and told her "One of the things I love about you is your casual ability to use words like 'perambulate' in sentences."
She's a peripatetic with speech tending toward the sesquipedalian.
Haha, high five to your wife. Part of the challenge and fun of being a sesquipedalian is finding the perfect opportunity to casually drop that six syllable word that you have been sitting on for years.
There is this fabulous term in Dutch for railway tracks that have deformed by thermal stress (endangering the trains) that basically begs to be used metaphorically. As of yet I have not found myself in a conversation that requires its use. I am afraid it is one of those once in a lifetime words.
There is this fabulous term in Dutch for railway tracks that have deformed by thermal stress (endangering the trains) that basically begs to be used metaphorically. As of yet I have not found myself in a conversation that requires its use. I am afraid it is one of those once in a lifetime words.
[deleted]
Anhedonia (Inability to feel pleasure) can be paired with other words like Musical Anhedonia - Inability to feel pleasure from music. I know this one because I’ve never had an emotional response to any music and wondered if there was a name for it.
Perhaps you’ll enjoy rap n hip hop and battle rap. It’s words with friends plus music.
Though, not any of the words on this list.
Pretty sure that's not true. Here's one of the words in a rap song title for example https://genius.com/Busdriver-me-time-with-the-pulmonary-pali...
There is more to hip hop, than gangsta rap.
I always look for words that can reduce a phrase or sentence into single word.
Serendipity, for instance?
Laconic.
No comment other than I’m very happy to see this from my alma mater on the front page of HN. I hesitate to say it’s a woefully underrated school, but I’m nevertheless proud of it.
Reads like an admixture of a GRE word list and Merriam-Webster Word of the Day.
Also: chatoyance n. Having the property of variable luster or reflection like a cat's eye.
Also: chatoyance n. Having the property of variable luster or reflection like a cat's eye.
We need to be careful with that list. If blatherskite saw more use, there would be a commiserate uptick in accidental activations of the gizmoduck suit.
Horrible list - English already has way too many words.
You are free to use only those of which you approve. You could restrict yourself to the 1000 words of Simple English: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Simple_Eng... or even Ogden's 850 word Basic English.
The rest of us will have more fun.
The rest of us will have more fun.
These words are some of them.
Obscure words are excellent when they add more nuaced meaning, but in most situations the same few words are perfectly cromulent.
Agelasts age first.
oh yes, have all the votes :-)
Now all I need is to know how to pronounce it
Edit:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agelast
Aj - eh - last
One who never laughs
Now all I need is to know how to pronounce it
Edit:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agelast
Aj - eh - last
One who never laughs
Studying for the verbal GRE is a good way to learn some of these words. (Not sure to what extent the GRE has been abandoned recently...)
Why are there two entries for "Quisling" ?
No, I didn't read the whole thing that far, I just scrolled around.
No, I didn't read the whole thing that far, I just scrolled around.
I use the word Abstruse a lot. Mainly because it’s also heavily used in German. Or at least in my circle.
I was disappointed not to find "captious", which should be the official word of this website.
If anyone doesn't know what that means, I looked it up so you don't have to:
captious
kăp′shəs
adjective
1. Marked by a disposition to find and point out trivial faults.
2. Intended to entrap or confuse, as in an argument.
captious
kăp′shəs
adjective
1. Marked by a disposition to find and point out trivial faults.
2. Intended to entrap or confuse, as in an argument.
Disappointed to not see any mention of psephology or psephologists with the 2024 cycle looming large.
Basically a huge lot of French words.
[deleted]
so French words basically
Quite a lot of them are very English words that are in common use in England. Of course some of those are of French origin, like about a third of all English words. In any case, it’s more like a list of words an American would find fancy and exotic.
Personally, I revel in these words, even if I never get to use them. Coming across a specialized term for something that was previously nameless feels like receiving a present, something to treasure.