Expanding My Vocabulary!

[Telcontar]

Writing is communication, and the point you stop communicating to the reader, you are failing to do your job as a writer.

Good way to put it. Having an expansive vocabulary is great, but you have to know how to speak in any given situation. That means you have to know your intended audience. Even adult level fantasy books shouldn't be using crazily complicated words too often, because you want to stick with the vocab your audience will likely know. It's fun to throw in a favorite larger word here and there, but only when it really fits, and you think the pleasure of learning a new word will outweigh the distraction of looking it up for those readers who needed to do so.

 

[Tim]

Great point and well said. The right hat for the right circumstance.

 

[Ravana]

I dare anyone reading this post to use the word antidisestablishmentarianisim in a short story.

Not again, thank you.

I won't strictly define it; hell, I can barely spell it!

Hmph. It's spelled exactly the way you'd expect from the elements; just break it down into pieces and there's no problem.

Likewise, its basic meaning can be derived from its parts: it's a philosophy (-ism) held by persons (-arian-) opposing (anti-) the disestablishment of something (I'll assume there's no problem breaking that much apart). To put it in the historical context in which it first arose, it was coined to refer to those who opposed

…the withdrawal of state recognition of an established church; used especially concerning the Anglican Church in England.

Anyone remember what's referred to as the "Establishment Clause" in the First Amendment? Disestablishmentarians were people who sought to bring about the same effect—no state church—in an environment where one had already been established. Antidisestablishmentarians were those who wanted to keep it.

Of course, there's no reason to limit it to its original context: anybody who opposes someone who's trying to undo something that has been established by some authority or other can be an antidisestablishmentarian. Got all that? Good.

 

[Ravana]

Why use aplomb when you can use straight?

If I meant "straight," I wouldn't use "aplomb." Go back and read the definition: it has considerably different uses. (In fact, I don't find "straight" as part of its definition in either my Webster's or the online OED; I'm too lazy to pull out my hardcopy at the moment.) I would use "aplomb" when I meant "self-confidence or assurance in a demanding situation"–which is what the online OED does have. "Aplomb" is a lot shorter.

I don't know why people complain about encountering words they've never seen before in a text: I love it when I run across new ones. Even if they're ones I'll never use.

If an editor (or whoever) is commenting that you need a "more advanced vocabulary," then it's probably because you're using the couple thousand words everyone needs to be able to read a newspaper article, and little or nothing beyond this. (Some estimates put this as low as around 700, but I think this is a pretty severe underestimate–even for something like USA Today.) That kind of writing may be fine for newspapers–but that's not what you're writing. You want to be shooting for closer to 7,000 to 15,000 words… in your active vocabulary (what you use, as opposed to what you understand). Even that's low, really: reputable linguists have estimated the vocabulary of a college graduate at between 40,000 and 75,000 words, depending on exactly how you're doing your count, and whether you're looking at active or passive vocabulary. (David Crystal is probably the foremost name among those who have explored this.) Which is still trivial compared to the 301,100 main entries in the OED… which grows to 616,500 words when word-forms (i.e. "run, ran, running") are considered, though these should not properly be counted as separate "words" in a vocabulary. Many of these entries are scientific or technical terms; many more are obsolete words from the language's past. Take those out, and you're still left with an abundantly rich reservoir to draw upon for your own contributions to English literature.

It's true that writing is communication, and that employing obscurities solely to show off is not good communication. But I don't find any virtue in assuming stupidity or borderline literacy in my audience, either: if someone runs across a word I've used that they don't know, and can't figure out adequately from context, I assume that they'll look it up if they're genuinely interested–and that they're competent to do so. There's no possible way to guarantee that your reader will know all the words you use: after all, every word is new to everyone at some point. Do you really want to cripple your writing just because yours might be the first fantasy story some young reader discovers?

Me, I'd rather present them the opportunity to learn.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

If I meant "straight," I wouldn't use "aplomb." Go back and read the definition: it has considerably different uses. (In fact, I don't find "straight" as part of its definition in either my Webster's or the online OED; I'm too lazy to pull out my hardcopy at the moment.) I would use "aplomb" when I meant "self-confidence or assurance in a demanding situation"—which is what the online OED does have. "Aplomb" is a lot shorter.

Haha I was going to say that but didn't want to be too "correcting" for lack of a better word. The two have completely different meanings.

 

[Ghost]

Maybe "plumb?"

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

It's true that writing is communication, and that employing obscurities solely to show off is not good communication. But I don't find any virtue in assuming stupidity or borderline literacy in my audience, either: if someone runs across a word I've used that they don't know, and can't figure out adequately from context, I assume that they'll look it up if they're genuinely interested—and that they're competent to do so. There's no possible way to guarantee that your reader will know all the words you use: after all, every word is new to everyone at some point. Do you really want to cripple your writing just because yours might be the first fantasy story some young reader discovers?

Very much so, but I'm more referring to the overuse of words that most people will not know unless they study them. Having a correct but less known word that fits the situation can often times be understood by it's context. My point is people shouldn't go overboard and fill their sentences with words most people will have to look up. Three to four a sentence will ensure the reader puts your book down and remember you as an author they don't want to bother with again.

 

[Devor]

Very much so, but I'm more referring to the overuse of words that most people will not know unless they study them. Having a correct but less known word that fits the situation can often times be understood by it's context. My point is people shouldn't go overboard and fill their sentences with words most people will have to look up. Three to four a sentence will ensure the reader puts your book down and remember you as an author they don't want to bother with again.

I don't really think it matters whether the readers necessarily know the word. It can be pretentious and overblown even while it's understood, and certainly a word that's completely unknown can go unnoticed and even be a positive.

I wrote a short story about dwarves, and I used words in the narration that were from the "dwarf language" list published by Warhammer. Nobody would know them going into the story, but nobody thought it was a problem. Their meanings were made relatively clear in the text so you didn't have to look them up, and they added to the flavor of the story.

I think it's creating the right voice which will make the difference more than the reader's familiarity with a few words.

 

[cariadhe]

I'm not sure if I'd really use some of those in writing, but your choice! Sometimes I pick up a book and, five pages in, I get a headache from all the formal words and general noise (unnecessary stuff). But if you experiment around and get it right, you can also work unusual words really well into your stories.

Here's some animal-ish words:

leonine: lions (esp. of a face) (a proud, leonine face)
leporine: hares (a leporine gait)
corvine: crows (esp. to describe something black) (... corvine hair?)
aquiline: eagles (esp. to describe a sharp, hooked nose) (sharp cheekbones and an aquiline nose)
psittacine: parrots (esp. to describe repetition) (in psittacine mockery)
equine: horses (her equine wooing)
canine: yeah...
feline: again... I think you've got this one
murine: mice (a timid, murine look)
taurine: oxen (taurine determination)
ursine: bears (with ursine strength)

Hope it helps, and happy writing!

 

[Erica]

Can't think of words right now but just a question:

Is it appropriate to use words such as Quixotic in fantasy when it is a clear illusion to a real-world novel (Don Quixote)? I don't feel it would make sense when applied in a made up world, like mentioning a Romeo and Juliet when describing characters' relationships. Just wanted to get another perspective on it.

I've struggled with the same issue. So many words we use have specific cultural/historic references that may not apply to a given fantasy setting. I tend to go with whether or not a term 'works' in the context of the world I've created. After all, our characters in a 'long long ago far far away' fantasy world are not 'really' speaking English or any other known language. We write their story in English out of expediency. So although my made up fantasy world does not have access to Don Quixote as a character, there may be a similar idiom/story in their culture that has given them a word that would 'translate' to Quixotic.

I agree that expanding one's vocabulary is a good thing, since the more ways you have of expressing a concept, the more flexibility you have (and the less repetitive your prose will be if you don't keep using the same few words over and over). The best way you can expand your vocabulary is to read a lot and to notice new words when you encounter them (and look em up when you can't figure out what they mean from how they're used). Words are fun, in any case.

Still, don't go overboard with using 5 dollar words when 50 cent words will do, or your writing may start to sound pedantic (another great word ).