# Expanding My Vocabulary!



## DameiThiessen (Oct 18, 2011)

I've been told time and time again that my writing is good, but a more advanced vocabulary would make it better. So I'm trying to find some new words to use in my writing.

*Tell me, which words are your favourites? (Please include a definition too)*

This is my list so far:

	Aplomb — perpendicular, straight, vertical; imperturbable self possession, poise or assurance
	Unctuous — characterized by excessive piousness or moralistic fervour, especially in an affected manner; excessively suave, smooth, smug; oily, greasy, like lotion is
	Pluvial — rainy
	Scurrilous — grossly or obscenely abusive; stupid
	Irascible — hot tempered, prone to anger
	Bedaubed — soiled heavily
	Verisimilitude — the appearance of truth, seeming to be true or real
	Interregnum — an interval between two rulings
	Pusillanimous — cowardly, lacking in courage
	Fanfaronade — swaggering, empty boasting, ostentatious display; fanfare
	Esoteric — obscure, arcane
	Confute — to over rule by argument, to show or prove to be false
	Cosset — to treat as a pet, pamper
	Quixotic — having romanticized ideals; chivalrous, impractical
	Deprecate — to disprove of; to belittle
	Incipient — beginning to appear (“Also, improved diagnostic techniques can alert individuals to incipient illnesses.”)
	Pugnacious — combative, quarrelsome
	Nomothetic psychology seeks general laws that can be applied to many different people, such as the principle of self-actualization, or the trait of extraversion.
	Idiographic psychology is an attempt to understand the unique aspects of a particular individual.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Oct 18, 2011)

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.


----------



## Eimingami (Oct 18, 2011)

Elder the Dwarf makes a very good point.

On another note: what you are doing is awesome. Keep looking into expanding your vocabulary. I would recommend that when using truly rare words you make sure the meaning is clear through context (at least when using them for the first time).


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 18, 2011)

dictionary.com has a word of the day, I'd go with that one.  The ones that have a good sound and aren't sixty years out of use, you can learn.


----------



## DameiThiessen (Oct 18, 2011)

Elder the Dwarf said:


> 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.



It would depend on whether your story were set in a world where the original work did exist or a world where the original work did not exist. If the latter, it wouldn't make sense, no. But perhaps it could still be used to describe a character or their actions (in third person). And if the former, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used. Personally I think it's okay when referring to classical works, not so much contemporary. But again it would depend on the story.


----------



## myrddin173 (Oct 19, 2011)

Here's a good one.  Defenestrate; v, to throw something out a window.


----------



## mythique890 (Oct 19, 2011)

IMO, though the word "quixotic" entered the language as a literary reference, it has since become part of the language and has its own intrinsic meaning.  I'm pretty sure I've seen it in published fantasy a few times.

Also, here's a good word:
*inÂ·trinÂ·sic* [in-trin-sik, -zik] 
_adjective_
1. Belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
2. Anatomy. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) belonging to or lying within a given part.

And a favorite my dad uses all the time :
*asÂ·iÂ·nine *  [as-uh-nahyn]
_adjective_
1. Foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid: It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements.
2. Of or like an ass: asinine obstinacy; asinine features.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Oct 19, 2011)

Having a desktop thesaurus on your computer is a good idea, running alongside your word processor/writing software. It's also useful when you forget a specific word, but know a similar one. Dictionary.com's Word of the Day is a good idea too.

New words are easier to remember if you apply them, so I think it's best to learn them as you go, when you need them, rather than making lists of new ones.


----------



## Dragonie (Oct 19, 2011)

Eimingami said:


> On another note: what you are doing is awesome. Keep looking into expanding your vocabulary. I would recommend that when using truly rare words you make sure the meaning is clear through context (at least when using them for the first time).



I agree! I like unusual words, but when I run across one of them in a story I don't necessarily want to have to pause to look up the meaning in a dictionary.


----------



## Sparkie (Dec 7, 2011)

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

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

It refers to a policy of vigilance against elements deemed dangerous by an entrenched society, or something like that.


----------



## Devor (Dec 7, 2011)

Learning new words is great, but it's how you use them that's important.  Don't use any language you aren't comfortable with.

I keep a thesaurus handy when I write my second draft.  Typically my first drafts focus on structure, then I rewrite for language (sometimes I do both at once).  When I write for structure I find there's a handful of crutch words I use too often just to keep moving forward quickly, and I have to take them out later.  I think a list of fancy words would make me use those too often as well.  But to each their own.

Here's a word that I find good to use and helpful with understanding my characters all in one:

*cognitive dissonance* (you would just use "dissonance" when you write)
noun Psychology .
anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 7, 2011)

I defiinitely agree that it's great to expand your vocabulary not only to know more but to keep your stories fresh and far from ordinary.  However, I try to avoid obscure or archaic words that people would have a hard time looking up, let alone comprehend. I've found that when I first started writing, I tried to dazzle my readers with my knowledge of synonyms and antonyms. I've since discovered that most of the time, simplicity is best.  I also try to avoid euphimisms at all costs because you can't please everyone.


----------



## Terra Arkay (Dec 7, 2011)

We must remember that if we use words that are completely unheard of like in this case, those new words you've been learning then people are going to have to read a dictionary as well as your writing simultaneously. Think about it.


----------



## Telcontar (Dec 7, 2011)

A fun term. It's often helpful to have an understanding of basic description psychology terms - not to use them in the actual story, but to understand, personally, what kind of traits you are trying to portray. In other words, its easy to develop believable characters when you know a little bit about how people think. 

Try looking up confirmation bias. It's somewhat linked.


----------



## Tim (Dec 7, 2011)

Why use aplomb when you can use straight? I don't think that we as writer's need to talk above our readers. Use the words that you feel most comfortable using and which feel right. More often than not they will feel right to the reader as well.


----------



## Devor (Dec 7, 2011)

Tim said:


> Why use aplomb when you can use straight? I don't think that we as writer's need to talk above our readers.



You've got a great point and truth be told, I had to go look that one up.  But there's certainly reasons to use "aplomb" if the story is right for it.  The reason which comes to mind is characterization.  Maybe the snooty character really is talking down to people.  Maybe you have a narrative voice which echoes that character's thoughts.  Maybe it could be used in irony.

_Miniford nervously smoothed out the wrinkles in his vest while he stood in front of the door, his foot twitching and his throat dry from the anxiety of having to present his findings to the king.  He decided he looked too casual and buttoned his coat.  For a second he stood with great aplomb, and then his monocle slipped from his eye, loosened by sweat.  With a shake of his head he at length pushed open the door and took a trembling step, then a deep breath, and then a long stride forward, struggling to feign confidence._

The word has its uses.  DameiThiessen wants to learn new words.  What's the harm in that?


----------



## Spring-Gem (Dec 7, 2011)

Improving your personal vocabulary is admirable, however you don't necessarily need to use all those new words in your writing. I think the vocabulary in a story aught to be appropriate for the POV character and the story you are trying to tell. An upper class business man will use/think different words than a teenager from the poor side of town.

~Lavern~


----------



## Ghost (Dec 8, 2011)

DameiThiessen said:


> I've been told time and time again that my writing is good, but a more advanced vocabulary would make it better.



Did they give you examples of what they meant by this? Perhaps they meant you overuse certain words or use vague terms instead of specific ones. If they actually meant for you to have a polysyllabic explosion on every page...well, I guess it's a matter of taste.


----------



## Ravana (Dec 8, 2011)

"Vacuum-hermetic fumigation." (Look it up if you can't assemble it from the parts. The only reason it's a "favorite" is because I once had an ESL student try to tell me the paper she'd used it in hadn't been plagiarized.)


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Dec 8, 2011)

Here is where you might want to make sure you don't overdo it.  I was trying to read a non fiction book (political type, name irrelevant), but while I agreed with what the writer was saying, I ended up putting the book back on the shelf after a couple chapters.  He used all the $2 words, that no one else seems to use anymore.  It was a real book, so I didn't have a built in dictionary to give me the definition of every other word just about.  In this case, knowing more words and even if used correctly still cost the writer a reader, since if they do it once, they will most likely always write that way.  If so, I can save myself some time and not bother with it.  

Knowing more words is good, as long as they are ones people might still know.  Using a lot of words that have been long buried by time and lack of use, will only annoy a reader by having to look up each one if they really want to know what you are saying.

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


----------



## Telcontar (Dec 8, 2011)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2011)

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


----------



## Ravana (Dec 8, 2011)

Sparkie said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2011)

Tim said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2011)

Ravana said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2011)

Maybe "plumb?"


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Dec 9, 2011)

> 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 (Dec 9, 2011)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> 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 (Dec 9, 2011)

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 (Dec 10, 2011)

Elder the Dwarf said:


> 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 ).


----------

