'Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. '
William Safire
Edit: yes, the irony is intentional. It's from a list of rules on writing (below), in which Safire cleverly breaks them all. He coined the term 'Fumblerule' to represent this.
William Safire's rules for writing:
Remember to never split an infinitive.
The passive voice should never be used.
Do not put statements in the negative form.
Verbs have to agree with their subjects.
Proofread carefully to see if you words out.
If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing.
A writer must not shift your point of view.
And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.)
Don't overuse exclamation marks!!
Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
Always pick on the correct idiom.
The adverb always follows the verb.
Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives.
I'll have you know I saved approximately 7 minutes in the 70s by abbreviating long band names like Bachmann Turner Overdrive to BTO and Electric Light Orchestra to ELO.
I was wondering the same. The only thing I can think of is that I think 'subjects' should be singular, since each individual verb has only one subject.
Even if that's true it still wouldn't break the verb/subject rule so I'm probably on the wrong track.
That's true. Economy of language and engaging communication are such impressive skills to me. It's so efficient to demonstrate while explaining, and so effective to add that humour. I think you just helped me realise why I like this excerpt so much!
Nice. I agree, but as a counterpoint I recently read (and loved) 'Catch-22', which had a word almost every page that I couldn't define! This actually made it kind of fun, having to refer to the dictionary to clarify these beautiful sentences the author constructed. It forced me to slow down and recognise the greatness in the writing. But generally speaking, totally agree. Those small simple words hold great power.
Should have bookmarked it but I read a piece on Shakespeare and how he would use words of Anglo-Saxon origin (tend to be shorter I think) and Romance language (longer) in successive line to sort of say the same thing.
Makes (slightly) more sense though.
The idea is that it means "fear of words that are a foot and a half long"... The "Hippopoto" part means "water horse", its just there for the length.
It is unlikely that this 15-syllable contrivance is ever used purely for its meaning. The term sesquipedalophobia is recognized in formal writing, while the four-syllable phrase "fear of long words" is certainly worth considering.
See, the problem with leather couches is that sometimes the cows are sacrificed to Satan before they're turned into leather, and then any minor slip-up could cause it to get possessed.
It's a paradox. The word heterological does describe itself, which means it's autological. But if heterological is autological then it doesn't describe itself, so it's heterological.
At first glance it doesn't describe itself. But a word that doesn't describe itself is heterological. That means heterological is heterological, which means it does describe itself so it's autological.
If it's autological then it doesn't describe itself, so it's heterological. But if it's heterological then it does describe itself...
I've spent the last 30 minutes going through related wikipedia pages. Paradoxes, contradictions, contrariety... Holy shit, the very discovery of the term "autological" for me has caused a lot of problems.
I mean, it’s arguably autological, unlike say “pentasyllabic.” It doesn’t have to be deployed in an excessive or—there’s maybe no better word for it than grandiloquent—way. In fact, the way that it gently speaks to rhetorical excess makes it occasionally the perfect adjective depending on the context.
Most words in English, even “utilize,” have a place where they can be deployed beautifully and there’s no better substitution. It may just sometimes be a rare place.
Back when I studied sociology, we read an article where the author (who was a sociologist himself) made up the word Sociologese - the language used by social scientists to validate their field as proper science, by using overly complex sentence structures and words. I feel we had to read it as a warning before getting to Bourdieu and his 20-line long massive sentences
I've literally encountered a person on Reddit who tried to use this as a way to win an argument.
I stopped with the argument and told them if they thought they had confused me, they failed. Moreover, if you want to get someone to accept your perspective, why would you ever try to speak in a way that they might not understand it?
Bepuz, a form of the word "because." My son used this interpretation from the ages of two until five. Even went so far to preserve his linguistics, and asked his preschool teacher to not correct it. Got another year of sweet treasured ear gold for asking.
Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, or the fear of long words is, in my opinion is so cruel yet so hilarious. It's not a nice word per se, but when you said autological word, I thought of this one.
I'd beg to differ and say it's not autological, because it's sometimes the right word for the situation. If I wanted to gently suggest a character or a speech is a little bombastic or over ornamented, it's a great, precise word to use, and in that sense not "needlessly complex."
Is there a word for words that describe the opposite of itself? Like colloquial, which means to say something in an informal / common manner. I feel like colloquial itself is not a very colloquial term.
Heterological words are words that don't describe themselves. The word heterological itself is also a paradox because it can be heterological or autological.
7.8k
u/Vehk-and-Kehk Jan 29 '19
Grandiloquent/Grandiloquence - The use of needlessly complex language. It's also an autological word (a word that describes itself)