14
votes
Linguaphiles of Tildes: where do you get your words?
If you love language, etymology, or just plain collecting interesting words, where do you look to feed your interest? I’ve seen many RobWords (YouTube) posts here, and I really like his content. I also love the traditional word hunt through reading authors like Dickens.
In addition to “where do you look?”, what does your hobby look like? Do you keep lists of words that you review and learn about? Do you make effort to include your newly found words in writing or conversation? I have the (probably very annoying) habit of interrupting a conversation to say, “you know, there is an interesting word for that!”. What else do you do?
To answer your question, reading. To elaborate on that answer somewhat, I actively look up words that I don't already know. Meaning, even if a sentence makes sense to me from context, I will often still stop and take advantage of the Internet to pop it into Google and read the definition. If necessary, I'll click on a Merriam Webster or Oxford Dictionary link and read it there. It seems not that many people do this; either the reading or the looking up.
As far as using them in language, spoken or written, I've found people get really pissy when they begin to sense your vocabulary is more expansive than theirs. You get written off. They just put you into an "ignored" or "not for me" category because you don't drop down to their conversational level. Some of them actively file you under "uppity asshole" simply for having the temerity to have a vocabulary.
Most people's conversational level around 9th grade. Sometimes not even that. Off the top of my head, I've had people start angry exchanges with me (the anger seemingly coming from how they don't know the word and are upset it's become apparent both they and I are now aware of this fact) over the use of words like pithy, elicit, quixotic, capricious, and alliteration.
One woman, who I will never forget, even accused me of being some kind of asshole bigot because I used the phrase "yada yada" in conversation. She thought the phrase was some sort of coded "fuck you" sentiment, that I was using it to tell her off or something like that. And, even now, I don't even watch Seinfeld. Not that Seinfeld originated the phrase, but the show had re-popularized the hell out of it in the 90s, and I'd picked it up from pop culture context. Simply by paying attention to language, and I'm not even some kind of linguistic scholar; I just read and think a lot.
Pithy really annoyed me, and I've also never forgotten that one either. The guy who got annoyed with me was freaking British. As in, from England. He stopped our (work) conversation to ask me what I meant by pithy. Then proceeded to inform me that pithy didn't mean what I was using it to indicate (concise substantive linguistic style). And got seriously bent out of shape when, after we dropped it into the brand new (at the time) Google it came out the word did match the context and meaning I was using it in.
So, basically, people are the problem. They'd rather be angry than wrong, and they definitely often prefer to choose anger over even the slightest sense of embarrassment. Why it should be embarrassing to learn a new word is completely beyond me, but that's the usual reaction I encounter; that they don't know the word(s) that've come up in the conversation triggers some sort of humiliation reflex that they'll then convert into anger to burn back the humiliation with rage.
What's the result? The common vocabulary hovers at around 20K words, and most people are toward the lower end of that band. These are adults, by the way. A lifelong reader might reach their golden years with a vocabulary that's expanded to maybe twice that, and someone who's very well read might reach around 60K or thereabouts. If you wander around using big words, you leave others perplexed and often irritated as a result, and those negative reactions then exacerbate any subsequent attempts to interact with them.
Fun times.
ps: I about died laughing when Shaun of the Dead did their exacerbate joke. However, note they had to define the word before they could then use it later in proper context. Otherwise, when "Don't exacerbate things!" comes up later in the middle of a tense scene, it wooshes right over the head of the bulk of the audience. The screenwriters found a way to make it funny when they defined it, but they pretty much had to define it to avoid that subsequent woosh.
Language is about communicating. What's the point of not dropping your vocabulary level to that of your interlocutors if not to show off?
The thing that gets me is everybody trying to use fancy words and phrases they don't understand. If I hear someone say "writ large" to mean "at large" on more time, I swear I'm going to scream.
Sometimes people use inflated language unnecessarily, and sometimes they are using precise language for a reason. I remember someone being a little ruffled when I used the term idiomatic, and explained using the following approximate definition
The context is I was explaining why you might use different development patterns to achieve the same thing across different languages or technical frameworks, because you should use the constructs in a way that is idiomatic to the environment.
I'll caveat that I don't often have people get ruffled, and that this person tended to be a bit cranky regardless. But it does happen.
I'll say it is also fun to use words that help spruce up a conversation. I remember talking to a director and I was talking about how the culture of a particular unit was like a miasma, and they sort of grimaced at the description (they knew what it meant). So when I do use words that are less common it is either to add flavor or context to what I'm relaying, or because I'm describing something very specific.
Cheers!
Not treating them like slow children? Adults don't like to be condescended to, and if they sense that you're dumbing down what you say, they might get annoyed.
In conversation we suppose that what a speaker says is sufficiently relevant enough to be worth processing, but also that listeners will be able to comprehend the meaning of our words, which we select in accordance to our assumptions about the cognitive states (intellect, yes, but also home country, specific/expert knowledge, familiarity with another human, etc.) of others. Those assumptions are constantly changing and shifting the more we talk with someone, and the more we find out about them. But the only way to do that is to communicate. And I would rather treat someone like they are well-read, and can understand the less common words that I use for the sake of precision and directness, rather than the opposite assumption which places me above them in some kind of intellectual hierarchy. If I use a word they don't recognise, I have a responsibility to explain it for them, to keep the conversation rolling. But they have a responsibility to ask for clarification as well.
I agree, but it can be hard to know what someone's vocab is like when you first meet them (without making a lot of loaded assumptions anyway).
This is true, but even as someone who understands and likes the word "quixotic" I'd think someone was an uppity asshole using it in a casual conversation.
Today’s word is: code-switching.
Today’s goal is: code-switch so you more effectively communicate with your audience and don’t seem like an uppity asshole.
It’s a skill I started working on decades ago so I didn’t get beat up in primary school and still serves me well.
Yeah, using different language in different contexts is a skill. Blasting everyone you talk to with all your highest-level vocab words just because you can is actually not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign that you lack the social awareness to vary your language use based on context.
Especially because it's not pronounced "key-hoe-tick." I understand that the pronunciation of the word is older than the modern pronunciation of Quixote...but, like, so was the old pronunciation of Quixote? Seriously, why the fuck would the pronunciation of the adjective version of a name not change when the pronunciation of the noun version changes??? What a stupid word.
And there is not a single good discussion about that word online. Everybody's explanation is always "well, key-HOE-tick" would sound weird!" What?? That's just because you're a prescriptivist asshole.
Although, to be fair, "kwik-ZAH-tick" would make a cool word if we needed a quick form of "exotic." But we don't, so it's not.
Speaking of pronunciation, could we all get on team hege-mony not hegem-ony?
Heh-JEH-muhnee here.
Ish. So I think we're mortal enemies?
We’re not mortal enemies! I checked myself to make sure I wasn’t tripping and I might have figured out why I’m all in on hedge + im (as in important) + ony (as in phony).
Parsimony, matrimony, and hegemony walk into a bar.
Parsimony ordered a glass of water.
Matrimony ordered two coffees: one for themself and one for their partner - patrimony - who was on the way but running late.
Hegemony ordered a whiskey and thought to themself: “Jiminy cricket! Why can people pronounce my siblings names but not mine! I must assert dominance!”
I do say "hedge-i-mon" but flip the pronunciation with the y at the end.
Idk if there's another pronunciation for that one.
But mostly I blame a mix of Enders Game and listening to British people speak
I like this way too. It sounds so much fancier and impactful. Like it would be spelled hegemony.
I love quixotic in part because of the weird pronunciation shenanigans, but in like 99% of conversations there is a better, more widely understood word that is a better option lol.
As a reader who never heard the words, I think I found out how quixotic was pronounced like two years ago. I was annoyed.
Funnily enough, one of the few English words that I know and can pronounce but can never correctly define! I learned it from a Fire Emblem skill named "Quixotic". And even more humorously, the character that I first unlocked the skill on was a bit of a pompous asshole, so your point is taken lol.
I'm on your side of things. I've always found it disheartening when I have to tamp down my language to get my point across. Learning another language has given me a lot empathy for my interlocutors though.
There are two sides to a conversation, right? On one hand, you want to communicate your thoughts as they come to you in the form they formed in your head. On the other side, ideally, the listener earnestly wants to understand what you're telling them, but they may be having trouble stringing your clauses together in their head.
There's always going to be some give and take in good conversations where both sides are stretching and sharing just the right amount to communicate. In my mind, language is often more of an art than a science, and there's no perfect medium to communicate all our thoughts and feelings.
I study literature in university as well as français langue seconde (french as a second language) so I guess I am rather privileged to be dedicating much of my time to this pursuit. Much of what I get to read allows me to extend my vocabulary quite thoroughly, and my interest in linguistics and etymology are also invoked whenever I look up words in older texts I do not know. One of the most helpful things for me has been reading texts written in Middle-English, if you've never read any there's some texts that are written in more mutually intelligible dialects than others (some you'll likely want a gloss of sorts), and looking up the occasional word always leads to incredible etymological information.
Learning French, Latin (Classical) and Ancient Greek (Attic) has also been quite useful. I'm fairly fluent in French at this point after studying for so long, which then gave me quite a useful basis going into Latin and Greek. At least for my study methods / interests, learning the vocabulary for Latin and Greek was often made accessible by seeing the etymological connections to French or English (often to words that aren't used often, had a shift in meaning etc)
I know it's not necessarily in your interests as it seems you care more about the linguistics side--which is totally fine--but, out of curiosity, how well can you actually integrate yourself into a typical group of French?
I ask because my French is like technically around a B2 and I'm horrified of formal French, but I've got French friends who swear I must be a real French because I talk just like them.
Certainly, no one method/interest is better, but I'm curious if you can integrate into informal French better than I can into formal French.
It's worth noting that there's a pretty wide gulf between formal (usually written) French and casual spoken French, to a much larger extent than in English afaik. It's not actually so unusual, then, for your skills to be unbalanced between them. And imo, of the two, casual spoken French is by far the more interesting.
Fully random but as someone that just learned of a whole new tense of French because I'm reading a book, I'd just like to say it is annoying to look up fut only to find it's somehow être.
ಠ_ಠ
So yeah I'm learning that.
This is where you find out that everything you learned about French is wrong. Okay, it's only one thing, but it's something most French people don't even know.
You know how in French in order to say "I slept," you have to say "I have slept?" Well, the forbidden secret of the French language is that je dormis is really the equivalent of "I slept" and j'ai dormi is only "I have slept." There's a cabal of old French dudes called les immortels who withhold this information from the French public, but now you are a bearer of this ancient truth.
Also, please note that I didn't say it's a shadowy cabal because it's really just the Académie Française and they're not really secretive in any way. There's no actual conspiracy here.
Or is there?
The conspiracy part is not telling me until I pick up a children's book! Also, at least with most verbs I can tell what's going on. Je dormis is able to be figured out by context clues.
But "Lucy fut..."? WTF être. ರ╭╮ರ.
I'm mad at the cabal of indeterminate amounts of shadow for that stupid conjugation. (Yes I'm sure there's a linguistic reason for it, but it's dumb and I will continue to cross my arms and huff about it)
You just gave the reason for it ;)
be/am/are/is/was/were/been
être/suis/es/est/sont/êtes/fut/été/étais/infinite other conjugations because French goes hard
They're called irregular verbs and they're the oldest words in the language. They're so common that they don't change to follow the patterns other verbs take in the language.
It's the fact that the F is out of nowhere. Irregular verbs are irregular sure, but when I say a reason, I mean why this specifically. So perhaps an etymological reason is what I meant.
I know that the reason that the English forms of "to be" are so different is because they were originally three different verbs that merged to become different grammatical forms of a single, irregular verb in a process called suppletion. I don't know much about French, not enough to directly address this case, but I do know the Latin verb for "to be" was also suppletive (its principle parts are sum, esse, fuī, futūrus), so I suspect suppletion was involved in these shenanigans at one stage or another. Forms of "to be" seem to be disproportionately often suppletive, perhaps because they're so common that irregularities are more likely to stick around.
I bet it came from one of those Latin "fu...." forms then.
I retain the right to be huffy about no one ever telling me about it.
And annoyed that the cabal of questionable hue chose the MORE COMPLICATED PAST TENSE to use daily
(┛◉Д◉)┛彡┻━┻
┬─┬ノ(ಠ_ಠノ)
What makes you think the passé composé is more complicated and the passé simple is...ah.
lol you'll never run out of weird shit when it comes to French
I'm sure. And I'm not conversationally competent. I'm anxious about even trying. But I am pretty sure I can read this book.
If there are no more surprise tenses.
I suppose it's a little late to mention now, since the translation project was completed, but the Book of Magical Charms is an excellent resource for dissecting Latin (to keep up competencies). There is a new project on transcribing postcards, but no Latin that I've seen yet, only cursive. With schoolchildren not being taught cursive, the project has a certain air of… quick necessity to it.
I have been a book lover all of my life and most of my learning of new words happens organically through reading well written books, especially books set in other places or written in the past.
Some words I have learned through my work.
I'll second reading, but add that it helps to read a wide variety of types of books from different eras. If you read the same genre over and over you won't get the same coverage as if you go wide.
E.g., some 20th century WWII biographies, some Charles Dickens, some Tolstoy, Stephen Pinker, Nassim Taleb, and a smattering of fiction and fantasy will expose you to a wide swath of language. This is just an example, but if you develop this wide ranging diet, and look up every word you don't know or see in a context you don't expect, you'll be filling the $5 word jar at work.
I would suggest challenging yourself to also pick authors from cultures you haven't read much of. I made an effort to diversify the authors I read and it was rewarding. One book that jumps out is "Who fears death" which was written by an African woman and was an amazing book and cultural experience.
Edit: and Stephen Pinker in particular has a knack for using less common words in exactly the right context, which is satisfying to read. But what else would you expect from the Chair of Usage for the American heritage dictionary.
It's probably worth noting that Pinker is an absolutely garbage person, though, and that he holds a number of opinions that don't jive with scientific consensus because he's turned into a regressive anti-progressive dipshit. None of that affects how good his books are as a source of new vocabulary, but it's worth knowing about the content before going into any of his work, especially anything more recent.
I've led a committed higher Ed and public service career and still read books like "The case against higher education" even though I disagree with them. I think only reading from sources you already agree with will impoverish your thinking.
I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't necessarily entail going into those works without any context, and knowing things about who wrote a work can inform your critical thinking when you assess their arguments.
Of the nine books that Pinker has authored for a general audience, which ones arguments do you feel require disclaiming as the work of a regressive?
The only one that really jumps to mind is the section in Enlightenment Now, and the longer version in Better Angels of Our Nature where he discusses wage growth vs quality of life as being potentially worth noting that some of his views are right of center with regards to economics. But he generally keeps his personal views and politics out of his academic arguments in his books, and reserves those for other forums.
That said, from the wiki entry on him:
So I wouldn't exactly call him regressive as much as left of center (of US politics).
I'm not asking for "disclaimers" on his books, I am criticizing beliefs and opinions he has expressed publicly in various places (though they can of course influence his work, my understanding is that he's much more open about these views in other forums, though I have heard Enlightenment Now criticized specifically). Knowing that the author of a work has been criticized for things like this is context that can be valuable when engaging with his work. Knowing an author's background and criticisms of their beliefs and positions before going into their work doesn't impede the process of reading critically, and acknowledging that context when a work is recommended is only encouraging crticial thinking.
As for his specific positions that I consider regressive, I recommend scrolling through more of his wikipedia article than you have, because the rest of the section you quote from contains plenty of examples of controversies Pinker has been involved in -- though I think the wikipedia article defends him from his critics in this section to an extent that's not as impartial as wikipedia generally tends to be, it does at least provide examples you can read more on yourself. It should not be difficult to at least see how someone else would come to the conclusion he's politically regressive from just the examples in his wikipedia article, even if you ultimately disagree.
My personal opinion is that he's given plenty of evidence that he's at least unsympathetic to victims of misogyny and racism, and he has on multiple occasions more or less denied that these exist systemically whatsoever even in the face of horrendous tragedies. And by god, don't even get me started on how virulently anti-trans he is. That is one thing that isn't captured well in his wikipedia article but it should absolutely inform one's assessment of his politics and beliefs about humankind.
But honestly, I'm not really interested in having an argument with you about Pinker here. I gave a caveat on an author whose books have some good stuff in them but whose author holds views I personally disagree with. I didn't even advise against reading his books here, merely mentioned that it might be context worth considering when reading his work. Whether you agree with me on Pinker specifically or not, my offering my opinion on his beliefs and behavior and advising that you read his work critically is not some sort of attempt to stifle independent thought here.
For what it's worth, there are plenty of things I disagree with Pinker on, not the least of his statements around possible explanatory factors for underrepresentation in areas of academic leadership. And I welcome criticisms of authors claims. But when an author is described as "an absolutely garbage person, though, and that he holds a number of opinions that don't jive with scientific consensus because he's turned into a regressive anti-progressive dipshit" I think it is fair to ask follow up questions or contextualize it, especially in regards to the content of his books.
But I respect not wanting to debate Pinker. Lord knows he can speak for himself.
Yeah I'm fine with follow-up questions, the initial reply just came off as a bit more on the "you shouldn't criticize him" end. Probably a "tone in text-only online communication" problem. I was in academia in linguistics and still on Twitter when the LSA open letter happened and suffice it to say that nuked my desire to ever give Pinker the benefit of the doubt.
Agreed, text is a hard medium to convey tone and lacks all the non-verbal cues that lubricate conversation.
Cheers!
A comfortable seat...maybe some armrests?
I mean, that's fair.
I will certainly check out Stephen Pinker's works.
After reading The Professor and the Madman (and other selected writings) I can't go back to any dictionary other than the OED. It may just be in your wheelhouse.
I'll have to check that out, thank you!
Hello, and thank you for posing this question. I enjoyed seeing the replies (and the resources. Yoink!) from the linguists. I am not a linguist. I do have a casual interest in Philology, Rhetoric, and Oratory, though. So my answers may be radically different and faux pas in official circles.
There is the boring way (which I've done many times). This is where I'll read a dictionary cover-to-cover to look for exciting words/find gaps in my language, or blind-pick a page and focus on using one word for the day. It's a fun way to discover words, but good luck slipping myasthenia gravis into casual conversation. When I encounter hazardous terrain linguistically, I also use Sisson's word and expression locater, A Browser's Dictionary by John Ciardi, and Speaker's Lifetime Library by Leonard and Thelma Spinard. Some of these resources are more effective than others, but they all tend to get me over that hump.
Second, and something I picked up from Joseph Tsar's video on speaking articulately, is that we tend to think in the terms of what we experience. (Think of the Tetris Dream Effect.) So like Krellor, DavesWorld, and boxer_dogs_dance said, read. Read a variety of books from different authors, times, and places. You'll go far this way. I prefer translations of Ancient Greek, Latin, or Japanese philosophical works for concepts and sentence structure, and mid-to-post WWII books (1939-51) for words. Memoirs and Sci-Fi are my go-to's.
More importantly than just books, consume your broader media in a way that will expose you to new words and phrases. Try watching "old movies". Watch Casablanca (not even for new words. Just watch it.) Learning words is easy, retaining them not so much. When we consume endless media (especially short-span content with instant dopamine rewards) it pushes the good stuff (like delectable new words) out of our brain. So avoid consuming meaningless short-term content in great quantities; Ideally don't watch it at all, but I'll forgive the human element.
I keep history's greatest speeches on my phone to listen to when I'm looking for that kind of kick. Here are those resources for you: archive.org | Greatest Speeches of the 20th Century, americanrhetoric.com | Top Ten Speeches.
Yes, my list is aptly titled "Personal Glossary of Words: Found and Remembered". I incorporate these words where it's appropriate to do so (this is key) in casual conversation. Studying the structure of conversation and how to communicate well will accomplish a lot for you here. I'd say treat words like wine. Save the rarer, limited words for special occasions (or save a few to enjoy to yourself.)
If you want a handful of my favorite words from my collection, I'll add a few for you. Some may seem simple, but I love them all.
corollary, efficacious, idiosyncratic, internecine, picayune, prosody, pontificate, reticence, tryst, and vicissitudes.
When I record the words, I'll mark the work they came from, the page#/season:episode, and the date of addition. So 'Picayune' came from page 28 of My Share of the Task by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and Tryst came from iZombie Season 1: Episode 8. I also mark when I find the same word in other books with a special notation specific to "repeated finding of words already listed in glossary." It's a good time.
What an essay, good luck with your word-finding! I'll leave you with a latin phrase as well. Scientia Non Olet, it's a small play on pecunia non olet, but it essentially means that the place that you got the knowledge from doesn't matter as much as the value of the knowledge itself, so don't worry if your word comes from iZombie or some obscure text assigned to a college reading class. Both are valid.
You don’t need to go that far back for fiction with bougie words, e.g Le Guin and Walker Percy drop bougie words like Pitbull drops summer jams.
Haha, I don't read him just for the words, but it is a good point. I haven't read either of the authors you mentioned so I'll put them on the list. Thanks!