>if you had something important to say, you wouldn't be hiding it behind big words when small words work finepseudo bros, how do I refute this? I've been trying for years.
>pseudo broserr, pseud bros.
You could have posted this and been based, but alas.
there are some good arguments for this, but i'm not trying to arm my enemies
>>24690261it's called terminology. we condense things that would take a sentence to describe into fewer words
>>24690278>we condense things that would take a sentence to describe into fewer wordsThe correct phrase is "describe in fewer words."The preposition "in" is used to indicate the form, state, or manner of something. You are describing something in the form of fewer words. The preposition "into" implies movement or a change of state, and while you are changing the length of the description, "in" is the more natural and widely accepted preposition for this context.
>>24690287"into" here is used with "condense" not "describe"
>>24690290The sentence is: "we condense things that would take a sentence to describe into fewer words."The misplaced modifier is indeed the prepositional phrase "into fewer words."Here's a breakdown of why it's a misplaced modifier and how it modifies "describe" instead of "condense":The Verb 'describe': This verb is immediately followed by the prepositional phrase "into fewer words." The standard English structure is to have a verb followed by its modifiers. So, because of its proximity, "into fewer words" appears to be modifying "describe." This creates the nonsensical image of someone describing something "into fewer words." You can't describe "into" a form; you describe "in" or "with" a form.The Verb 'condense': The intended verb to be modified is "condense." The phrase "into fewer words" is meant to show the result of the condensation. The sentence is meant to say that "we condense things and the result is fewer words." However, the modifier is separated from its intended verb by a clause "that would take a sentence to describe."To correct the sentence and connect the modifier "into fewer words" to its intended verb "condense," you can rephrase it in a few ways:"We condense things that would take a sentence to describe, converting them into fewer words." (Adds clarity by using a different verb)"We condense into fewer words things that would take a sentence to describe." (Directly places the modifier next to the verb it modifies)"We condense sentence-long descriptions into fewer words." (A more concise and elegant solution)
>>24690299i'm just Miltonian, clanker. of course you wouldn't understand
i support anon using AI to smite random assertions. we only have so much time in a day
i'm not dumbing down my vocabulary so your stupid ass can understand what i'm talking about
The Greeks pretty much only had big words, it is because their words have so many syllables that they had to introduce vowels into the alphabet they inherited from Semites. However putting aside that they also invented philosophy, if you look at the letters and statements of gunfighters in the west, they frequently use big words. So I think there is also an aesthetic consideration here, big words used to be considered important to speech like a hat and tie were to dress, but as things got more casual, small words became more fashionabletl;dr both big words and small words are an aesthetic choice and have to do with what is considered hip. Both can also just as easily be used to obfuscate, newspeak is an example of using and preferring small words specifically as a means to obfuscate meaning.
>>24690261because you want to convey the very essence of an idea and not diverge into a bunch of appositionsbut i personally will try to stop using new additions to my own language(romanian which has been infested by french in the 19th century and now by english) and perhapse also in the other languages i speak, especially german since i always have a tendency to use franconisms and anglicanism(also french), english not so much because it's a mutt language anyway and god knows if a word was borrowed in the 12th, 16th or 19th centurylatinisms and helenisms are also bad, not only the frog wordsthe big problem i see with these "BIG" words is that at their origin they meant the exact same thing and were just as simple as the normal words, it's just that some guys gave them special meanings in some books and now we all use them in these ways, we re like niggers naming our kids Daquan and Laquisha but with wordsif english wants to be a respectable language again and avoid the y'allcalipse it should start reusing second person singular, o dont even feel like im being respectful when using you
>if you had something important to say, you wouldn't be hiding it behind big words when small words work fine
I used the word "latter" (as in latter & former) when talking to a really successful guy recently and he had no idea what I meant.
>>24690488Despite the presence of it in books, I have never heard the word latter spoken aloud except by the doctor in Voyager who was more than a little elitist
>>24690488If you're a burger speaking to a bong, he may wonder where that ladder is.
>>24690493My mum doesn't know what it means either.
>>24690261>pseudo bros, how do I refute this? I've been trying for years.Have you ever just tried beating a woman, time after time, with a lead filled leather truncheon, until she's hospitalised?
>>24690501no, women deserve to be loved and cherished
>>24690261Who are you refuting? If you're using big words on someone who won't understand them then yes, you're being inappropriate. This is apposed to being a doctor and you're speaking to another doctor. If you need to refute the use of a 'complex word' to another doctor, then you're questioning their proficiency on the matter. The refute is easy, you state that they should know what you're referring to since you're not using laymen's terms and shouldn't be expected to do so. I prefer philology over philosophy. if you're a pseud discussing with pseuds it's best to just concede and chalk it up to a difference in special interest.
>>24690261The complexity of the language used to convey something should be commensurate to the complexity of what is being conveyed. From this it immediately follows that we can call 'pretentious' anyone who uses language more complex than is necessary for what they are saying, and the opposite would just be someone failing to articulate what they mean.
>>24690742It's strange in these threads (and for a lit thread there's an awful lot of posting about the fear/insecurity of coming off "performative") there's never an argument made for the basic pleasure of performance itself. The joy of language, of an overspilling cup. Always this cuck whipping one's balls based on the possibility of running afoul of mediocrities. Sad. Fucking enjoy your instrument.
>>24690817The joy of language can be either in big words or small words, at least in English which in its original form had a vocabulary of short words, then had long words introduced with the Norman Conquest. The King James Bible, which emulates Semitic style, uses a relatively small vocabulary for its size and will fewer syllable and simpler syntax, and most literature buffs do not consider it ugly
>>24690261This only applies to non-fiction. There's a difference between veiling simple ideas behind complex language and portraying a scene in an interesting and memorable way.
Depriving yourself of words that people understand, because they somehow deem these words "complicated" despite them knowing what they mean, is to handicap the poetry of your prose in fear of some unmentioned third party who may take offense.
Sophisticated ideas are best suited for sophisticated language and simple ideas are best suited for simple language. The importance of either one is something to be evaluated completely independently and apart from complexity. Hope this helps
>>24690274This, it really boils down to pragmatic obscurantism >>24690742>The complexity of the language used to convey something should be commensurate to the complexity of what is being conveyedAlso commensurate to whom it is being conveyed. I dont like discoursing with conceited obscurantists, always missing the forest for the trees intentionally or otherwise, so I chose not to style myself after them. If that comes off as unrefined, so be it.
>>24690261Word precision is more important than word length
I don't use big words to hide, I use them for the precision of meaning they offer to those capable of understanding them. Why use a dozen words when a carefully selected single word will get the meaning across even better then those dozen?
>>24691143Quoting youe dad doesnt really make any real point because he’s not my dad
>>24690261If your goal is communicating, keep it simpleIf your goal is beauty, be metaphoricIf your goal is to confuse and mog, go speak jibberishIf your goal is to be a retard, go spit big words at unattending ears
>>24690493That's crazy. I live in a trailer, and I am always making comparisons like this.
>>24691657You do but do you know anyone else who does?
>>24691698Probably the other people in his trailer park because they’re all philosophy majors
>>24690817I don't think many people mind more ornate language when it's used artistically. But most people dislike "big words" outside of artistic play, when they only serve to obscure simple concepts. I think everyone has met people that try to seem more intelligent by using some obscure words while spewing complete nonsense.Speaking and writing in an understandable manner is a skill that many thinkers disregard. The problem is almost never the readers being too dumb, but the authors just not being that good at writing.
>>24690261People who always name drop philosophers count?
>>24692221let me lower my power level down for you. i will speak in memes.
>>24690261>believes literature is delivering mere information about a storyfiltered
>>24692241It would be an improvement over your usual drivel.
If you had a poop to shit, you wouldn't have to piss every time, right?
>>24692252@grok what this mean tho?
If you possessed a faeces to defecate, you would not be required to urinate every time, is that correct?
>>24691339because those words maybe have multiple meanings and is only in your field of expertise that they convey the meaning you wantthis of course shouldn't be a problem since people reading should be knowledgeable about the meaning in this particular context but it can still lead to some errors and the text being confusing if you use too manyalso the humanities should avoid being too confusing, philosphy has become a joke because it tried to be like the natural scienceslegalese is fucking annoying and especially retarded since it uses the simplest of words but with totally different meanings so you read some law and it sounds like it says absolutely nothing and like it has been written by some retarded trying to hit a word quota you don't see this happening in literature at least because it's intended for a larger audience, even the nobel winning literary fiction has kept it simple, i appreciate that
>>24690261Sometimes "big" words are preferable because they better describe the situation. Anyone who complains about this is a room temperature-IQ retard and yes I've met them
>>24690261This video changed my life. It only extracts the scenes with Jane in Breaking Bad.https://mega.nz/file/wh9kSKjA#5-moik-ap5zIXgb9JjgILfiabIpknljBZks0fxpAvSE
>>24690261Sometimes small words don't work fine.Sometimes big words work better.
>>24690261Thinking "big words bad small words good" isn't simply anti-intellectualism, that's straight up worshipping stupidity.
>>24691389Use bigger words next time, retard
