How hung up do you get on finding the exact right word in writing and conversation? Are you fine with one of thirty synonyms, or does only one particular word express what you mean in that moment?
>>25386383My opinion is that, although all words in English are some degree of similar to or different from all other words, no words are true "synonyms." Every word is at least slightly different from every other. Borges talked about this as well, when he said that a "spirit" and a "ghost" are not the same thing, or that it is not the same to be "regal" as it is to be "kingly," or the same to be "dark" as it is to be "obscure."
>>25386383Depends on if I am doing creative writing or technical writing and who the intended audience is.Technical writing needs to be precise and efficient, there is a higher tolerance for jargon, and most words have very particular meanings within the context of the industry. Thus I have to be very strict with word choices, phrasing, and sentence structure.However since everything is predefined once you really know industry standards for technical writing of a particular industry you can basically use templates, charts, and reference guides to very easily and efficiently get the job done. Creative writing is far less particular. Its about meaning and feeling rather than being as precise as possible in the fewest words you can reasonably get away with.Language is more casual, converstional, and it's ok to leave room for more than one interpretation. However this freedom means at least for me that I write significantly slower and more thoughtfully since I am basically doing art rather that giving highly technical instructions or whatever. It's a lot more enjoyable to write and read though. I do technical writing because money. I literally never do it in my free time for fun. Only when I am paid will I do technical writing. As far as conversations in meat space, not really. I thankfully don't have social anxiety to go along with my autism. So I just say whatever gets the point across and quickly clarify if there is any misunderstanding, though personally I prefer active listening instead of doing most of the talking.
>>25386394my favourite author, Target Two
It plagues me. I'll reread and re-edit the simplest of personal and professional correspondence until I've expressed myself satisfactorily. If it's of import whatsoever (emotionally, professionally, et al) the amount of time spent scales exponentially. This post has taken me over 20 minutes and at least 10 edits. I truly envy those for whom words and self-expression come easily.
>>25386415if I may interject, "et al" is for people while "etc." is for things
>>25386418Thank you anon
>>25386418>et alYikes, why do newgens misuse this?
>>25386576newgens et al?
>>25386418>>25386576Are you absolutely sure about this? I understand in places, like the APA style guide, that is the only time one would ever see et al, but it is just, literally, an abbreviation for "and others" in Latin. Outside of an academic style guide, what rule says that et al can only be used for people? Why can I easily find this sentence: "Et alia is neuter plural and thus in Latin text is properly used only for inanimate, genderless objects..." on the internet?I believe you are foolishly forcing a rule that doesn't actually exist.
>>25386801"et al." when read as "and others [people]" comes from "et alii", not "et alia". Your sentence refers to the reading for "and others [things]". In any case, it sounds very stilted in casual writing.
Words are just symbols; they're all wrong to some extent. Even the best word is at least 5 degrees removed from the actual thing. It's best to pick the least wrong but there are diminishing returns and it's not worth agonizing over.
>>25386801You could have spent five seconds looking this up instead of the 30 minutes it took to write your post
>>25386838>stiltedMore like tryhard. Babby's first academia.
