Vocabulary

I like highfalutin words..but my sir told me it's better to use simple words!
Pooja.

 

What a beautiful piece of writing..I loved it. Came to know a lot about English . Thanks for sharing it.

 

I have steadily interacted with Cheeniya for few weeks now. If there is one thing I can vouch about his writing, it is that he has a limited vocabulary that peters out at one kilometer and does not run into astronomical distance of a million words. So is mine! This is not a self-effacing declaration! This is my genuine and conservative estimate of both our vocabularies. In fact Cheeniya and I have to scratch our heads if we come across obscure words like "amphigory". Cheeniya will think that it is some form of a stunted amphibian reluctant to outgrow its reptilian form, whereas I would fiercely argue that whatever it is, it takes on from a Roman tennis court. Both would have to look up the OED to verify our conjectures. I have never seen Cheeniya using any polyvalent and polysemous words. I avoid such polymorphous jargon because I get confused not knowing what is what. His vocabulary is unpretentious and plain. So is mine save for jocular purposes where we insert lyrical or archaic terms to build up the mood of the discussion.

Having said that, Cheeniya's diction is charming not for its towering words but its wriggly constructs. Why? Because...

1. He has the knack for stringing his words smoothly. Say, between "conducive", "congenial", "favourable", "amenable", he opts for the most appropriate word in that specific context though all usages are equal and quotidian and familiar words to an average English speaker.
2. He prefers a crisp modifier to a winding one as it packs his humour tightly.
3. He turns his phrases around neatly which renders the impression of a classy blogger.
4. His English is charming and elegant and quaint as it is unadulterated by slang and unmolested by chatspeak and uncompromised by non-standard contractions.
5. His language is animated because he prefers original witty expressions to blunted and jaded wisecracks.

I understand that your high praise of our fellowship in Q-P-Q was in good faith. Notwithstanding, just pitching my opinion on Cheeniya's writing. Cheeniya and me and vocabulary is like bringing together water and cotton and gasoline and knocking up misidentified splendour. We fail miserably in vocabulary. However, what we lack in vocabulary is compensated in our zestful conversations as made-up speech with words like "coochie-coo". I hope you didn't mistake that for a real word which prompted this much-appreciated ode to our undertaking. Thank you for your thoughtful backing up of our senile ramble.

 

Dear Smt. Jayasala:

My boss in the software company that I worked for used to say communication is to express and not to impress when people use flowery languages in Request for Proposal. I remember when we drafted prospectus, our securities attorney used to constantly work to simplify the language in the prospectus so that common shareholders can understand. Even Securities & Exchange Commission used to suggest recommendations to simplify language that is difficult for common shareholders to understand.

But, I have to admit that my vocabulary is limited and I am not practicing any of their advice consciously.

Viswa

 

I have a feeling that everyone is foisting simple English when they actually mean elegant English.

Let's take a regular act like eating.

I ate at a restaurant (this is simple English)
I dined at a restaurant (this is elegant English)
I gorged at a restaurant (this is expressive English)
I gormandized at a restaurant (this is pompous English)
I noshed at a restaurant (this is slang English)
I masticated at a restaurant (this is crazy English)

Everyone cranks simple English but does not mean we should be complacent with it as elegant English is favoured in the society. Cheeniya's writing falls in that "elegant" category. It is not the breadth of this language but the depth of this language that is charming, in that, his discernment to conjure up the most elegant construct is amazing. A certain grace and sense of style is recommended even in casual conversations. I don't want to talk of corporate communication because they demand a different type of tonality one that isn't too dry yet not too waggish. A fine balance of accessibility and awe is what must aspire for in any mode of communication. Choosing the ideal word does not come natural to everyone. That involves a lot of study and mindfulness in writing. Simple English cannot engineer ideal constructs but elegant English (the next and stable level) can initiate eye-catching words from its arsenal. Words that are not too infantile like "ate" or not too flashy like "masticate". Everyone should aspire to be more expressive and slough their comfortable skin of simple English and shinny up to expressive/elegant English.

 

Rihana was joking - what she asked was, who is Murray and who Minor, between Cheeniya and Iravati.