There are so many big words that I don't know the meaning of!

Problem Of Motivation

I've been making a list of fancy words that I come across for the last five years or so. Whenever I hear, or read, a new word I try and document it. I can say this much, there's a bloody lot of adjectives in the English language... a ridiculous amount. And I'm unfamiliar with a lot! You'd be surprised at how many words you won't understand if you closely follow the dialogue of TV shows. The notepad document that I have of these words is huge at this stage.

After all my effort to make a list of big words, I still mostly find it hard to use any of these words without looking like I'm deliberately trying to show off. But yet each time I first hear these words in use, it never sounds like the person in question is trying to show off. It seems to come naturally to them. Now of course having heard such a words, I begin to notice them in use more often.

When I'd inquire about many such words, I often realise that I would be more familiar with their use in different forms. For example, 'contrite' seemed like a new word to me. But I wouldn't have realised that it came from the word 'contrition'. Also, I didn't realise that 'libidinous' came from 'libido'. But I mean who actually says 'libidinous'? I heard it on a TV show.

Having went through my list of big word, I realised that there is often many fancy words that mean the same thing. For example, 'sophistry' and 'fallacious' mean the same thing. 'Parity' means equality. So why would I ever say parity if I can just say equality? Why would I ever say 'hubris' when I can just say 'pride', unless I'm trying to show off. Now I can understand why someone would use a big word like 'subterfuge'... because it will often hit the nail on the head for what one is trying to describe, and I don't think there is another word for it. But in most cases it seems as if there is a huge amount of redundant words. Another thing I realise is that you tend to come across even weirder words when you are reading! Do journalists get a bit more cocky with their vocabulary when they put pen to paper?

After I look up a big word that I've come across, I mightn't hear it until a year or so later, and when I do it's kind of annoying because I usually end up having the thought of "what did that mean again?". Then I'll go to look it up again, and the cycle repeats. You end up associating a word as being the big scary word that you can't understand the meaning of of. So I can never really see myself hearing such words so often that I'd actually be inclined to use them myself, then maybe there's no point in trying to understand the.

It can be quite funny when you use big words to people of authority, and you get to watch them pretend that they know what it means when you know that they don't. It does make me wonder, that for people with such a wide range of vocabulary, they must be able to filter out the use of such words depending on the person they're are interacting with.

Below is a list of some words that I consider to be, or once considered to be, unusual:

syllogism reprehensible euphemism subterfuge draconian verbose undulate irreverent diatribe banal insular deference duplicitous purport stipulate dubious rescind demote virile indictment pertain gregarious gambit tenable fortuitous platitude incumbent hubris conceit curtail

Here is a list of words that you can expect to be beaten up for using!:

bloviate trepidation malefaction extol salient enigmatic lionize amity irate litigious omnipotent preterite altruistic languish harangue verboten admonish verbatim immure recalcitrant succor dilapidate

It's called a dictionary.

Allinall

You are indubitably discombobulated, OP.

kneemos

You need to listen to Pat Kenny. He uses all of that first list.

branie2

I am in complete agreement

r93kaey5p2izun

Your effort to embiggen your vocabulary is admirable. They are perfectly cromulent words for use in everyday conversation.

blindsider

Some of those words have slightly different, perhaps even nuanced, meanings.

When writing, it can be useful to use one word which conveys your meaning precisely. Others used to be important, but as society changes, so does the need to use certain words.

Hubris used to be quite an important word. It was a serious crime in Ancient Greece.

"The cause of the pleasure for those committing hubris is that by harming people, they think themselves superior;" (My bold)

https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3172

Hubris is used interchangeably with pride today - this is inaccurate.

As language, and society/culture etc evolve so too does language - maybe not always for the better.

Alternatively, you could say that language, and jargon e.g. "legal-ese" are/were used to exclude others and this is not inclusive. So perhaps using less wordy language is more equitable and fair................

Ol' Donie

kneemos wrote: »

You need to listen to Pat Kenny. He uses all of that first list.

Remarkable. He really does.

Conor Bourke

Ever do a crossword, OP?

Force Carrier

Sophistry and fallacious do not mean the same thing. Not even close.

Ficheall

Problem Of Motivation wrote: »

Why would I ever say 'hubris' when I can just say 'pride'.

These mean different things.


I'm editing a research paper at the moment which seems like its authors wrote it with a thesaurus in one hand

Ol' Donie

What's the word that sounds like it means something good, but actually means something bad?

It's something like fulsome, but isn't that.

FFred

Thanks for the plethora of words OP.
It means a lot.

ILoveYourVibes

Force Carrier wrote: »

Sophistry and fallacious do not mean the same thing. Not even close.

Very close.

Sophistry is the use of fallacious argument.

RiderOnTheStorm

Totes, fo shizzle

Plopsu

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Very close.

Sophistry is the use of fallacious argument.

Driving is the use of a car but driving and car do not mean the same thing :pac:

RhubarbCrumble

Blackadder: "I shall return before you can say antidisestablishmentarianism"

Prince George: "Auntie distinctly minty......"

Badly Drunk Boy

[HTML][/HTML]

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Very close.

Sophistry is the use of fallacious argument.

For starters, 'sophistry' is a noun and 'fallacious' is an adjective, and you can be fallacious without resorting to sophistry.

Arghus

Words, eh?

topper75

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Remarkable. He really does.

... and that was just his Toy Show intro.

buckwheat

May I offer you my most sincere contifibularities.

jiltloop

I always thought bashful sounds more like the opposite of what it means. For me it always conjures images of someone skipping in to a room full of confidence.

dudara

Two words may be synonyms for each other, but there can be nuances in meaning which make one word more appropriate than another given a particular context.

Apiarist

buckwheat wrote: »

May I offer you my most sincere contifibularities.

Contrafibularities! I am flabbergasted by this vitiation of the classical work.

ToddyDoody

one grunt for yes, two grunts for no.

heebusjeebus

Problem Of Motivation wrote: »

Here is a list of words that you can expect to be beaten up for using!:

bloviate trepidation malefaction extol salient enigmatic lionize amity irate litigious omnipotent preterite altruistic languish harangue verboten admonish verbatim immure recalcitrant succor dilapidate

Why is verboten verboten?

RhubarbCrumble

buckwheat wrote: »

May I offer you my most sincere contifibularities.

I shall return interfrastically.

branie2

from my favourite episode of Blackadder the Third

Problem Of Motivation

heebusjeebus wrote: »

Why is verboten verboten?

What do you mean?

Earthhorse

blindsider wrote: »

Some of those words have slightly different, perhaps even nuanced, meanings.

Totally agreed. Dictionary definitions are useful but to use one example from the OP, sophistry is almost always used in the sense of the first definition given when you search it in Google:

"the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."

It's almost never used in the second sense:

"a fallacious argument"

Though personally I don't think sophistry is any more unusual a word than fallacious.

In any event, where you have two words that do mean the same thing it's good practise to favour the more common one.

Problem Of Motivation

prevaricate

JohnnyFlash

Onanist - what many people on Boards are.

OneOfThem Stumbled

It's with great trepidation that I extol the harangue perpetrated by the OP against verboten bloviation. For one thing, he's not being enigmatic in his admonishment, and I genuinely think that he is doing it with the aim of altruistic succor for those who face malefaction from irate intelligentsia who lionize the capacity to be omnipotent (with respect to language).

No more should such people languish in a dilapidated sense of their own self worth, but should be litigious with their adversities, and point out that salience is more significant that artifice. If they fail to agree, well that's mere recalcitrance on their part.

Upforthematch

Ol' Donie wrote: »

What's the word that sounds like it means something good, but actually means something bad?

It's something like fulsome, but isn't that.

crummy? buttery?

Edit: Google says: "If you are heaped with fulsome praise, do not be excited. Fulsome does not mean some weird conglomeration of ‘full and wholesome’. It means insincere and offensively flattering."

spurious

Ol' Donie wrote: »

What's the word that sounds like it means something good, but actually means something bad?

It's something like fulsome, but isn't that.

Feint praise?

hgfj

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

It's with great trepidation that I extol the harangue perpetrated by the OP against verboten bloviation. For one thing, he's not being enigmatic in his admonishment, and I genuinely think that he is doing it with the aim of altruistic succor for those who face malefaction from irate intelligentsia who lionize the capacity to be omnipotent (with respect to language).

No more should such people languish in a dilapidated sense of their own self worth, but should be litigious with their adversities, and point out that salience is more significant that artifice. If they fail to agree, well that's mere recalcitrance on their part.th

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too.

that's a salient point

M.T. Cranium

It is incumbent upon me to lionize you for the irreverent diatribe you offered without trepidation to the banal, reprehensible and often duplicitous gambit that those full of hubris often make as a subterfuge to hide their conceit and curtail the recalcitrant from admonishing them for their malefactions. Indeed, I should stipulate that this dubious practice should demote such gregarious persons to languish in the nether regions; verbatim, their harangues should be verboten, their syllogisms shown to be mere platitudes, their insular amity accepted as the opposite of omnipotence, in fact, irate would be a euphemism for my attitude towards their studied stipulations, which pertain to verbose renderings that purport to extol but in fact merely bloviate. Your indictment suggests a litigious option, draconian perhaps, but virile, tenable in the right jurisdiction, that might bring the fortuitous result that such persons would show deference to those who immure themselves in preterite silence, with a finding that would rescind their rights to speak in public, something I would support on altruistic grounds following the enigmatic yet salient advice of Shane Lowry: "watch out, these greens undulate," which I take as a metaphor for this whole discussion.

Don't be a succor and memorize this.

mikhail

Problem Of Motivation wrote: »

Here is a list of words that you can expect to be beaten up for using!:

bloviate trepidation malefaction extol salient enigmatic lionize amity irate litigious omnipotent preterite altruistic languish harangue verboten admonish verbatim immure recalcitrant succor dilapidate

I'm not here to extol the enigmatic virtues of those who would bolviate with licentiousness, nor to lionize the malefaction of filibustering for even the most altruistic motivations, but I perused your contributions with trepidation. I would dissuade you from irate and artless malefactions, however exemplary your intent, lest your litigious victims reciprocate legally, leaving you to languish when the state immures you to admonish your verboten behaviour. As you slowly dilapidate in confinement, without hope or succour, you may harangue yourself for your preterite actions, or grow recalcitrant in light of your perceived debasement. The salient fact, however, will be your culpability and lack of remorse. One doesn't need to be omnipotent to foresee that amity wins more friends than violence, nor to be able to predict the judgement verbatim to anticipate the outcome.

is_that_so

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

It is incumbent upon me to lionize you for the irreverent diatribe you offered without trepidation to the banal, reprehensible and often duplicitous gambit that those full of hubris often make as a subterfuge to hide their conceit and curtail the recalcitrant from admonishing them for their malefactions. Indeed, I should stipulate that this dubious practice should demote such gregarious persons to languish in the nether regions; verbatim, their harangues should be verboten, their syllogisms shown to be mere platitudes, their insular amity accepted as the opposite of omnipotence, in fact, irate would be a euphemism for my attitude towards their studied stipulations, which pertain to verbose renderings that purport to extol but in fact merely bloviate. Your indictment suggests a litigious option, draconian perhaps, but virile, tenable in the right jurisdiction, that might bring the fortuitous result that such persons would show deference to those who immure themselves in preterite silence, with a finding that would rescind their rights to speak in public, something I would support on altruistic grounds following the enigmatic yet salient advice of Shane Lowry: "watch out, these greens undulate," which I take as a metaphor for this whole discussion.

Don't be a succor and memorize this.

Now the real challenge - summarise it!

is_that_so

mikhail wrote: »

I'm not here to extol the enigmatic virtues of those who would bolviate with licentiousness, nor to lionize the malefaction of filibustering for even the most altruistic motivations, but I perused your contributions with trepidation. I would dissuade you from irate and artless malefactions, however exemplary your intent, lest your litigious victims reciprocate legally, leaving you to languish when the state immures you to admonish your verboten behaviour. As you slowly dilapidate in confinement, without hope or succour, you may harangue yourself for your preterite actions, or grow recalcitrant in light of your perceived debasement. The salient fact, however, will be your culpability and lack of remorse. One doesn't need to be omnipotent to foresee that amity wins more friends than violence, nor to be able to predict the judgement verbatim to anticipate the outcome.

Greyfox

Reading and loving Sandersons first Mistborn book yesterday and I came across a word for the first time - Idiosyncrasies
I absolutely love that word

Sheridan81

Read Will Self.

Problem Of Motivation

tacit

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Problem Of Motivation wrote: »

tacit

That's a very small big word.

Conor Bourke

Panoply is my word for today

Canard

It’s to do with collocations. I don’t think you’d often hear “pay equality”, but pay parity / parity of pay, which makes sense given the phrase “on par with”. Rather than inexorably ( ) making lists, you should look at the words more and try to make links, like you did with contrite and contrition. Words are often malleable (another great one, relating to hammers/mallets) like that.

A lot of the words you listed OP are not really that uncommon and have quite distinct meanings for me. But as a linguist, I don’t believe in synonyms there is always a nuance. But in order to sound natural, you would need to look them up in context and get a feel for the register; you can’t just shoehorn in a fancy word wherever you feel like it because it will stick out like a sore thumb.

anewme

Lot of words and abbreviations on here that I dont really understand.

Incels, Red Pill, Blue Pill, White Knights, PUA.

Never heard of it till Id seen all that written here, so away I went to look them all up. I still dont really understand what its all about really (are red pill ppl and blue pill ppl rivals?)and having survived this long without knowing what it is, will leave well enough alone. Seems heavy kind of stuff.

Latest one here is MONGOTO, which were always told as kids not to use in any form.

up for anything

Problem Of Motivation wrote: »

You'd be surprised at how many words you won't understand if you closely follow the dialogue of TV shows. The notepad document that I have of these words is huge at this stage.

It's called context!

Problem Of Motivation wrote: »

Below is a list of some words that I consider to be, or once considered to be, unusual:

syllogism reprehensible euphemism subterfuge draconian verbose undulate irreverent diatribe banal insular deference duplicitous purport stipulate dubious rescind demote virile indictment pertain gregarious gambit tenable fortuitous platitude incumbent hubris conceit curtail

Here is a list of words that you can expect to be beaten up for using!:

bloviate trepidation malefaction extol salient enigmatic lionize amity irate litigious omnipotent preterite altruistic languish harangue verboten admonish verbatim immure recalcitrant succor dilapidate

:D:D

I do hope you wrote your post tongue-in-cheek. Just by saying 'big words' you made me chortle.

colm_mcm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's called a dictionary.

Or word-book

RiderOnTheStorm

colm_mcm wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

It's called a dictionary.

Or word-book

The dictionary is a rubbish read. But at least it explains itself as it goes along.

Spoiler - the zulus did it!