Speaking of Words

It's irritating when people use terms

1. that could be replaced with fewer-syllable terms without loss or alteration of the conveyed meaning.

2. they understand only vaguely or not at all.

Regarding the 1st point, candidate term-pairs guilty of this offense cannot merely be synonyms, for most synonyms differ subtly in meaning, usually through differences in connotation. In fact, the only example I can think of is utilize vs. use. One could argue that their meanings are not exactly the same and they are therefore not a case in point. "And why are their meanings not exactly the same?" I would ask. And one would answer "Because their connotations differ. Utilize is associated with formal language, while use is casual." But this argument defends formality for formality's sake, which I find nauseatingly pretentious.

How far will a champion of utilize go? Will they up the ante by two and dare to speak the 5-syllable utilization, a behemoth for which use, again, is a 1:1 substitute? Reading this is liable to make future instances of utilize more difficult to ignore, and I apologize, but this should only be temporary. In accordance with my previous post, its prevalent use means that, with time, it joins the background buzz.

Onto 2.

This happens more often than people would like to admit, but it's usually inconsequential and so doesn't warrant drastic counter-measures. In fact, it's something of a benefit, insofar as it can help one distinguish the posers from the real deals. Here's one I've come across a few times: diametrically opposed. Why use the diametric qualifier as opposed to, simply, opposed? What additional meaning is conveyed? I suspect even the speaker isn't sure, and that instead of for providing a clearer understanding to the audience, they use it for artificial linguistic lift to the plateau where live the visionaries in whose company they aspire to be.

I know very little about anything. I'm not even sure whether a majority of earth's land surface annually experiences four seasons. But I do have a good idea about where to find answers to some things. In this instance, a consultation with the undisputed authority on English words is the best choice. The OED provides 3 definitions for diametric, with the 2nd one corresponding to its use with opposed.

"In the way of direct or complete opposition. Usually with opposite, opposed, contrary: Directly, exactly, entirely, completely."

I think the default intent when the term opposed is used alone is that the two things being compared are understood to be completely opposed. This makes diametrically opposed almost redundant. If nothing else, one could step off the pedestal and substitute the 6-syllable diametrically with any of the four 3-syllable options given in the above definition.

As Thirsty As A Fish

When we're surrounded by what we want, we cease to want it. The trivial explanation is that the desire to have is incompatible with the condition of having. "Listen hear, little nipper! You can't want to have what you already keep!" This is, however, a pathetic, semantics-fueled avoidance of the following truth: when one is in possession of what one had desired, the portion of thought concerned with it suffers a decline, like a sloping mountainside. With time, waves of erosion may even take their toll, prompting calls for the object's disposal.

Corollary: the more ubiquitous somethings is, the more it assimilates with the background. This is an effective strategy our perception has adopted for lessening the risk of being overwhelmed. Imagine if, instead, for example, each snowflake we saw falling in a storm caught our attention just as had a single snowflake falling alone. The same principle is responsible for our sympathy strings being pulled tighter after reading a profile on a starving individual versus an article about a famine-stricken country involving thousands of people.

Finally, a word on the spotting of things both ubiquitous and sparse. The lessened opportunity to spot sparse things is balanced by their being very apparent when present. Similarly, the heightened opportunity to spot ubiquitous things is dampened by their being so common as to be invisible. This is partly what makes a school of fish such a great defense mechanism.

The Phones Would Like To Chat

Contrary to the law of midday meals, some things hardly need to be worked for in order to be earned. They can be earned, in other words, for a lesser price than it seems they are worth. In even other words, so as to balance the books of the linguistic expression economy, a part of what is earned must be considered free.

Like so many posts before it, this one's opening statement was prompted by a single example presenting itself assertively, seeking recognition. Expansion of this single example to the plural 'some things' is merely a confident guess.

Caution: inflected forms of the controversial singular they are present in what follows.

On with it.

Reiterating the opinion expressed by the person with whom you're speaking is at once one of the easiest things to do and among those negotiation tactics having the greatest potential of building rapport. People very much like to hear their opinions echoed by another. It lifts them to a plateau. The suggestion that the echo may be a largely self-serving device of the echoer is likely to be met with denial, for the one whose opinion is being reflected back on themself will not entertain notions that threaten to curtail their moment of self-importance. Provided they recognize that their favorable impression of themself in this context is owed to and depends on the echoer, they will be willing to make concessions to the other side in an effort to prolong the experience of looking down from cloud nine. This, then, is how talks can be replete with goodwill that, while perhaps only genuine from one party, is effectively equivalent to being genuine from both.

A caveat: excessive reiteration not only comes across as pathetic lip service from someone without opinions of their own, it's dangerous. Hearing yourself speak words you don't agree with is halfway towards adopting the belief they represent. Governments know this. Examples include Eric Blair's "fictional" 19(48), WWII Germany, and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools across the country.

As long as we're talking about conversations, I'll keep writing.

Take three people, whose names are Four, Five, and Six. They begin talking about subject A, and continue for some time. Subject A is a conundrum that all three of them are cooperatively trying to solve. After awhile, Five has had enough, and walks out of the room, or falls asleep, or is in some other way no longer a part of the conversation. The conversation continues between Four and Six and, as conversations do, evolves from subject A into subject A1, which, as the notation suggests, is related to subject A. Four and Six are really hitting it off, and they continue talking long enough for the conversation to evolve yet again into subject A2. Around this time, Five walks back into the room, or wakes up, or is in some other way a part of the conversation again. Given their absence during the A1 portion, Five is faced with having to infer how Four and Six got from A to A2. The result of the inference is a new A1, privately kept in Five's mind, which satisfies the criteria of bridging A to A2, but is probably different than the actual A1 the conversation evolved into. Here's what matters in the general case: the greater the number of possible conversation branches satisfying the given criteria, the more likely a solution will be discovered. In this particular example, we now have two A1s, so that the conundrum that is subject A is more likely to be solved with Five leaving in the middle of the discussion that if they had been a participant for its entirety! I imagine this idea must have some applicability in computer architecture and software.