Google+
This blog has moved. Please go over to this link to see my new website.
Showing posts with label Vocabulary Lists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vocabulary Lists. Show all posts

Saturday, 13 April 2013

Beware The Thesaurus.

The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English...
The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A little while ago, I came across the following statement, made by a professional journalist reporting in the local media: ‘The crash took place…’
I won’t bore you with the rest of the details. But, as I’m sure you’ll agree, a crash is an accident and accidents ‘happen’, they don’t ‘take place’.  Meetings, concerts, pre-planned events ‘take place’.

This set me thinking about the way in which most writers seek out alternative words and expressions to prevent repetition and dullness and to enliven their work. The bulk of us turn to the thesaurus, whether in book form or online. I use two different versions most of the time: the excellent, short, but useful online program known as WordWeb, which is a free to use application that can be downloaded and associated with your word processor to check for definitions and alternatives for a large number of words. Click here for a link to the download website.

I prefer, however, the much more comprehensive book, The Original Roget’s Thesaurus, in the 1987 edition, prepared by Betty Kirkpatrick. I have alternatives on my shelves: Hartrampf’s Vocabulary Builder, the Oxford Compact Thesaurus, The Slang Thesaurus, The New Nuttall Dictionary of English Synonyms and Antonyms, and A Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk.

The danger with the thesaurus, of course, is rather akin to that posed by the ubiquitous spellchecker on the PC: it depends for its effectiveness on a level of understanding from the user. Spellcheck ‘their’, ‘there’, and ‘they’re’ and all will pass the test with ease. Usage determines the correct spelling. With a thesaurus, it’s essential that the user at least understands what the word actually means.

An example, then.

I suspect the vast majority of readers here will know the word, ‘wanton’. And I guess most would recognise its use as an adjective in the following couple of sentences:

‘She dressed in a manner suggestive of her wanton nature, advertising her readiness to serve any and every man present.’

‘He pulled his partner back to his feet and knocked him down again, before laying into him in wanton violence as the poor wretch lay at his feet.’

Yes, I know; clichéd examples but, bear with me: I wanted samples that gave context to the word in question and in both these ‘wanton’ is easily defined by reference to its usage.

If, however, you were to use an unusual word without such contextual clues, it would be very easy to employ a totally unsuitable alternative simply by consulting a thesaurus. I’ll illustrate what I mean. First, lets’ see how the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘wanton’:

Wanton: (SOED) Adj: Of a person – undisciplined, ungoverned, unmanageable, rebellious, jovial, inclined to joking, carefree, petulant, spoilt, self-indulgent, insolent in triumph or prosperity, reckless, merciless (of a boy) childishly cruel or unruly. Of an animal – skittish, refractory, unmanageable, frisky, frolicsome,.
Originally only of a woman – thought, action etc: lustful, sexually promiscuous, flirtatious.
Of colour or music – cheerful, lively
Of an object – moving freely as if alive, unrestrained
Of wealth, clothing, diet, a way of life – luxurious, extravagant,
Of cruelty or violence – unprovoked, reckless, gratuitous
Of speech and imagination – extravagant, impetuous, unrestrained
Fastidious or dainty in appetite, profuse in growth, luxuriant.

I suspect there are more meanings here than most readers expected. Some, of course, are now either rare or generally used only in a literary or poetic sense. Nevertheless, the most common usages of the word are buried amongst many other meanings. So, this is a word for which the dictionary provides a number of different meanings, which would only become apparent by context. Already, we have a recipe for potential confusion.

If we now examine the entries in The Original Roget’s Thesaurus for the same word, used as an adjective, we find the following suggestions under their headings:

-changeful:
changing, mutable, alterable, phased, changeable, shifting, vicissitudinous, varying, variant, variable, nonuniform, kaleidoscopic, iridescent, protean, multiform, quick-change, versatile, skilful, uncertain, unreliable, vacillating, wavering, irresolute, moody, unpredictable, unaccountable, unexpected, never the same, ever-changing, volatile, mercurial, different, wayward, fickle, whimsical, capricious, giddy, dizzy, flighty, wanton, irresponsible, frivolous, light-minded, shifty, inconstant, unfaithful, disloyal, traitorous, tergiversating.

-capricious:
motiveless, purposeless, whimsical, fanciful, fantastic, eccentric, humoursome, temperamental, crotchety, maggoty, freakish, fitful, hysterical, mad, crazy, prankish, mischievous, wanton, wayward, perverse, faddy faddish, particular, fastidious, captious, arbitrary, unreasonable, fretful, moody, contrary, irascible, undisciplined, refractory, wilful, erratic, uncertain, unpredictable, unexpected, volatile, mercurial, skittish, giddy, frivolous, light-minded, inconsistent, inconstant, variable, unstable, irresponsible, unreliable, fickle, feckless, tergiversating, flirtatious, coquettish, playful.

-free:
freeborn, enfranchised, heart-whole, fancy-free, unattached, scot-free, acquitted, on the loose, at large, escaped, released, freed, liberated, free as air, free as the wind, free as a bird, footloose, go-as-you-please, ranging, travelling, ranging freely, having full play, licensed, chartered, privileged, permitted, exempt, immune, nonliable, free-speaking, plain-spoken, plain, free-thinking, emancipated, broad, broadminded, latitudinarian, unbiased, unprejudiced, independent, uninfluenced, just, free and easy, all things to all men, sociable, loose, licentious, unbridled, incontinent, wanton, impure, at leisure, out of harness, retired, relaxed, unbuttoned, at home, at ease, leisurely, free of cost, gratis, freebie, on the house, for free, unpaid for, uncharged, unclaimed, going begging, unwanted, free for all, unreserved, vacant, unoccupied, up for grabs, accessible.
  
-rash:
ill-considered, ill-conceived, ill-advised, harebrained, foolhardy, wildcat, injudicious, indiscreet, imprudent, unwise, careless, hit-and-miss, slapdash, free-and-easy, accident-prone, negligent, unforeseeing, not-looking, uncircumspect, lemming-like, incautious, unwary, heedless, thoughtless, inconsiderate, uncalculating, inattentive, light, frivolous, airy, breezy, flippant, giddy, devil-may-care, harum-scarum, slaphappy, trigger-happy, light-minded, irresponsible, reckless, regardless, couldn’t-care-less, don’t-care, damning the consequences, lunatic, wanton, wild, cavalier, bold, daring, temerarious, audacious, overdaring, overbold, madcap, daredevil, do-or-die, neck or nothing, breakneck, suicidal, overambitious, over the top, oversanguine, oversure, overconfident, hoping, overweening, presumptuous, arrogant, insolent, precipitate, gadarene, headlong, hell-bent, desperate, hasty, unchecked, headstrong, wilful, untaught by experience, ignorant, impulsive, impatient, hot-bloodied, fire-eating, furious, excitable, danger-loving, unfearing, venturesome, speculative, adventurous, thrill-seeking, risk-taking, enterprising, improvident, thriftless, prodigal.

-unchaste:
unvirtuous, vicious, susceptible, not impregnable, frail, fallen, seduced, prostituted, taken advantage of, of easy virtue, of loose morals, amoral, immoral, incontinent, light, wanton, loose, fast, naughty, wild, rackety, immodest, daring, revealing, unblushing, shameless, brazen, flaunting, scarlet, meretricious, whorish, tarty, promiscuous, sleeping around, screwing around, streetwalking, on the game, Paphian, Aphrodisian.

A total of 380 alternatives is presented. True, some are duplicated under the various headings, but there are still many from which the writer may choose. Anyone not conversant with the ways of the thesaurus might be fooled into selecting any one of these words as an alternative to ‘wanton’.  And, whilst a great many of them could act as a suitable replacement, there are many which would not do at all.

Let’s try it:

‘She dressed in a manner suggestive of her shifting nature, advertising her readiness to serve any and every man present.’

‘He pulled his partner back to his feet and knocked him down again, before laying into him in coquettish violence as the poor wretch lay at his feet.’

In the female sentence, the woman is now no longer specifically a sexually active creature but someone who accommodates to the needs of the men, perhaps in order to deal with their work requirements.
In the male version, the violence has taken a farcical turn, possibly describing a lover’s tiff solved by aggressive coitus.

So, perhaps not the best possible example but one that I hope illustrates the importance of ensuring that you understand the real meaning before substituting one word for another.  We don’t, after all, want any tarty violence perpetrated on any free-thinking men, do we? Or, perhaps, we do!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Does it Matter if the Words Are Not Right?


This might seem an odd question from a writer. I was prompted to ask by a fit of annoyance over poor language used by a journalist on television. She was reporting on a local news item and used the expression, ‘This problem is, of course, very unique to…’ and went on to ask her interviewee just ‘how unique’ he felt the issue was.

So what? Well, ‘unique’ is an absolute. There are no degrees of uniqueness. Something is either unique or not; it can’t be partially unique, very unique or, indeed, almost unique. We have other words to express such things. ‘Rare’, comes to mind, as do ‘uncommon’ and ‘scarce’. Because rarity is an elastic concept, we can use qualifiers with impunity. It’s fine to discuss degrees of scarcity, that degree dependent on the amount by which the object under discussion veers from the commonplace. 

If we begin to use absolutes in such a way, we diminish their real power in describing an event or quality. If I say that a woman conveys a ‘unique beauty’ I paint a picture of someone who is singular, incomparable. If, on the other hand, I describe her as a ‘rare beauty’, then I put her in a class along with others; the number contained in that class can be defined more or less by using qualifiers such as ‘very rare’, ‘unusually rare’, ‘moderately rare’, etc. So, in the ‘unique’ case, the reader is clear that the person described has no equal. In the ‘rare’ case, we know that there are others, though not a great number, who are comparable. It’s a fine distinction, but one worth retaining, I think.

In another example of poor journalism, one increasingly repeated these days, I heard a reporter talking about how ‘…there are less people involved in…’, when, of course, he should have said, ‘...there are fewer people involved in…’.  This is a slightly different matter, however. The use of less or fewer always provides the information that a smaller number is involved than the comparison. Whilst the use of the correct word is preferable, it doesn’t actually alter the basic idea being communicated. So, whilst I find the usage lazy and inaccurate, I can reluctantly accept its adoption because meaning isn’t changed when the error occurs.

This, then, is my question: If meaning is maintained, does it really matter if the wrong word is used to convey that meaning?

Are we concerned about correct usage simply for the sake of correct usage? Or is our concern, as writers, more to do with style, perhaps? Does wrong usage, whilst acceptable to many non-writers, merely illustrate a lack of care, education, or intelligence to those of us who write?
  
Language is primarily a means of communicating ideas. So, if those ideas are expressed without confusion in spite of wrong usage, does that incorrect usage really matter?

I pride myself on knowing correct usage, most of the time, but do my readers care, or even notice when such errors occur? As a writer, I feel duty bound to utilise the many fine shades of meaning possible within the English language. I feel that allowing such distinction to be eroded by ignorance, carelessness or expedience is a step along the road toward ultimate confusion and bedlam, as fine discriminations disappear under a carpet of banality. The poet in me abhors such laziness. But, apart from other poets and writers, do my readers care? That’s what I ask you. And I welcome your responses.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 29 October 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Need or want?

PovertyImage via Wikipedia
Need or want?
Need: noun - necessity for a person or thing; a condition or time of difficulty, distress, or trouble, lacking or requiring some necessary thing; exigency, emergency, crisis; destitution, lack of the means of subsistence or of necessaries, poverty; requiring or being motivated to do, a necessity to do; something requiring action; a particular point or respect in which some necessity or want is present or is felt; a piece of necessary business; something wanted, a requirement.

Want: noun - lacking something desirable or necessary; deficiency or shortage; lacking the necessities of life; penury; poverty, famine, starvation; hardship or suffering; a condition marked by the lack of some necessity; need; something needed or desired; a requirement, a request; a defect, fault or shortcoming.

When I decided to compare these two words, in common with many older folk, I assumed their dictionary definitions would support my preconceptions. However, the good old SOED has educated me once again. On the face of it, the two words can be interchanged more or less unconditionally.
BUT, when it comes to that oft heard phrase, 'I need…' usually uttered by an offspring, there is a distinction that should be made, I think.

Children of all ages, and I include those adults who refuse to mature, often state that they need something when they simply desire it. Usage suggests that, in most cases, they 'want' what they call a 'need'. I think I can best express this by explaining that in this particular case, 'want' indicates desire and 'need' indicates necessity.
So:
'I need a new dress, skirt, etc.' should properly be expressed as 'I want a new…' since the item in question is not a necessity but something desired.

'I need a text book, set of pens, breakfast, etc.' is fine, as these are necessities for either life or schooling.

The dividing line is fine and, probably, subjective, but I think all parents will know where it should be drawn.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 10 May 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Incomplete or Uncompleted?


Incomplete: adjective - not complete; not fully formed; unfinished; not whole or thorough; lacking something, imperfect.
Uncompleted: adjective - not completed.

I display these alternatives here, as they came up in a discussion at my writers’ group a short while ago. We spent a little while discussing the meanings of the two words and came away without any conclusion, so I looked them up in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (my standard reference dictionary, and the one from which the definitions were taken: thank you to the Oxford Press). Apart from the fact that ‘uncompleted’ has only one, very specific, meaning, I can discern no essential difference between the two terms used in the context of the sentence we were discussing at the time. I’d still go for ‘incomplete’, simply because I find ‘uncompleted’ has an ugly sound to it. It goes to show that, in English, the chosen word can often be a matter of taste and preference without actually altering meaning in a significant way. Agreed?

The picture is just a shot I took a while ago.  Zemanta, the widget I use for illustrations, came up with nothing suitable this time.

Enhanced by Zemanta