tnt: thesaurus

[azuire]

Reminders: This week's topic and editing post! Both are due this Saturday, so I hope everyone's on top of their game. (If not, best of luck!)

Remember, if you have suggestions for prompts or TnT topics, feel free to let the mods know :)

---

Some writers really like their thesauruses.

I mean really. I think it's fantastic to learn new words (cachinnate), or see a less used one pop up (defenestrate, vitriol), but when I have to stop reading and run for the dictionary, it becomes a nuisance (asseverate).

What do you think about Thesaurus Word of the Day? Should we dip into less-used words to write, or will everyday language suffice?

Comments

[thblackflame]

And excess of anything is never good. It's not good to have the same word pop up fifteen times in one paragraph, but at the same time, as stated above, having to run to get a dictionary fifteen times in one paragraph isn't fun either.

I think it's all in the way that the writing is laid out. First you have to decide what your target audience is. If you're writing for small children using overly large words isn't going to work. If your audience are nuclear physicists, a plethora of monosyllabic words is also likely to be a bad idea.

To be honest, I write the way I speak. When I use five dollar words or phrases it's because that's how I would have said it to anyone who was standing there, but my target audience is generally women between the ages of 21 and 30. The phrasing also changes depending on the character that I am writing. If I'm writing about a child, I try to use words that a child would use. If I'm writing about a 20 year old man the language tends to increase in vulgarity.

Basiclly, the way I look at it, write what you know, and if there is a word that doesn't look like it fits, or could be replaced by a better word, then break out a thesaurus and find the word that fits best. Though, I will say this, it has been my experience that you might want to check the word in a dictionary just to make sure that it does fit with what you are trying to say. Sometimes you think the word fits perfect and then someone is kind enough to point out to you that you have used the word improperly. There is a reason I try to make my sister read over my work before I post it. ^_^;;;;

[ex_pippin880]

The thesaurus is a life-saver when it comes to consonance-based writing. "I need a word that means 'stop' but the only consonants I have at my disposal are 'k, g, ch, and r" sort of thing.

It depends on the character, mostly, for me. Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin are a good example! Archie's always having to look up or ask about what Wolfe says, and that's just who they both are: the genius and the assistant.
"I have looked up 'dally', and yes, I wish to dally."

[pipisafoat]

Yes. Thesaurus, totally useful when you need a word that fits a certain thing like your consonance, or if you're trying to make your iambic pentameter right, or if you know the word you're looking for but just can't remember. But I never never never use a word I haven't heard before. I am quite well read. I'm not saying I know every word that everyone else does, but if I don't know a word, the chance my general readership knows the word is extremely slim. However, some authors don't have that vocabulary. I imagine it's more difficult if you think your audience might know the word but you don't.

[silverflight8]

As far as English is concerned, I never use the dictionary, and it's irritating when writers use fancy, obscure words to prove the merit of their work. [Especially when it's obvious they used the thesaurus: seeing a synonym that has very distinct connotations used.]
On the other hand, if the character would talk like that (for instance, I read a book about a professor of linguistics, and I enjoyed the way he could describe things so precisely) or the time period had a different vernacular, I'd change my writing style.
I like words. Sometimes more than the story's plot. I just wish the implication of fancy words=good writing didn't exist!

[pipisafoat]

for instance, I read a book about a professor of linguistics, and I enjoyed the way he could describe things so precisely
Fascinating!

[silverflight8]

It was Tomcat in Love, by Tim O'Brien, about philandering professor. Didn't like the character much, but I loved the writing. A heads-up, if you have a trigger about mutilation: there's bit in the beginning.

[msmcknittington]

I'm a big believer in using natural language to write -- that is, using language which fits the tone of the piece. If you're going to reach for a word like penumbral when shaded will do, then you might want to rethink the choice unless what you're writing already has an elevated tone and complex structure. Nothing sticks out worse than a word that doesn't flow with the rest of the piece.

Something to consider when selecting big words is that the thesaurus or dictionary doesn't make every nuance and connotation of the word clear in that limited space. So, unless you're familiar with a word's use in context, you may end up selecting a word that does not convey the meaning you're after. Like, let's take synonyms for red: ruby, scarlet, sanguine, and rose all roughly mean red, but all give very different impressions. If you're talking about how someone is blushing delicately and innocently, you probably don't want to use sanguine or scarlet to describe that blush.

I also think there are some "big" words that have almost become jokes, and I can't take them seriously when reading. Like defenestrate or antidisestablishmentarianism. When I see them, I assume the author is using them knowingly and in a sort of deadpan manner, rather than sincerely. Of course, throwing people out windows doesn't happen all that often, so it's not like you get to use defenestrate all that often. :P

So, I'm not really a fan of the thesaurus. If you want to increase your vocabulary, then it has to come from reading things that you find challenging, so that you have not just knowledge of words but awareness of how they're used.

[ex_pippin880]

My university's science fiction club's room is on the second floor (third floor to Americans? I forget how your system works) above the pub. A lot of the older members would make jokes about defenestration, and it was all very funny, haha, if you get thrown out the window you'll die be in the pub's courtyard, haha!

And then I found out that the clubroom used to be on the other side of the guild building -- on the first (second?) floor, and along the side with a balcony. So, back in the day, they actually would defenestrate annoying people because they'd only fall a couple foot onto the balcony.

[cariadwen]

I've been in many a muddled situations because to me the American system of labelling floors is natural as the first floor you come to is called the first floor. Sensible! It took me ages to learn that as a Brit I had to go to the 'ground floor' if I wanted to get to the entrance. To me it's counter intuititive. Even now after all these years I still need to remind myself what floor I'm aiming for.

[ex_pippin880]

But what if the first floor you come to isn't the first floor, but the basement/below ground, or the second storey?

[cariadwen]

LOl My head just stopped spinning! If I get into the building at pavement level at the public entrance, to me that should be the first floor. If there's a floor underneath that it should be the basement. Whenever I press the ground floor button on a lift I hold my breath incase I'm taken to the basement.

It's like in Britain hunting pinks are actually red. And white horses are called 'grey. It doesn't make any sense to me. The description of a man in a red coat on a whilte horse is so much more real life than a man in a pink coat on a grey horse. It doesn't give the right picture in my head.

And yes I do know the convoluted (to me) explainations on why pink and grey are used in those contexts. I just feel like the little boy who yells "But the emporer has no clothes." Just because everyone does it and it's always been done, does it make it right?

[ex_pippin880]

If you start calling grey horses "white", what are you going to call the actually white horses? :/

[cariadwen]

In the British horsey world there are no such things white horses, they are all grey. Their logic is that while the hair on the animals are white, the skin underneath is often spotted or grey. My argument is polar bears have white fur but underneath have black skin but we don't refer to them as black, now do we?

I think in pictures so accurate colour is important to me.

[ex_pippin880]

White horses are pink-skinned. I must confess, I don't know whether or not they are banned from Britain, so you could be correct.

The polar bear situation is a pretty poor straw man, honestly. :/

[cariadwen]

In other countries white horses are called white regardless of what colour their skin underneath the hair. They aren't banned here just that if the local language calls them white, then we will call them white by the language of the country they came from.


Why is the polar bear situation a straw man? It is logical consquence

[ex_pippin880]

I just... don't understand what your concern about this is, honestly. Some specialists decided that this was an important distinction to make, and some laypeople use their terminology while others don't. All words are just symbols, with no actual truth behind them. It's like getting upset if people with physics backgrounds use "mass" instead of "weight", because "weight" for them symbolises something slightly differently.


if the local language calls them white, then we will call them white by the language of the country they came from.

...I can't parse this sentence. You make it sound like you'd call Italian white horses "bianco horses"...?


Well. There's only one sort of polar bear (plus albino-ism, maybe?): black-skinned, white-furred. And no one breeds polar bears. So (a) you don't need to designate between colours of polar bears in the first place (if I say "polar bear" you imagine a black-skinned, white-furred polar bear -- I don't need to say "white polar bear"), (b) there aren't any white-furred nonblack-skinned polar bears to distinguish against (other than albinos, and you'd say "albino polar bear" for that), and (c) there's no money or reputation on the line regarding their colour.

Whereas: (a) there are a lot of different horse coat colours, (b) there is a distinction between white-haired pink-skinned and white-haired grey-skinned, and (c) there is money and reputation associated with breeding white or grey horses.

These two situations aren't really compatible for logical argument.

[cariadwen]

"I just... don't understand what your concern about this is, honestly. Some specialists decided that this was an important distinction to make, and some laypeople use their terminology while others don't. All words are just symbols, with no actual truth behind them. It's like getting upset if people with physics backgrounds use "mass" instead of "weight", because "weight" for them symbolises something slightly differently."

:) Now who said I was upset? Sorry if I come across that way but I'm directed when I debate, it certainly wasn't done to upset you in anyway. I'm just debating the power of words. This is the topic this week isn't it? The white and grey horse thing was simply a stray comment on the erractic usuage of the English language. Which I love by the way.


"...I can't parse this sentence. You make it sound like you'd call Italian white horses "bianco horses"...?"

Yes we do! And Palamino which also means white.



"(c) there's reputation on the line regarding their colour."

Now that's a good point and logical. If I had given up at your pulling the straw man line I would never have heard it from you and thus considered it.

"Whereas: (a) there are a lot of different horse coat colours, (b) there is a distinction between white-haired pink-skinned and white-haired grey-skinned, and (c) there is money and reputation associated with breeding white or grey horses."

Now I might have missed this vital bit of horse sense because no one in my section of the horsey world was bothered by breed, not when you can buy a sturdy mongral for £50. So another good point. :)

"These two situations aren't really compatible for logical argument."

Of course they are, until you factor in breeding lines, then it becomes incompatible and only then.

Please don't take things so seriously I'm not really a dragon, honestly!

[cariadwen]

A bit about me, I'm 60 and was born and bred in Wales. When I moved into a post industral village in the south, in the late 70's it was as common to see a horse tied to the front gate as it was for a car to be parked outside.

In fact horse ownership was more common than having a bathroom and having a bathroom was more common than having central heating. The local hunt was run by ex-miners and you could buy a horse for £50. So naturally every little girl got what they wanted.

I'm not saying I'm a horse expert, because I'm not, just that the whole terminalogoy is something I've had experience in.

[azuire]

Part of my annoyance comes from people using "crimson", when "red" works perfectly well (particularly rampant in poetry, sadly).

anti-distinctly-minty!

[cariadwen]

Regarding red versus crimson. red is a whole variety of different types of red, while crimson is one particular type of red and therefore it might be a lot more apt.

[azuire]

well, they tend to overuse "crimson", see. it's red several times in the poem, so I understand the need for synonyms, but crimson several times and all describing blood becomes quite frustrating.

[cariadwen]

LOl quite! I hate repetition in poems myself.

[pipisafoat]

I always think of that episode of Firefly when I think of sanguine. (not the one in my icon, the one where Mal and Zoe talk about sanguine.)

[msmcknittington]

Exactly! "Sanguine" has all sorts of layers of meaning and allusion that "red" doesn't, so if you pick it because you want a fancy word for red, you might end up saying things you didn't intend to say.

[silverflight8]

Yes. The misuse of words that comes from using a thesaurus without a dictionary is sometimes hilarious but mostly just ?!?.

Defenestrate reminds me of kidneys and also blood vessels, some of which have fenestrated membranes. I guess if you blocked them up, they'd be defenestrated? :)

[so_wordy]

I love using my thesaurus (internetz version, ftw). Usually, I don't use obscure words. It's more like--I have a word in mind that's says kind of what I want, but there's a better one and I'm not always sure what it is.
This leads me on clicky sprees of doom.

If a character is supposed to be of an elevated intellect, then and only then, will I make their vocabulary more complex. I try and stay with the tone of a piece though. Ultimately it's how you use the words, not what you use.

[silverflight8]

This leads me on clicky sprees of doom.
Ahahaha yes, this is what happens to me with paper dictionaries. I scan the page and get snagged by an interesting word, and then another, and then another...

[so_wordy]

It's a total nerdy-out moment, right? I guess it shows we're really writers, though! :D

[cariadwen]

I have recently read a book for children. "I will Wear Midnight" by Terry Pratchett. Now the author never talks down to children and loves the English language and believes the only way a child will learn to have a wider understanding of language is to use words which may or may not be words an adult may find in normal conversation but would be generally understood.

However he used one word that not only I have never come across before but I can't even guess the meaning from the surrounding sentence. I've looked it up in my Oxford paper dictionary and it's not there (but then neither was defenistration) And it's gone out of my head because the story was so fast paced I needed to finish the book before looking the word up. Now I need to re-read the book to find it again!

I have mixed feelings on this but at least when I find it again I will have learnt something.