I use too big of words. Eloquency

[Char-Nobyl]

Such are the trials of life. Don't concern yourself too much with it, I once had an individual tell me that 'You need to talk english.', after I had made a statement in what I didn't consider to be remotely 'intelligent' simply 'professional'. My friend said that the expression of utter confusion on my face was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen.

There will always be stupid people, there will always be simple people, and if they're too simple to tell the difference between condescension and merely being well read, to hell with them.

Look, man, his problem isn't that he's working with a bunch of semi-literate morons. Just look at his post: he even uses the word 'verbose' to describe himself, and 'verbose' doesn't mean 'eloquent.'

The issue here isn't whether his coworkers can tell the difference between condescension and eloquence. The issue is that he can't tell the difference, and thinks he's on one side when he's clearly on the other.

It does, doesn't it?

Hm... *narrows eyes at OP*

Could this be a trolling attempt, or even an unconscious trolling attempt? I mean, honestly, I've *never* met a single English speaker - even the most formal and uncomfortable speaker - speak in the way you do, OP. I'd lob a few theories, but I'm pretty sure most would either fall flat or be horribly misconstrued as attacks. I wouldn't be attacking you; I'd be making unfounded theories based on the way a guy I've never personally known or met speaks in the context of a single thread on a gaming website I like.

So yeah, bad idea in the making. I shall refrain from doing so.

You hit the nail on the head. If he's coming across as a troll, it's either because he is a troll...or this is exactly why his coworkers are so annoyed with his word choice.

To use his own word, he's being verbose: using unnecessarily long/complex words. At best, he's being unclear (apparently achieving the exact opposite of his stated goal). At worst, he's got a raging superiority complex that's entirely without the proper brains to back it up.

 

[Titan Buttons]

There is nothing wrong with using an extended vocabulary to communicate. Also since you are the one using words that are not commonly know to the average person you should not be surprised that they don't always understand what you are say and have the patients to explain what you mean, since you are the one communicating in manner that is not 'common'.
Also openly stating to people that you have a superior vocabulary while those around you only have an 'average' vocabulary is quite condescending, even if you don't intend it to be.

 

[mrblakemiller]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

My thoughts:

1. "Eloquency" is not a word. It's "eloquence."
2. "Almost annoyance"? So they're aren't annoyed yet? Then what's the problem?
3. "Making use of" is abstruse; it should be, "using."
4. I think answering the question would be the best way to tackle the "bias-heavy concept."
5. "fundamentally it would be true to say" could be excised from this sentence without losing any meaning. conversely, it would foment clarity.
6. "Verbose" means you say more, not you speak with higher prose.
7. Don't call people "average". No one likes that.
8. "Who's" doesn't belong here; it should be "whose".

My rewrite:

"Some of my coworkers are annoyed that I use large words. Is it my fault for using more words or theirs for not understanding me? It's frustrating, becuase while I use more words than the average person, people don't like being called "average". I thought I'd ask you for insight."

My version is 100 words smaller and I think it gets the message across more easily.

 

[Yeager942]

For those castigating the OP, it's not so much him trying to show how smart or condescending he is but just his natural tendency to use larger words. Personally, I understand it. With a love of words born from reading, I can sympathize with those who like to stretch their words.

 

[mrblakemiller]

The following was not meant for conversational English, but there's plenty you can still learn from, here:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

George Orwell is my flippin' rabbi when it comes to the English language. Good choice.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

Here's a problem: You aren't just using bigger than average words. You're using bigger than average words that turn up as synonyms to smaller words in a thesaurus, but that don't fit into the same places in a sentence in the way you seem to think they do -- a common mistake amongst people who like to throw big words around. allow me to re-word your OP in a way that actually makes sense, doing nothing but re-arranging the words and changing the odd conjugation:

My use of larger words or an extended vocabulary has become almost a matter of annoyance to my co-workers. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to more accurately convey what I think than the 800 (on average) different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read as I am. Try to grasp the concept underlying that bias-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while it would be fundamentally true to say that I conduct my speech in a more verbose manner than the average person, the people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.

I thought I'd pose the question to others whose opinions might provide some insight.

That's how I would word it without removing any of the "big words" you threw in, however, I think more editing is necessary, since I sincerely doubt that some of them meant what you think it means. A better wording would simply be

My use of larger words and an extended vocabulary has started to annoy my co-workers. My issue is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my larger than average vocabulary to more accurately convey what I mean than the 800 (on average) different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read as I am. Try to grasp the concept underlying that bias-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.

It's a dilemma that has been somewhat frustrating to think about, since while it would be fundamentally true to say that I conduct my speech in a more eloquent manner than the average person, the people I converse with do not like being regarded as "average,", becoming quite indignant at being referred to by the term.

Can anyone provide any insight on the matter?

[edit]An even better wording would be:

My co-workers have started getting annoyed at me because I tend to use a lot of big words. My question is whether it's my fault for using them, or theirs for not comprehending them -- before anyone answers, think it through carefully, paying attention to the underlying issues, instead of just taking one side or the other.

This problem is frustrating to me, because while it's true that I have a larger vocabulary than the average person, my co-workers don't like being referred to by the term, and get upset any time I actually call one of them "average."

Does anyone have any advice for dealing with this problem?

Even with the re-wording, I can't quite get rid of the stuck up condescension that pervades the OP -- to do that would be to change the meaning, when my goal was simply to get it across in a more efficient manner.[/edit]

I think I'll close here with a quote from Ernest Hemingway -- a man who knew a thing or two about eloquence.

Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.

I believe you have been told.

 

[Rin Little]

My one friend and I run into this problem a lot too. I don't do it as much online just because I find the internet so informal that I don't feel a need to use those words. But if I'm speaking they just naturally come out. Honestly, I'd say let your co-workers whine all they want. Maybe they should try and enhance their own vocabulary rather than doing nothing and complain about feeling dumb all because someone is more eloquent than they are.

 

[FoolKiller]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

I rarely quote a whole opening post but I needed to make an exception in your case. I will make this short and simple. It's not the vocabulary that is the problem. It's the inability to use them coherently that may be the problem. The post I've quoted from you contains numerous spelling and grammar errors.

Everyone can buy paint and use it. Not everyone is an artist.

 

[Chezza]

I suppose it also depends if you are able or care to be adaptable to the crowd. When I am surrounded by sensitive outspoken people I tend to be quiet and focus on what I say, avoiding a strong opinion. In other instances I am assertive if I am confident it will not damage relations.

As for an extended vocabulary if you truly are in the habit of communicating with more complex wording then I would imagine it is difficult. However dumbing down is probably more convenient than expecting everyone to "smarten" up their choice of wording? My point being, if you do care about their criticism then perhaps you should train yourself to observe the people and change your wording to the appropriate crowd.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Well, technically it would be a "shift in the zeitgeist", something can't just be a zeitgeist. I know, semantics, I'm sorry.

And I guess? Technically? More my point, saying it unprovoked just makes you silly.

*shrugs* Well, alright. I figured that as "zeitgeist" means "sign of the times", that it didn't need to shift or to otherwise change. I figured a zeitgeist could be applied to any situation that *has* changed from a previous configuration, typically from a sociopolitical point of view.

And you're right, it does make me silly. Which is kinda why I opened with a rather gleeful "Ooooh!", in complete awareness that I'd look for an even bigger fool if I tried to sound serious.

You hit the nail on the head. If he's coming across as a troll, it's either because he is a troll...or this is exactly why his coworkers are so annoyed with his word choice.

To use his own word, he's being verbose: using unnecessarily long/complex words. At best, he's being unclear (apparently achieving the exact opposite of his stated goal). At worst, he's got a raging superiority complex that's entirely without the proper brains to back it up.

Which makes you wonder, despite the fact that trolls need no impetus to start trollin'... Why the fuck did he bother, if he was more than likely aware that he'd garner this type of reaction?

More to the point, aren't we giving him exactly what he wants by spawning three pages on grammatical correctness? Shouldn't we just play into his displayed incompetence and slap verilys and forsooths and thou-art-withs all over the place, just so we sound "verbose" - to use his own word?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well, technically it would be a "shift in the zeitgeist", something can't just be a zeitgeist. I know, semantics, I'm sorry.

And I guess? Technically? More my point, saying it unprovoked just makes you silly.

*shrugs* Well, alright. I figured that as "zeitgeist" means "sign of the times", that it didn't need to shift or to otherwise change. I figured a zeitgeist could be applied to any situation that *has* changed from a previous configuration, typically from a sociopolitical point of view.

And you're right, it does make me silly. Which is kinda why I opened with a rather gleeful "Ooooh!", in complete awareness that I'd look for an even bigger fool if I tried to sound serious.

You hit the nail on the head. If he's coming across as a troll, it's either because he is a troll...or this is exactly why his coworkers are so annoyed with his word choice.

To use his own word, he's being verbose: using unnecessarily long/complex words. At best, he's being unclear (apparently achieving the exact opposite of his stated goal). At worst, he's got a raging superiority complex that's entirely without the proper brains to back it up.

Which makes you wonder, despite the fact that trolls need no impetus to start trollin'... Why the fuck did he bother, if he was more than likely aware that he'd garner this type of reaction?

More to the point, aren't we giving him exactly what he wants by spawning three pages on grammatical correctness? Shouldn't we just play into his displayed incompetence and slap verilys and forsooths and thou-art-withs all over the place, just so we sound "verbose" - to use his own word?

Actually, Zeitgeist means something closer to "the spirit of an age" -- for example, the zeitgeist of the cold war era was one of paranoia and fear. No single thing can be a zeitgeist, but it can be a part of it.

 

[bojac6]

Your colleagues are probably more bothered by the fact that you come across as massively condescending as opposed to just the fact that you use more syllables than they do.

Most likely. In my (admittedly few years of) experience, it's okay to be the smartest person in the room, but you shouldn't say it. Because doing so makes you a massive douche. Also, chances are that you're wrong.

In my experience, the smartest person in the room is never the person doing the most talking.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Your colleagues are probably more bothered by the fact that you come across as massively condescending as opposed to just the fact that you use more syllables than they do.

Most likely. In my (admittedly few years of) experience, it's okay to be the smartest person in the room, but you shouldn't say it. Because doing so makes you a massive douche. Also, chances are that you're wrong.

In my experience, the smartest person in the room is never the person doing the most talking.

Depends. Some people show their intelligence by sitting back and letting others do the talking, waiting for exactly the right moment to interject. Others, due to a variety of circumstances, don't always have that luxury.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Goddamnit, I really need to stop this, I need to get to bed! *insert whatever graphic self-castigation you prefer*

Here is more to lend credence to the theory that the OP was probably off his rocker or drunk as a skunk when he posted this:

http://tylerneufeld.tumblr.com/

His blog, taken from his Profile page. His writing style is a *bit* convoluted, but still much clearer than what the first post suggests.

Captcha: moisire seul.
"Mold alone"? Is that some sort of curse or something? Am I gonna have to start and peel away mildew from my flesh at the time of my death?

If not, it's not quite as awesomely graphic, and it sounds kinda pathetic.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Goddamnit, I really need to stop this, I need to get to bed! *insert whatever graphic self-castigation you prefer*

Here is more to lend credence to the theory that the OP was probably off his rocker or drunk as a skunk when he posted this:

http://tylerneufeld.tumblr.com/

His blog, taken from his Profile page. His writing style is a *bit* convoluted, but still much clearer than what the first post suggests.

Captcha: moisire seul.
"Mold alone"? Is that some sort of curse or something? Am I gonna have to start and peel away mildew from my flesh at the time of my death?

If not, it's not quite as awesomely graphic, and it sounds kinda pathetic.

I was confused for a minute when I saw a post by Coelasquid on his blog, until I realized he just re-posted something she said. Seems like I would have heard of any blog important enough to get her to post on it XD

Edit: Also, a nice little piece of information from that blog post: we now know what the heck happened to The Escapist Radio Theater. Looks like they willingly worked for free, and then either quit or got fired at some point, during the whole "unable to pay the bills" fiasco that ended with Extra Credits leaving the site.

http://psuedofolio.tumblr.com/post/8741775838

 

[Redout9122]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

You can't spell worth a damn, the syntax in your title is godawful, and 'eloquency' isn't even a fucking word.

You're a poseur.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

The question tends to be why you use such a large vocabulary.

People who do this wilfully have a striking tendency to use words in very strange contexts. I get a bit of a feeling of that in your post, but of course I have no idea of the truth of the situation. The way people learn and utilize vocabulary naturally is very, very different from the way people end up doing it when they try to use some artificial means of expanding their vocabulary. The natural method of acquiring vocabularly more or less directly encodes appropriate context, taken from the contexts in which the word is encountered. Artificial expansion requires recourse to succinct "definitions" that universally fail to accurately characterize the distribution of words in their natural language contexts.

This is the same reason you can usually immediately tell when someone's used a thesaurus to try to make something sound more impressive. And it can work on less well-read people - their limited exposure to the words means that they don't have substantial expectations about its distribution for you to be violating. When someone with a robust natural vocabularly hears these usages however, their expectations about the distribution of words among contexts can be violated, which can be uncomfortable (doubly so if they have reason to believe that the other person is doing it purposefully rather than making a simple mistake).

So actually, if people are accusing you of using large words, it's more likely that they have a more robust natural vocabularly than average (specifically, than you with regard to the cases they mention).

Likewise, violating the typical distributions of usage tends to make the meaning less clear and the speech less accurate with respect to any meaningful means of measuring "accuracy".

'eloquency' isn't even a fucking word.

While I probably agree with the rest of your post, eloquency is very well-attested. You'd have an awfully hard time arguing that it isn't a word. I imagine you're working off of the premise that it's a sort of hypercorrection - deriving a semantically-equivalent (at least roughly) nominal from a noun. This sort of thing happens all the time in almost all languages. It's actually not uncommon for the hypercorrected form to become the dominant form, though in this case I think eloquence is still more common.

 

[Redout9122]

While I probably agree with the rest of your post, eloquency is very well-attested. You'd have an awfully hard time arguing that it isn't a word.

That's interesting. When I plug in 'eloquency' to my computer, I get red dotted lines and "no results." When I put in eloquence, no red dots, and "fluent or persuasive speaking or writing."

Hmm.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

While I probably agree with the rest of your post, eloquency is very well-attested. You'd have an awfully hard time arguing that it isn't a word.

That's interesting. When I plug in 'eloquency' to my computer, I get red dotted lines and "no results." When I put in eloquence, no red dots, and "fluent or persuasive speaking or writing."

Hmm.

I added an edit explaining the issue.

You can find attestations of eloquency all over the place. Google returns nearly 100k results (compared to 8m for eloquence, so that's very clearly the dominant form) and you can find historical attestations that go very far back. While, as the edit says, it probably arose from what was basically an error, it's definitely common enough at this point that it exists as an actual, independent learned form in many dialects.