igordesu wrote:

Once you're on the table, you don't need the stepping stool (yes, very crappy metaphor, but you know what I mean)...

What if you're short and you need to change a lightbulb?

Oh yeah, and there are a lot of words for which I could never, ever give a definition, but I still think I "understand" them.  This is because I've never bothered to look up the definition of some of them, but I've seen them in context probably thousands of times as a native speaker.  Since I never doubt my ability as a native speaker (obviously), I guess it feels like I understand them even though I can't give a dictionary definition. 
I suppose this is why a second language always remains a second language for some people.  They may know dictionary definitions or "technically understand" lots of words, but there are still words that they "technically don't understand" so they look at that as a lack of proficiency.  As a native speaker, a combination of your confidence and the fact that you've seen the words in context a ton of times without ever seeing the dictionary definition basically erases that feeling of lacking proficiency.
That's my guess anyways...

I'm 26, lived in Canada all my life, a very good spellar, and I too have found the need to look through the dictionary many times for a lot of Heisig's keywords.  At least half of them are types of plants and flowers. 

Many of the words that I had to look up I had definitely heard before, and could even produce example sentences for, but I needed to look them up in order to get a clear definition. There were a few keywords that I later found out I had a mistaken idea of their definition, like "exhort". I had gotten it mixed up with "extort" or something.

Also, I forgot about "godown".

I'm with Serge on this one. 

But since the average age on this site is fairly low, I'm not surprised.  Nobody under 25 reads on the train anymore, it seems.  All their heads are glued to tiny screens and their thumbs are working their devices.

That said, it's by reading random things that you improve your vocab, and RTK is pretty random, as things go.  And I doubt those folks on the train are tackling Chinese characters, so i guess I should cut you guys some slack.

Lol, and before when I was talking about how I understand lots of words because I've seen them in context but I can't give a dictionary definition, that wasn't in reference to RTK words.  I *can* give a dictionary definition for most of those, lol...
But, then again, I suppose that means the post was pretty much way off topic if it wasn't about RTK words.  Oh well...

Serge wrote:

I can't believe this thread...

Rare plants and buddhist terminology - ok, that may require some specialist knowlegde but some of the generic nouns and adjectives??!!!!!..

How generic can they really be if so many college educated individuals have never heard of them? Seriously.

smujohnson wrote:

I'm 26, lived in Canada all my life, a very good spellar,

heh.

I'm pretty much with Serge.  My vocabulary isn't anything great, and I don't look down on people if they don't happen to know a word that I do,* but if "a lot" of the keywords in RTK are new to you, the blame lies with your vocabulary, not Heisig's. 
The size of your vocabulary mainly comes from how much you read, but it doesn't require reading especially obscure or difficult works, just a wide variety, and in large amounts.  Sure, RTK can be good for learning new English words, but I doubt it's better than a random book of the same size pulled off a library shelf.
"Autochtonic" is a reasonably obscure word, and the first time I remember reading it was in university (George Grant's "Technology and Empire," which has little to do with anything especially likely to need the word "autochtonic"; it's just a random book like I said).  But after reading it that first time, I noticed it regularly popping up in other places.  Not every day, but maybe once a year.  That's just how vocabulary is.  The number of different words you might see on a daily basis is very small; the vast majority of words that you know, occupy the long tail and you might see them only a few times a year or less. 

* except when they're like, "ardroit?  WTF!  hahaha, adroit?  WTF dude, hahaha, adoit? adroit? hahaha!"

bodhisamaya wrote:

I am not so sure having too large a vocabulary is a good thing if it hinders communication.  We filter out non-useful information for a reason.  I have listened to lectures where the speaker seems to just want to prove how many obscure words he knows.  I would sit there along with everyone else looking around and thinking, "What the freak is this guy saying?". 

The point of words is of course to convey a message in a way that as closely as possible transfers what is in ones own head into that of the listener.   A word that has the most exact meaning to the idea you have in your own mind may be of no use in sharing that idea with others.

I couldn't agree more.  Remember the mantra: "The fewest words, the best words, the best order..."

Also, check out the classic essay, "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.
Yeah, it's like Lewis Carroll said.  The meaning of what you say isn't determined by some dictionary somewhere--it's determined by a combination of what the speaker intends his /her words to mean and what the listener understands the words to mean.

Sorry, I'm really getting off topic now, lol...

Last edited by igordesu (2008 December 19, 12:58 pm)

Mundane, everyday words don't always do the best job at capturing extraordinary feelings.

What makes chew more interesting than masticate?  (aside from the obvious )

Or is masticate mundane as well? Perhaps even mundane is too mundane so I'll use, banausic. It's a stretch but....

Dragg wrote:

Good written novels and poems are often deliberately vague in order to let the reader think for himself and draw his own conclusions.

I say they're just being lazy. Finish the whole thought? (question mark preconcerted...wait that doesn't fit does it?)

thatotherguy wrote:

The size of your vocabulary mainly comes from how much you read, but it doesn't require reading especially obscure or difficult works, just a wide variety, and in large amounts.

This is not true. I happen to read everyday. If fact, most all of us do. The things I/we read happen to come from the largest and most varied source of information in human existence.

Vocabulary comes not from reading itself, but from what you read.

There are specific authors who choose to use these obscure words. Maybe the words weren't obscure 30 years ago, but anyone who uses them now is, probably, being pretentious. Either that, or he/she is intentionally trying to widen your vocabulary.

Dragg wrote:

@ kaze

Ok, I will give you an example of how mundane words can lack vibrant emotion or at least sound awkward as hell.

The soft flower cried water from its bits in the morning.

The delicate rose wept dewy tears from its petals at the birth of dawn.

Try reading the lyrics of Nirvana, Tool, and the Doors.  Their words are often highly ambiguous but they are anything but lazy.  In fact, I would argue that Tool has, in particular, has some of the deepest, multilayered lyrics in the history of popular music.

Delicate, dewy, tears, petals, birth,  and dawn are not special. They are as mundane as the words used in the first sentence. The second is simply more discriptive and... insane than the first.

Both of these sentences do have value, though. Your attempt to oversimplify the first sentence gives a lighter tone and is actually comical. It find myself wanting to see what is next. The second one, though very imaginative, sounds like someone was tryingt to hard .

I should have stated this, but my comment about the mundane was to illustrate the absurdity of calling a word mundane. Words themselves can't actually be mundane. What's mundane is the usage. Though, I think mundane too strong a word (perhaps I'll hit the thesaurus).

Forgot to add:

The thing is, no matter what level an author has reached in terms of expression and/or vocabulary, if the reader doesn't get it, the effort is a waste. Unless, the material is autobiographical, that is.

Last edited by kazelee (2008 December 19, 3:34 pm)

Dragg wrote:

@kaze

Ok, I will try again.  I know the second sentence was trying too hard but it still conveys emotion better I would say;  it's just that it sounds too cliché by todays standards.  I agree that the first example was not the best.  Here is a better example:

The cantankerous oaf expelled a stench-filled gust in my direction.

The dumb jerk burped on me.

As far as arguing over whether a word is inherently "mundane", it sounds like semantics again. I don't think it is absurd it all to call some words more mundane than others. Of course usage determines if a word is mundane, but often the longer words like "cantankerous" exist not for everyday verbal use (unless you are pretentious or comical), but rather they are specifically designated for the arts where they sometimes have value at communicating nuance and emotion.

I'm afraid these examples are a bit to short, IMO, to convey much subtlety.

I think the second one wins this times. The first one creates an ambiguity that only the second one can resolve. In fact, they can be combined.

The cantankerous oaf expelled a stench-filled gust in my direction. That is to say, the dumb jerk burped on me.

Also: Imagine cantankerous carried as much subtlety as the word annoying around the time it was introduced into English.

As far as arguing over whether a word is inherently "mundane", it sounds like semantics again.

What doesn't... really?

Last edited by kazelee (2008 December 19, 3:44 pm)

Dragg wrote:

@igordesu & bodhisamaya

It really depends on the situation.  The purpose of a lecture is often to convey messages of a practical or technical nature.  However, the point of novels and poetry is often to convey emotional states.  Mundane, everyday words don't always do the best job at capturing extraordinary feelings.  ...  Actually, the Jabberwocky poem by Lewis Carroll is a perfect example of how words, in this case nonsense words, can still hold meaning in context.  In fact, you can even see how the unusual words improve upon the poem because it makes your imagination run wild.  ... Good written novels and poems are often deliberately vague in order to let the reader think for himself and draw his own conclusions...

First of all, you don't have to use mundane, everyday words to make yourself clear using the fewest and best words.

"It really depends on the situation.  The purpose of a lecture is often to convey messages of a practical or technical nature."  Yep, and in that case "the fewest and best words" wouldn't usually constitute mundane, everyday words.

"However, the point of novels and poetry is often to convey emotional states."  In this case, determining what is everyday and mundane is really a matter of opinion and perspective relating to the situation.  Also, writers of poetry are often torn between expressing extraordinary feeling and clarity.  There's a happy medium there.  If you can't achieve that without resorting to a thesaurus and looking up words that your readers are going to have to look up too, you pretty much fail at your goal of communication. 

And I personally think that writers who are too ambiguous with their writings haven't actually really developed their skills yet.  Saying that you're leaving it up to the reader to determine "meaning" defeats the purpose of trying to communicate like that.  I like Lewis Carroll because, while it seems just pure nonsense to us, it's totally not when examined under the correct historical background.  For example, a majority of the nonsense poems in his books are parodies of popular songs and poems that EVERYBODY knew and would recognize during his day.