XP: Written Word/English Language&Reading Material

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Dictionary of Fine Distinctions: Nuances, Niceties, and Subtle Shades of Meaning -- Eli Burnstein

"This delightful book is a tribute to the genius of the human mind for conceptual precision and the beauty of the English language in capturing it. It resolves a great deal of puzzlement over confusable terms, and its endearing illustrations and lighthearted explanations multiply the satisfaction." —Steven Pinker, author of The Language Instinct and Rationality
Click to expand...

So says Mr Pinker. I found it interesting but a good bit less than "delightful". Some wordsmiths may have a more favorable opinion on it.

. . . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

Grrr.
 
I am not surprised that this not of business-ese has strong armed itself into the dictionary. But the word is still objectionable for reasons stated above. The real question is why you insist on using it. Even by the definitions you cite there is no distinction between this bit of jargon and the word writer. Moreover, writers, at least the ones I know, and I do know more than one, find the term demeaning. So you are insulting the very people whose skills you are calling upon. Not a good policy I would think. Grr and grr again.
 
Jonathan, I tried and failed to remember your criteria for "correct" usage, so I decided to just depend on reputable dictionaries.

Given your thesis, "wordsmith" should probably be included in the aforementioned The Dictionary of Fine Distinctions.

. . . . . Pete
 
First, I apologize for my prior message. My tablet outdid itself in turning what I wrote into gobbledygook, and I outdid myself in not rereading it and forcing it into submission. As to your response, you seem not to hear what I am saying, so I'll put it as baldly as I can: writers find this term as referring to themselves and what they do as demeaning and insulting. Knowingly that and insisting on using it seems at best blithely inconsiderate. I won't go into what it seems at worst.
 
Jonathan, I'm not gainsaying the validity of your statement; however, I did some googling (granted, maybe [probably?] not enough) but I didn't see a single article that said anything other than wordsmith is a complimentary term.

The only possible exception is the Urban Dictionary (?) made some reference about the ability of omitting words for a purpose.

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
If you're looking for a fun test that's both challenging and imminently doable...

Wordle
Click to expand...

Usually I solve the puzzle rather quickly; however, yesterday the challenge took me a LONG time before in my next to last chance I finally hit on "equip". Today, "shank" was elusive for a short while.

[Apologies...slow day today]

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Jonathan, I'm not gainsaying the validity of your statement; however, I did some googling (granted, maybe [probably?] not enough) but I didn't see a single article that said anything other than wordsmith is a complimentary term.

The only possible exception is the Urban Dictionary (?) made some reference about the ability of omitting words for a purpose.

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are being so obstinate about this. Show me a sentence in which the writer isn't a better choice than wordsmith. I'll compose one, to showcase what it means:

Presidential memoirs are almost all a sorry lot, probably because they are shopped out to ghostwriters to be wordsmithed. Grant's Memoirs is the great exception, but then he wrote his.
 
Pete, since everyone is giving you shit, for once I will go the other way: as you know, words like blacksmith, silversmith, and goldsmith apply to craftsmen, the type who used to form guilds, etc. Whoever first thought wordsmith would be a good coinage must have intended to stress the craft aspect of writing. Except that this stress, in this particular case, comes off as pretentious and affected (like curating a wine list compared to choosing or selecting a wine list). Not to mention the focus on technique as opposed to substance. It's just a matter of having an ear to when a coinage is affected and, like most affectations, not a contribution.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Pete, since everyone is giving you shit, for once I will go the other way: as you know, words like blacksmith, silversmith, and goldsmith apply to craftsmen, the type who used to form guilds, etc. Whoever first thought wordsmith would be a good coinage must have intended to stress the craft aspect of writing. Except that this stress, in this particular case, comes off as pretentious and affected (like curating a wine list compared to choosing or selecting a wine list). Not to mention the focus on technique as opposed to substance. It's just a matter of having an ear to when a coinage is affected and, like most affectations, not a contribution.
Click to expand...
Well put. Blacksmith, for example, has no particular negative or positive connotation. Wordsmith does. And it is negative; the word is cringingly awful to hear. Whatever the dictionary says should be amended to indicate this. Being aware of tone and shades of meaning is often what distinguishes educated native speakers and people who are fluent, but English is not their first language.
 
originally posted by mark e:
Being aware of tone and shades of meaning is often what distinguishes educated native speakers and people who are fluent, but English is not their first language.
Click to expand...

One need not disparage educated native speakers to make the point that fluent foreigners speak better English.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by mark e:
Being aware of tone and shades of meaning is often what distinguishes educated native speakers and people who are fluent, but English is not their first language.
Click to expand...

One need not disparage educated native speakers to make the point that fluent foreigners speak better English.
Click to expand...

Yup. A friend in my jeebus group (AndyK on the other bored) was born/raised in Austria. His English, both written and spoken, is as good as any native English speaker I've ever met.
 
originally posted by Larry Stein:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by mark e:
Being aware of tone and shades of meaning is often what distinguishes educated native speakers and people who are fluent, but English is not their first language.
Click to expand...

One need not disparage educated native speakers to make the point that fluent foreigners speak better English.
Click to expand...

Yup. A friend in my jeebus group (AndyK on the other bored) was born/raised in Austria. His English, both written and spoken, is as good as any native English speaker I've ever met.
Click to expand...

Oswaldo was, of course, ragging Mark over a sentence that could be read to have two opposite meanings, knowing that Mark meant one thing and taking him for meaning another, as well as making undo presumptions abut the fluency of all non-native speakers. And, of course, he did so by taking Mark to have meant what he did not and then defending the group he did not impugn. This, by the way, for those who use the term too loosely, is what actual irony looks like. Since he is a non-native speaker and indeed one who knows the language better than many native speakers, I think he already made your post's point.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Larry Stein:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by mark e:
Being aware of tone and shades of meaning is often what distinguishes educated native speakers and people who are fluent, but English is not their first language.
Click to expand...

One need not disparage educated native speakers to make the point that fluent foreigners speak better English.
Click to expand...

Yup. A friend in my jeebus group (AndyK on the other bored) was born/raised in Austria. His English, both written and spoken, is as good as any native English speaker I've ever met.
Click to expand...

Oswaldo was, of course, ragging Mark over a sentence that could be read to have two opposite meanings, knowing that Mark meant one thing and taking him for meaning another, as well as making undo presumptions about the fluency of all non-native speakers. And, of course, he did so by taking Mark to have meant what he did not and then defending the group he did not impugn. This, by the way, for those who use the term too loosely, is what actual irony looks like. Since he is a non-native speaker and indeed one who knows the language better than many native speakers, I think he already made your post's point.
Click to expand...

Conclusive evidence that humor is more humorous when explained (particularly when parsed so accurately).
 
Sure, invites the question means to raise the question and so works. But since to raise the question is a common locution, why invent a new and thus odd-sounding one? I do not ask the question rhetorically. Neologisms can arise by meeting special needs. What calls for this novel locution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top