Click	here to	read about Language	Guardian Editorial Services

Click here	to read	The	Best Words

Click here to buy a	one-year subscription to Vocabula

Click here	to sign	up for The Daily Vocabula

Friday, September 19, 2014   Calendar Robert Hartwell Fiske, Editor and Publisher
August 2014, Vol. 16, No. 8 There are now   135   people reading Vocabula. ISSN 1542-7080
 Vocabula in the News

Feeling a Bit Iffy About "Abilify"

 Discuss This Article

As a writer and a retired teacher of composition I whole-heartedly agree with what you say. The summary paragraph beginning "Yet to neglect those papers ... is particularly fine. Thanks for stating so clearly the case for helping sutdents learn through practice the essentials of essay writing. — What do you say?

Three cheers for this excellent peroration to what has been a very stimulating and worthwhile debate, revealing, on both sides, intellectual swordsmanship of a high order. I have previously read Mark Halpern's book with profit and pleasure, and look forward to getting to Lane Greene's. Any readers of my own TVR offerings (i.e., both of you guys) will know that I incline more toward Halpern's position than Greene's. With that by way of caveat, and with no illusion that I will be settling anything, three quick points on Greene's argument here: 1) The WSJ evidence for a new meaning of "beg the question" is very impressive up to a point. Many readers will be fully convinced that the new meaning has permanently obliterated and replaced the old. But two other possibilities have not been fully considered: a) the current prevalence of the new meaning is a fad, overwhelming for the moment, but destined to die out in time; or b) the new meaning now coexists with the old, as happens with countless other words and expressions, and the meaning that applies in a particular instance will be determined by context and the speaker's evident intention. 2) Greene declares that "I know the language has not gone downhill" because "no language ever has or will." That statement in itself seems worth another 3-part debate perhaps, as there is so much to be said on both sides. It is in its way an admirable statement of principle, comparable to "All Men are Created Equal." But it flies in the face of much everday experience that teaches us that language is an extremely fragile body of convention, demanding constant cultural work (education, editing, style guides, the writing of dictionaries, debates like this one) if it is to go on functioning optimally. To the Ds, only what Steven Pinker calls "The Language Instinct" matters, and it will always set things to rights: we will find ways to communicate no matter what gabble we happen to be speaking. But Ps feel that the language ITSELF is a precious resource and achievement that can never easily be replaced, so that change, up to a point, is worth resisting: a project comparable to conservationism in regard to the natural world, perhaps. Standing at our great historical remove, it makes sense to observe, happily, that Latin never died out but just changed into a gaggle of successor languages. But such a perspective is perfectly useless if you are a Latin editor in 300 AD, struggling to come to terms with a host of ominous neologisms. Nor is it helpful if you are a third grade teacher in 2014, trying to decide what language habits you should encourage in your students early on in their long lives. (Pure Descriptivism could give no answer but "It doesn't matter.") 3) It is not just upper-class snobs who get annoyed by others' errors and want to correct them. Debates over usage arise quite spontaneously at every level of usage and education, and cry out for resolution somehow. Lane's observations about needlessly wounding rhetoric are for the most part well taken I think. But a good Prescriptivist (e.g., Garner) is no arbitrary aggressor, but a helpful judge and guide to difficulties he or she did not invent. — What do you say?

Yes! I frown with you upon all your examples. Only a few days ago I found myself frowning on "advocate for" and wondering if I was the only one who found the "for" unidiomatic and semi-redundant so I am glad for the company. And I have never quite become used to the transitive "grow" applied to things other than plants. I would like to add "wait on" as a substitute for "wait for." I think you struck just the right tone here. Languages drift. The drift consists of ebbs and flows, of out and back experimental excursions. On the other side, I smile upon some of the newer slang idioms and coinages that add vibrancy to the language -- like "selfie" -- but may or may not survive. — What do you say?

Mr. Morrow's excellent article seems to me rather oddly to neglect George Orwell, to me the most passionate chronicler of penury, at least in English and in the last century. Orwell avoids Sinclair Lewis' cynicism and universal scorn (quickly boring, as Mr. Morrow accurately says). But where else (certainly not in Dickens, surely not in Thackeray, not even Balzac that I know) do you get the dismal experience of having a bug fall in the milk that was all your supper? That is Down and Out in Paris and London (a sort of grand Guignol of poverty, let us not forget the restaurant kitchen where the food was stored on the dirt floor and eaten by rats). But poverty runs all through Orwell. There is the representative lower-upper-middle-class fellow who (I don't have Orwell to hand and can't quote) theoretically knows how to order in French at a good restaurant or a suit from Savile Row, but can never, ever hope to afford either. Or the class-consciousness of growing up in a house with a maid-of-all-work and one bathroom. One could go on all too easily. It lacks the poetry that somehow hangs over Dickens or Balzac and Frenchness (which may incude his romanticism). But it is powerful stuff. Not boring, but depressing as hell. — What do you say?

Scholarly etymology is always is a pleasure. Mr Casselman's errudition is admirable, and his subject unusally interesting in itself. I neither knew nor had guessed anything of it of it, though I read old French and Old English sources (the latter always in translation, I regret), and, having an Austrian wife I am quite aware of German. It was pleasant to be reminded of Mr. Casselman's French "trash." We encountered that very parade going to luncheon on a dreary day in Paris. Our hearts sank at the thought of another ghastly French mob of Socialists and antinomians. It was a great relief to find ourselves among such pleasant and well-conducted people. — What do you say?

The point about role terms is spot on I think, and deeply relevant in these days of constant questing after nomenclature that is more progressive and p.c. and fair than what tradition affords. The quest sometimes succeeds, but too often the only result is nomenclature that is gaseous, canting, inane, unwieldy, or in some other way beset by unforeseen problems far worse than the one it solved. "Consumer" for "patient" would be such a case, surely. "Patient" has a very long history in English, as both noun and adjective, and an attempt to displace it, based only on some PR department's vague sense that it is not sufficiently complimentary and effusive, will likely fail. If not, its success will come at the expense of clear speaking, clear thinking, and honest dealing. The term comes from the present participle of the Latin "pati," to undergo, suffer, bear, experience. The core sense is "one who undergoes" — or "one who suffers" — but Ms. Anderson is surely right that in older usage this idea was more honorific than it is, at least in some quarters, today. In Latin the participle was often joined into a doublet, "agens et patiens," that was translated into English as "doing and suffering" to make a slogan that was very popular and common at least up to the end of the eighteenth century. The idea was that the two things, acting and being acted upon, neatly summed up life, and the part of wisdom was to recognize the necessity and inevitability of both. Acceptance of suffering was a key aspect of a life well lived. Only a fool would think he could be always agens and never patiens, captain of his fate and master of his soul in every circumstance, even on the way into surgery no doubt. These days, though, there seem to be plenty of fools who want to be told just that about themselves. Or perhaps the point is more that the Folks In Charge are always ready to tell us such flattering fibs in the process of manipulating and hoodwinking us. At all events, thanks to Janet Anderson for an insightful, illuminating discussion. — What do you say?

Jean Mallinson's essay on prepositions is instructive, deeply felt, and beautifully written. It leads me to think that the opposite of the old pedant's rule is the truth: sentences not just may, but must, end with a preposition, since that which determines structure, hence meaning, is conclusive. — What do you say?

Right ho for Mr. Morrow, and for his sentiments, which are spiffy in my view! I think he's dead on about the techie influence, but I would like to suggest another, more eldritch one, the speech of the British Upper Classes, already elevated to the voice of angels by Mr. Wodehouse before it became the dialect of my own youth. — What do you say?

Bravo! Mr. Halpern, your writings on this subject are an unfailing source of insight and pleasure. Thanks so much for the wit, will, energy, and patience you bring to this oddly important controversy. Enlightening enough on its own turf, Linguistics seems to insist on jumping the fence into the traditional fields of rhetoric, editing, criticism, and of course humanistic grammar (which I like to think of as language criticism), where its highly abstract methods and principles grow clumsy, unhelpful, and sophomoric. You do a better job than anyone of leading the bull back out of the corn, over and over. — What do you say?

Actually, there really are some good reasons to Google oneself, as page rank and visibility can have considerable importance. Thanks for a great article. And the word, fantasts, too. I have never used that one, but will correct that problem. Much appreciated. — What do you say?

Well written, and I totally agree. I have never found it irritating or offensive to read "he" as a generic pronoun for both sexes. In fact, what I find more irritating is the use of the two words (he/she, his/her) when one will do. When an author goes so far as to make attempts at political correctness by changing words like mankind, postman, or even policeman, I start stewing over how much of an influence a petty minority has had on contemporary writers. And I find that really, really, sad. — What do you say?

Excellent. — What do you say?

Bravo! What a wonderful essay — I think it beautifully and elegantly captures a poignant moment of life. I found it very moving, and it reawakened old memories of the immigrant dreams of my parents. I also enjoyed the photos and learning about dirndles. — What do you say?

I thought at first that you were merely darkening counsel with a rather too-finespun casuitry, but I own now that your logic is irresistible. You stayed with your argument long enough to convince me (I'm ashamed to admit that if you had stopped your pen earlier I might have tossed the article aside with only a grimace, and an air of bemusement disguising my uncertainty). I am persuaded now that I have been guilty of using "or" as I do the word "and" when I have gone about negating; I had never noticed before the ambiguity involved. You have uncovered a very well hidden landmine in the language — one so well hidden that even when pointed out it remains difficult to see, camouflaged as it is under so many layers of accepted (though inexcusable) usage.

Your article is one more proof of the importance of The Vocabula Review. Thank you for it. — What do you say?

Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary of Unendurable English
A compendium of mistakes in grammar, usage, and spelling with commentary on lexicographers and linguists

Robert	Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary	of Unendurable English

However curmudgeonly, Mr. Fiske betrays a bluff humanitarian spirit. ... Fiske wants to save the English language. And he knows that he can count on little help. "Dictionaries have virtually no standards, offer scant guidance, and advance only misunderstanding." His own flogging of Merriam-Webster's is one of the many pleasures of this lovely, sour, virtuous book. — Wall Street Journal

You can order Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary of Unendurable English from Simon & Schuster or Amazon or Vocabula or elsewhere.

To the Point: A Dictionary of Concise Writing
The essential guide to writing succinctly

To the Point: A	Dictionary of Concise Writing

To the Point: A Dictionary of Concise Writing is the perfect reference book for anyone who wants to communicate more effectively through clear and beautiful prose. In this freshly updated edition that features hundreds of new entries, Robert Hartwell Fiske lays out multiple lines of attack against verbiage. He starts by training writers, new or experienced, to tackle wordy trends in their work. His "Dictionary of Concise Writing" helps them identify and correct — or delete — thousands of specific redundant phrases. In addition, writers can turn to the new "Guide to Obfuscation: A Reverse Dictionary" to build a more pithy vocabulary. Filled with real-world examples that provide clarity and context for Fiske's rules of concision, this is a writer's sharpest weapon against verbosity.

You can order To the Point: A Dictionary of Concise Writing from Amazon or Vocabula or W. W. Norton.

  Next Page Back Issues
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014

Elegant English
Elegant English is exhilarating; it stirs our thoughts and feelings as ably as everyday English blurs them.

In Stock and Available Now from Vocabula Books

Elegant English

As the superfluity of uninspired, careless, grammatically incorrect, slang-ridden English makes plain, elegant English is English rarely heard, English seldom seen.

The point of this book is to show that the language can, indeed, be spoken or written with grace and polish — qualities that much contemporary English is bereft of and could benefit from.

Elegant English arrived a day or two ago. What a splendid book. I wish that you could send it to Will Strunk or E. B. White. I especially liked the quotes from Sinclair Lewis and E. B. White. I wish that Lewis could know that the word "dude" has come back into circulation. I wonder if it has changed its meaning. And I liked the part in White about backyards worth knowing about. — A. D. Wunsch

• ... judicious and delightful. — M. Posada

• I must have another copy of Elegant English, please! — T. McGlinn

• I have received my copy of Elegant English and I wanted to tell you how much I am enjoying the volume. Fabulous work. Truly insightful. I carry it with me and dip into it at various moments during the day. I have yet to be disappointed with anything that I have found in the work. — S. Hill

 In the August 2014 Vocabula

The August issue of The Vocabula Review will be published as a summer edition; that is, we will feature archival essays only.

 The September 2014 issue is due online September 21.

by Verónica Albin

Remember the book Coffee, Tea, or Me that was later turned into a movie? It is some forty years old, so I had to go to Amazon to refresh my memory for you. The novel, purportedly the "uninhibited memoirs of two airline stewardesses," was published by Bartholomew House in New York under the names Trudy Baker and Rachel Jones. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times when people still put fancy clothes on to fly, and flight attendants, at least those on Braniff, took fancy clothes off, piece by piece, in that infamous play-on words ritual known as the "air strip." Back then the attendants were all female, young, and purty as a pitcher, and Braniff was not alone in selling meat. PSA conjured an image of its stewardesses of purity, sobriety, and availability; Southwest Airlines flew with "Love Birds"; and National Airlines, infamously, carried the slogan that enraged feminists: "I'm Cheryl, fly me." In any event, the novel was evidently popular because, in English, it spawned three sequels: The Coffee, Tea or Me Girls Lay It on the Line, The CToM Girls Get Away from It All, and The CToM Girls ‘Round the World Diary. Since one ought not to mention deep works of literature such as these in a journal of the caliber of The Vocabula Review without having done thorough research, I discovered a book called Coffee, Tea or Me, Mei Shih ai ching published in Taiwan a few years later, but Trudy and Rachel aren't the authors. I did find, however, an observation about Trudy Baker by one George Thompson that said: "RLIN (Research Libraries Information Network) also shows Trudy Baker to be the author of a number of elementary school math texts, published in Canada, so perhaps she has reformed, not that I necessarily think that one needs to reform from being an uninhibited airline stewardess, nor that writing mathematics texts would be a symptom of reformation." Indeed, Mr. Thompson. Indeed. Reformed or not, this important book just recently got republished by Penguin, which tells us a lot about the fine taste of the American reader.

Anyhow, the title is funny to you because of the cliché "coffee, tea, or milk." It is funny to me because milk is just such an American choice of a beverage. You see, what happens is that south of the border, in Old Mexico, that particular combination of beverages would never be offered to adult or child. If you come visit me at my place, you'll get to choose from un vinito, un tequilita o una chela. Do you really want to come back from your next vacation and say that you Got milk when you could have gotten a Margarita instead? Nah! Still, it was translated literally into Spanish as Café, té o yo. No word play but enough foreplay to sell, I'm sure. Just to broaden your horizons, there is no word for "foreplay" in Spanish. No need for it when one is a real macho. More ... 

by Marylaine Block

She may well have been thinking of a truth too big, too abstract to be graspable: the infinite love of God. We are a species that needs concreteness. That love had to be conveyed in terms humans could understand — He loved His son, but, loving us even more, allowed Jesus to die to save us.

Equally hard to grasp, though, would be the darkest of our suspected truths — that we are powerless victims of careless gods that use us for their sport, or that, given absolute power any of us could become monsters, like Kurtz in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, confronting "the horror! the horror!" that is the hole where his soul should be. Indeed, when I was asked at a poetry workshop to supply a second line for the line of poetry I had chosen, mine was, "Tell all the truth and tell it slant — Head-on, truth is tough. It body-tackles."

Abstractions of any kind are difficult for us. How can you make people envision what peace or justice or truth might actually look like, let alone get them to see the same thing? Truths told in too-large numbers also don't make sense to us. When a tourist asked a guide in the Colorado mountains, "How high is 13,000 feet?" she must surely have meant "Please compare it with something we can understand, the Empire State Building piled on how many Empire State Buildings?" How can you write about "2,312,000 slaves in the United States in 1860," and make your readers see these were living, breathing people, not statistics?

You have to tell it slant. Fortunately, writers have a whole bag of tricks for doing that. More ... 

I'm determined to make photoelectric the next big catch phrase. I don't see why it should be relegated to a life of obscurity in the pages of seldom read and even seldomer enjoyed physics books. It has so much more to offer than that! I'm going to spread the word, and the word I'm going to spread is photoelectric. I'll start with the bars of New York. A bartender will slide me a flaming fuschia cocktail, I'll smile and say, photoelectric, thanks!

As I take my first sip, I see a pair of hazel eyes across the bar that I can't ignore. I walk right up to him. Drink in hand, I do a little half twist and lean my back against the bar, looking at Mr. Hazel Eyes over my shoulder. With my free hand I slip a finger under his designer tie just below the knot, and slide it down slowly until it reaches the tip. Photoelectric, I'll whisper.

After a few weeks, it'll spread from bars to the modeling studios, where New York bar-goers spend their days. Scantily clad Amazons will thrust their hips and shoulders while photographers fawn photoelectric, dahlin', yeah, that's it, that's photoelectric! Click, click, click. In the next Austin Powers movie, Mike Meyers will seduce women with his toothy photoelectric, baby, and his purple velvet jacket. Paris Hilton's that's hot will be so yesterday, tomorrow. She'll be quoted in every People and Us, coyly crooning, that's photoelectric. Not that the two phrases are unrelated — solar panels use the photoelectric effect and yeah, you guessed it, they're hot. More ... 

Among the English terms borrowed from the Chinese language are several containing dai and tai, dialect forms of ta, which means "great" or "big" in standard Chinese.

Tycoon 名 大君

Tycoon, borrowed through its Japanese form, taikun, itself borrowed from Chinese = ta "great" + kian "prince," with the adoptive meaning of "great prince of commerce," that is, "wealthy merchant."

A cumbrous jumble of tongues contribute, in a sort of historical glossolalic vortex, to our word typhoon.

The chief influence is the Cantonese word tai-fung, for standard Chinese ta fêng "big wind."

But appearing earlier in print is the Urdu tufan, "a violent tempest of wind and rain," a word signifying the typhoons of India and summer storms on the China Sea. Since Urdu borrowed words from Persian and Arabic, some etymologists suggest tufan arises from an Arabic noun like tawafan, "violent twisting or whirling," from the verbal root tafa, "turn around."

But Persian, Arabic, and Urdu forms could all be borrowings from the name of a much earlier Greek wind monster, Typhon (too-FOON), a primitive Greek god of the winds.

Tai Chi (Ch"uan) 太極拳

Tai Cantonese "great" "extreme" + ji "limit" "source" + ch"uan Cantonese for Chinese quan "fist"

This Chinese martial arts-like system of calisthenics combines physical power with internal meditative power. Legend says tai chi arose in the Sung dynasty (960–1279 CE), invented by a priest.

A Japanese actor playing a daimyo, in black cap, occupies center stage.

More ... 

Writing a book on computer programming a few years ago, I had occasion to mention the fact, as I then supposed it, that Eskimos had special terms for a great many varieties of snow. I was reluctant to trot out this old, well-worn story — next, I said to myself, you'll be quoting Santayana on repeating the past — but it was the perfect support for the point I was trying to make at the moment, so, taking heart from Fowler on clichés, I used it. My discomfort at using so overworked an illustration became real chagrin, though, when I learned that it was not only hackneyed but false.

In a collection of short pieces with the provocative title The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax,1 I found an essay of the same title that exploded the notion that Eskimos have especially extensive snow vocabularies. Pullum, professor of linguistics and dean of graduate studies and research at the University of California, Santa Cruz, described how the error had originated and how it had passed from book to book until it became one of the things that every schoolboy knows. So far so good; the embarrassment I felt on finding myself among the many dupes who had been taken in by this piece of misinformation, and propagated it, was easily overbalanced by the satisfaction of being finally enlightened, and by the interest of the story Pullum had to tell. In the ordinary course, I would be grateful to Pullum for correcting my error, but the manner in which he does it makes it hard to feel gratitude.

First, he seems to feel that the error is a shameful one, illustrative of human credulity in the face of the absurd and irrational, and of "falling standards in academia." But why we should have known better than to believe that Eskimos have an especially rich and nuanced vocabulary for describing their natural environment, he does not explain. Nor does he explicitly suggest that readers should check against original sources every assertion made by every writer, no matter how plausible the assertion or how credible the writer; yet such a course would be the only way to preclude such errors.

Second, he is puzzled, and a bit angry, that the error was not quashed by a paper delivered by Professor Laura Martin at the 1982 annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association; referring to her presentation, he says, "that ought to have been enough for the news to get out." Perhaps professors, even deans like Pullum, are still unworldly; this one appears to think that an obscure paper delivered at an obscure conference by a scholar whose name is hardly a household word should have made the world sit up, take notice, and mend its ways. This strikes me as far harder to believe than that Eskimos have many words for snow.

Third — and by far worst — he and Professor Martin think our readiness to believe the canard is, in part at least, due to our racism. He quotes her and adds a comment:

"We are prepared to believe almost anything about such an unfamiliar and peculiar group," says Martin, in a gentle reminder of our buried racist tendencies.

It is good of Professor Martin to be gentle, and to say "we" when she clearly means "you fools" or worse. But she, too, fails to explain why it is racist of us to credit the Eskimos with words for many varieties of snow. Speaking for my possibly bigoted self, I felt closer to the Eskimos when I supposed them to be walking Rogets on the subject of frozen water — that's just what I would be, I think, if I lived near the Arctic Circle. But it may be that to understand my feelings, Professor Martin would have to learn something of the ways of my unfamiliar and peculiar group, the nonacademics. More ... 

by John Kilgore

We like to believe, we serious people, that we say what we mean. But the truth may be that we choose our phrases first for the sound, letting meaning drift in rather casually.

Infants understand this. During the first year, while nonverbal cries, gestures, smiles, and eye contact suffice for all substantive communications, their real language development begins as a love affair with pure sound. The spontaneous crib talk that so charms and tantalizes the grownups in all cultures has, of course, a vital purpose: it allows babies to explore their own sound-making and sound-detecting abilities while they absorb the phonological system of what will soon be their native language. Parents pace and fret, eager for the first dispatch from the great beyond that is baby's consciousness: "C'mon, Brittney, say 'Daddy'; say 'amortize'; say 'televangelist.'" But Brittney knows instinctively that meaning will wait. What really matters is phonology, the essential foundation on which everything else will be built, so she goes on patiently babbling, guided only by her instinctive pleasure in rehearsing the basic sounds and sound combinations of the language she hears around her. Such practice is one of the best educational investments she will ever make, helping her attain the perfect native pronunciation that forever eludes Yoda and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

When the words finally do start to emerge from the stream of babble, they seem as doubtful as faces in the clouds. We might not count them as words at all, except that culture seems to force the issue, taking the sounds baby is most likely to make anyway and assigning the least unlikely meanings to them. Hence in language after language we get Dada or something like it for the father, Mama or something like it for the mother, and Baba or something like it for the little one herself. Sound, in an important sense, comes first. Once the syllables are there, reliably produced and distinguished, we can begin to hang meanings on them — but not before.

It is, of course, always a question of multiple meanings. Words are just like that: endlessly recyclable, always ready to surprise us by saying something they have never quite said before. Humpty Dumpty is wrong when he tells Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean," and offers the example of making "glory" mean "there's a nice knock-down argument for you." But his error is only one of degree. What a word can mean is roughly stipulated by the culture, but what it does mean in a particular instance depends on how it is used, on a creative effort of the speaker and listener. All this is true from the very beginning, by the nature of the case, and so before long it occurs to Brittney that the sitter — or the dog — is a type of Mama, and she points and says so. We laugh, but know to at least a first approximation what she means: "This, too, is a large, familiar, likeable creature whose purpose is to amuse and take care of me." More ... 

by Clark Elder Morrow

After I told a friend of mine once that a famous writer had described the late nineteenth century as the height of human civilization, my friend responded thoughtfully: "No, the rot had already set in by then."

The remark is interesting not as the token of a reactionary mind (my friend was a liberal Democrat at the time), but as a simple recognition of at least one element or aspect of the truth. In the late nineteenth century there really was a certain overripeness in the more elevated spheres of thought and life throughout Europe. And Oscar Wilde is only the most conspicuous figure representing this development. The world we see in An Ideal Husband may reveal the highest refinements and most sophisticated flights of fancy, and may show us a level of civilized observation rarely before achieved, but the world of Salome exemplifies quite clearly the "rot" my friend undoubtedly had in mind.

I myself have a different author in mind as a candidate for Most Conspicuous Figure Representing Nineteenth-Century Overripeness. My nominee is Henry James. And I will tell you why. More ... 

Free in Vocabula
Back to	Top  Best Words

Love a word? Tell us what it is and perhaps we'll add it to our list of Best Words. There need not be any well-reasoned analysis of your high regard for a word; emotional reactions to the sound or meaning of words are welcome. If a word you love is already listed, you are welcome to tell us why you, too, love the word. The Best Words have an aura of fun or majesty. More ... 

Free in Vocabula
Back to	Top  Worst Words

Hate a word? Tell us what it is and perhaps we'll add it to our list of Worst Words. There need not be any well-reasoned analysis of your distaste for a word; visceral reactions to the sound or meaning of words are welcome. If a word you hate is already listed, you are welcome to tell us why you, too, hate the word. The Worst Words have an aura of foolishness or odium. More ... 

Free in Vocabula
Back to	Top  Vocabula Quizzes

Each ten-question Vocabula Quiz briefly discusses a specific topic, such as history, science, literature, or philosophy. Of course, you are quizzed not on content but on grammar or usage, vocabulary or spelling, punctuation or style. More ... 

 Featured Essays

Duty, Honor, Country — Verónica Albin

Telling It Slant — Marylaine Block

Photoelectric, Baby: A Linguist Tackles Physics — Ada Brunstein

English Words Borrowed from Chinese — Bill Casselman

Why Linguists Are Not to Be Trusted on Language Usage — Mark Halpern

The Uses of Euphony — John Kilgore

The "Rot" of Henry James — Clark Elder Morrow

 Departments and Diversions

 Other Business

 Vocabula Books

 Recent Issues

Click the image to orderThe Dictionary of Concise Writing — First Edition by Robert Hartwell Fiske

The Vocabula Bookstore Is Now Open.
(click the image to order)

Words often ill serve their purpose. When they do their work badly, words militate against us. Poor grammar, sloppy syntax, misused words, misspelled words, and other infelicities of style impede communication and advance only misunderstanding. But there is another, perhaps less well-known, obstacle to effective communication: too many words. In The Dictionary of Concise Writing, Fiske shows how to identify and correct wordiness.

Click to see another book.