Leverage

[jack]

This is copied from my response to vyvan's disturbing and insightful response about language development here because I thought it was interesting enough to share.[1]

Question: Why do I object to words like 'leverage(v)'?

* Making new useful words. No problem, I like that.
* Losing useless words. No problem, people don't have to say them if they don't want to. If I do, I will, and they'll probably understand :)
* Creating new words similar to old words. Even a slight shade of meaning *can* be useful -- think of english as a space of concepts with nodes at the words, where we normally choose the best, and it has a penumbra about it of meanings it could apply to, and gaps with no good word are filled in by imprecise description or synonyms ('no, "love" in blah and foo!'); then shades let us be more precise by choosing the right one, and if people don't notice we've only lost a bit, or by using several shades to triangulate even more precisely.
* But there are reasons I don't easily accept:
* Complete (generally longer) synonyms of existing words annoy me. Probably because it seems sloppy and I like well-defined and optimised things, and thinking there *is* a correct answer of some sort. I have no justification for this preference.
* New formations often depend on misconceptions, such as confusing singular/plural. Sometimes I don't mind, but often it riles me just because it seems to be accepting ignorance, and I (to misquote Speaker for the Dead) have an almost pathological reliance on the idea that the more people know the better. There's some truth here, but a lot of preference.
* Relating to the last-point-but-one, I (and many people I love) love playing with language, using exactly the correct word, and making up new ones in what seem to me good ways, and shoe-horning new (even useful) words interferes. Just us.
* Random annoyance at people who and I have difficulty communicating[2]. I remember extremely frusting someone who wanted to "lend" something of mine, genuinely not understanding.
* Subculture. People I know and like tend somewhat to be more pedantic about it, and people I don't less.
* Conservatism. We have a working langauge. It changes naturally, but there's no reason that should make it better, so I resist. A little objective sense here, maybe. But rather futile.

OK, that was cathartic. But as yet almost all preference, no good reasons.

[1] We need a system with good crossposting.
[2] I'm assured this sentence makes sense. I wanted to make it symetrical, not "with whom" or "who with me", to not imply the fault was mine or theirs.

Comments

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

I can relate to most of that, especially being annoyed by long pretentious new words that are synonyms for short useful old ones. That's my real beef against "leverage". I don't have a problem with words that are long or obscure, as long as their use is justified by a precise shade of meaning or the atmospherics of the piece of writing. (It's like that word "cleave" that I was talking about this morning. If I'm writing about someone's helm in a fantasy battle, I would be quite happy saying it was "cloven in twain", but that would sound ludicrous in the context of a piece of card I had just guillotined!) But I just can't see that there is any more precision to be had from "leverage" than from "use" (or "use to advantage" if one absolutely insists), and the only atmospheric it gives is "I want to sound as if I know what I'm talking about, even if I don't", which is not one for which I've ever had a great deal of sympathy.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Good point. I said things often used by ignorant people annoyed me; things often used by people trying to sound clever do even more. (Though no idea where 'leverage' should be.)