Have you ever noticed that the word "superfluous" is, well, superfluous? It's a rather ironic situation, but it has me pondering this evening. I realize that on the eve of so-called "Super Tuesday" I could be pondering on the political significance of this cosmopolitan election year, or on whether the large amount of snow we received yesterday in this colder-than-normal winter is some strange sign of global warming, or whether, in fact, there is enough scientific evidence to suggest that anything we do contributes to global warming. But my mind goes back to my initial query--why are there so many words that have another word that means the exact same thing? I realize this cries heresy, considering my training in the English language and its literature, but let me explain.
I can understand words of similar meaning existing. "Assassination" and "murder," for example both have a legitimate place in our vocabulary (although, it does make one wonder how famous a person must be in order to be assassinated instead of murdered). But why must we use both "large" and "huge," not to mention the recent ghastly edition to our lexical canon, "ginormous"? A "tome" is really no more than a "book." And then there are the words that are longer than their definition: Triskaidekaphobia=fear of 13. Let's not even mention words that are in common usage but aren't used correctly or don't really exist (think of business-ese and education-ese, and their need for the word "metadiscourse" to exist).
I am not suggesting we remove these words from our dictionary (except maybe "ginormous")--poor Mr. Johnson would never approve of such things--but merely look at the words we use. Are we using them because they are the best word for the purpose, or are we spouting them merely because they are there, floating in some undefinable nebula waiting to be utilized (or, ahem, used). Do they truly enhance communication or do they detract because they muddle meaning instead of clarify? What are words but a venue for communication, and if they don't add meaning, they ought not to be used.
Perhaps it was the poets who encouraged this extensive language--in order to fit their meter and rhyme, but I doubt it. Or perhaps this entire musing is superfluous; not just the word "superfluous."
6 comments:
Dr. Seuss made up words all the time and they added great meaning. That is great litature. By the way, ginormous does add visual meaning, it is a lot bigger than just huge. :)
I think that the addition of words isn't the problem, since words with identical meaning can evoke different emotional responses. For example, a book and a tome may be the same thing, but a tome seems somehow weightier to me, both in content and physical weight. The problem, I think, is when we dilute meaning. Awesome doesn't have anything to do with awe anymore, it simply means cool, great, excellent, etc. Heaven help us when ginormous becomes synonymous with big, rather than "a lot bigger than just huge."
I'll vote today, and I'm voting firmly in favor of 'superfluous' and words of that ilk (like the word 'ilk'). Why paint your living room cerulean instead of cobalt? They're both blue? We may be splitting hairs sometimes on shades of meaning, but shades are significant.
I also think rhythm and sound are important outside of formal poetry. Probably more so.
You are spot on, as usual. The main thing is using the right word for the right purpose.
Great post.
He he. Word snob alert! Attention! Word snob alert! Oh, how I miss the Waterford days with you, Maurianne. Okay, maybe not so much the Waterford part of it, but you know what I mean.
Two words;Shake speare...yes two.
I like Dr. Seuss as much as the next guy but I would have to disagree that it is great literature. Depends on your definition of literature though I guess (I would never call a Dr. Seuss book a "tome"). Anything else I have to say on this subject would just be superfluous.
Post a Comment