I am too affectionate to the word "perhaps" to let it go unused, what with its lovely sound, its tentative quality, and that beautiful song from an old movie...
This said, I should probably lose some bad habits myself. Words need to be used with care and precision, and none is useless in itself, when used in a context in which it NEEDS to be used.
I was taught to be wary of words like "clearly" or "obviously", because they often signify a writer trying to convince themselves of the fact. Now anytime I see those words (in my own writing and others'), I immediately asked the question "is it clear? is it obvious?" I find often it is not.
Perhaps “let your yes be yes and your no be no” is also writing advice. Currently, I’m editing a novel manuscript, so “style” is becoming a fixation. I think improving as a writer can involve increasing readability without sacrificing integrity, as you gain different strategies to relate and modify things. Creativity paired with advanced understanding can alleviate complexity.
I ask first for a generosity of interpretation, and I will claim that, if you bear with me, I can give you a "formula" for such words worth considering for the chopping block.
"Just a girl"
"Only human"
"Mere semantics"
What do these phrases share in common? What about the following words:
These words are clearly collected for their shared reductive sense. But there's another things they all share in common. Their modern meaning is the INVERSE of the original, and the exact thing being inverted is the sentiment behind them. What follows is an "etymological fossil record of reductivism" (etymologies sourced from etymonline), but first I want to point out the instant conflict:
1. I asked for generosity of interpretation
2. Etymology smacks of "mere semantics"
Again, please bear with me:
Contrived used to mean "invented with ingenuity" rather than "with falsity"
Trite used to mean "well-travelled" (as a path) hence "well-worn," now reduced to "worn down"
Quaint meant "cunning, artful, ingenious," now "unusual, old-fashioned"
Trivial and Arbitrary may track a particularly familiar, historical sentiment:
1. Trivial comes from Latin Trivium, meaning "place where three roads meet," hence "common, commonplace," hence The adjective form, trivialis takes on the meaning "ordinary, may be found anywhere," which is what you hear when someone is called a "commoner." They are being devalued according to their commonality. Note also the irony in how easily we can follow this line of reasoning: "These days, common ground is so rare that it should be cherished."
2. Arbitrary relates to an "arbiter," or "a judge, umpire, mediator," a use case which still survives. At first, it may seem like the relationship between an arbiter and what we think of as being "arbitrary" is itself an arbitrary relation. However, consider that the defining feature of a judge, umpire or a mediator is that their opinion is respectable on account of their meritorious position. Arbitrary, on the other hand, tends to mean either "derived from mere opinion," or "no better than mere opinion." If this relationship still seems... well, arbitrary, just think of what is happening to the words "privileged" and "elite." I call this, very much tongue in cheek, "classification warfare." Indeed, is someone's opinion more or less valuable if it is common? "Democracy" says one thing, intuitions about the value of novel ideas, another.
"Mundane" has taken probably the wildest trip, always relating generally to "the world," but inverting in sentiments more than once. Originally, it had a sense of "pure, clean; noble, generous," essentially, a provider. Another meaning was "belonging to the world" as opposed to the Church, perhaps to contrast as "God as the provider" and "the world as the provision." Yet another meaning included "the universe" in the sense of "the whole world," relating it to sentiments of "clean, elegant." Now, mundane means "dull, uninteresting." Hence the now quaint ridicule of someone being "a bump on a log" or "a stick in the mud."
Now we come full circle to ask the question: "Mere semantics?" Bear with me.
Mere - "of a voice, "pure, clear;" of abstract things, "absolute, sheer;" "entire, total, complete," "unmixed." hmmm... let's come back to this one.
Just (in the sense used in "just a girl" - "nothing more than a girl") - "accurate, correct" or in the sense of music "harmonically pure, correct, and exact (think "left-justifying" the text of an essay). Hence, "just enough" means "exactly-ish enough," or "nothing less than enough"
Only ("only human" meaning "nothing more than human") - "one-like," but notice the common rhetorical implication of being "alone." The negative sense can be inverted with redundancy: "The one and only," and "I, and I alone..." both highlight exceptional rarity to imply value. Side note: "Satisficing" does the same thing. "Satisfactorily sufficient" or "sufficiently satisfactory" are redundant because the two words imply one another. However, if you say that someone is "satisficing," you are questioning the "true sufficiency" of their process or results.
The word "mere" is a special case. If you accuse me of engaging in "mere semantics," you are saying I am guilty of "'nothing less' than committing the error of belaboring 'nothing more' than semantics. "Mere fantasy," "mere folly," and "mere philosophy." We hear each as maximally and adaptively reductive. Whatever might be good is "exacted" away. Whatever is bad, however, is given no real upper bound... more of a shoulder shrug at an already dispatched opponent.
The ultimate irony here is that just, only and mere get their rhetorical meanings from the sense of "exaction." It is probably safe to say that "mere" is as exact as the trojan horse was "exactly a horse."
Hence, the request for a "generosity of interpretation" directly conflicts with "mere semantics" because the latter is merely a rhetorical preemption of the former. See what I did there?
So, the "formula" I propose is to be rid of all rhetorically reductive words, especially "mere," except as needed to counteract the trivialized words such as "very" and "deeply," which by their rhetorical commonality... are reduced... to ineffection. Aw nuts...
Also, if you find yourself agreeing with any of the above, be sure to exclaim "Exactly!" or "Absolutely!" as you can tell I am very, deeply and fundamentally correct.
I would share this in response to Stephenson's post, but that requires a paid membership. Also, though not intended as one, it could be taken as a dig, given his post includes:
"Why wouldn’t it? Something that’s very big must be bigger than something that’s merely big, right?"
"Cant’s definition #6 in the OED is so spot on that I can make this essay a lot shorter merely by quoting it here."
My favorite quote involving "mere" is from the show Rings of Power:
"Hope is never mere, Elrond, even when it is meager."
Obviously, the formal premise of this statement is that "hope is inexact and should be scienced away on the immediately."
Also, to be clear, I am pro-science. Unless by science you mean the grand hunt for statistical truths and the distributive vector space that is reality, in which case I am very pro-pseudoscience. Unless by pseudoscience you mean...
I will probably end up converting this into a standalone post rather than making these points as part of a larger argument about "what can be generalized without abstraction." I was originally planning on making the response much shorter than it turned out. :)
My most hated instance of adjective bloat is when "threat" is modified by "existential." For example, a journalist or a politician may say that something existentially threatens our economic well-being. Apparently, threats are always against existence and come in no other flavors.
Even more than "deep dive," "unpack," or "let that sink in," I loathe the word "leverage" when used in corporate shitspeak. In English, we have a word with two fewer syllables that is simple and direct for that: "use." Part of me also dies whenever I hear verbs turned into nouns in classic bugman style -- "the ask," "the spend," etc.
Great piece! For me, my death row word is ‘impact’. I had a professor once say the reason people use ‘impact’ is because they don’t know the difference between ‘affect’ and ‘effect’. He said learn the difference and stop using ‘impact’!
Denis Johnson says “Write in blood. As if ink is so precious you can’t waste it.” Maybe if we strip away enough these words won’t matter because they won’t make the cut.
I am too affectionate to the word "perhaps" to let it go unused, what with its lovely sound, its tentative quality, and that beautiful song from an old movie...
This said, I should probably lose some bad habits myself. Words need to be used with care and precision, and none is useless in itself, when used in a context in which it NEEDS to be used.
I was taught to be wary of words like "clearly" or "obviously", because they often signify a writer trying to convince themselves of the fact. Now anytime I see those words (in my own writing and others'), I immediately asked the question "is it clear? is it obvious?" I find often it is not.
Nuance! Nuance keeps me up at night!
Perhaps “let your yes be yes and your no be no” is also writing advice. Currently, I’m editing a novel manuscript, so “style” is becoming a fixation. I think improving as a writer can involve increasing readability without sacrificing integrity, as you gain different strategies to relate and modify things. Creativity paired with advanced understanding can alleviate complexity.
I ask first for a generosity of interpretation, and I will claim that, if you bear with me, I can give you a "formula" for such words worth considering for the chopping block.
"Just a girl"
"Only human"
"Mere semantics"
What do these phrases share in common? What about the following words:
Contrived, Trite, Quaint, Trivial, Arbitrary, Mundane
These words are clearly collected for their shared reductive sense. But there's another things they all share in common. Their modern meaning is the INVERSE of the original, and the exact thing being inverted is the sentiment behind them. What follows is an "etymological fossil record of reductivism" (etymologies sourced from etymonline), but first I want to point out the instant conflict:
1. I asked for generosity of interpretation
2. Etymology smacks of "mere semantics"
Again, please bear with me:
Contrived used to mean "invented with ingenuity" rather than "with falsity"
Trite used to mean "well-travelled" (as a path) hence "well-worn," now reduced to "worn down"
Quaint meant "cunning, artful, ingenious," now "unusual, old-fashioned"
Trivial and Arbitrary may track a particularly familiar, historical sentiment:
1. Trivial comes from Latin Trivium, meaning "place where three roads meet," hence "common, commonplace," hence The adjective form, trivialis takes on the meaning "ordinary, may be found anywhere," which is what you hear when someone is called a "commoner." They are being devalued according to their commonality. Note also the irony in how easily we can follow this line of reasoning: "These days, common ground is so rare that it should be cherished."
2. Arbitrary relates to an "arbiter," or "a judge, umpire, mediator," a use case which still survives. At first, it may seem like the relationship between an arbiter and what we think of as being "arbitrary" is itself an arbitrary relation. However, consider that the defining feature of a judge, umpire or a mediator is that their opinion is respectable on account of their meritorious position. Arbitrary, on the other hand, tends to mean either "derived from mere opinion," or "no better than mere opinion." If this relationship still seems... well, arbitrary, just think of what is happening to the words "privileged" and "elite." I call this, very much tongue in cheek, "classification warfare." Indeed, is someone's opinion more or less valuable if it is common? "Democracy" says one thing, intuitions about the value of novel ideas, another.
"Mundane" has taken probably the wildest trip, always relating generally to "the world," but inverting in sentiments more than once. Originally, it had a sense of "pure, clean; noble, generous," essentially, a provider. Another meaning was "belonging to the world" as opposed to the Church, perhaps to contrast as "God as the provider" and "the world as the provision." Yet another meaning included "the universe" in the sense of "the whole world," relating it to sentiments of "clean, elegant." Now, mundane means "dull, uninteresting." Hence the now quaint ridicule of someone being "a bump on a log" or "a stick in the mud."
Now we come full circle to ask the question: "Mere semantics?" Bear with me.
Mere - "of a voice, "pure, clear;" of abstract things, "absolute, sheer;" "entire, total, complete," "unmixed." hmmm... let's come back to this one.
Just (in the sense used in "just a girl" - "nothing more than a girl") - "accurate, correct" or in the sense of music "harmonically pure, correct, and exact (think "left-justifying" the text of an essay). Hence, "just enough" means "exactly-ish enough," or "nothing less than enough"
Only ("only human" meaning "nothing more than human") - "one-like," but notice the common rhetorical implication of being "alone." The negative sense can be inverted with redundancy: "The one and only," and "I, and I alone..." both highlight exceptional rarity to imply value. Side note: "Satisficing" does the same thing. "Satisfactorily sufficient" or "sufficiently satisfactory" are redundant because the two words imply one another. However, if you say that someone is "satisficing," you are questioning the "true sufficiency" of their process or results.
The word "mere" is a special case. If you accuse me of engaging in "mere semantics," you are saying I am guilty of "'nothing less' than committing the error of belaboring 'nothing more' than semantics. "Mere fantasy," "mere folly," and "mere philosophy." We hear each as maximally and adaptively reductive. Whatever might be good is "exacted" away. Whatever is bad, however, is given no real upper bound... more of a shoulder shrug at an already dispatched opponent.
The ultimate irony here is that just, only and mere get their rhetorical meanings from the sense of "exaction." It is probably safe to say that "mere" is as exact as the trojan horse was "exactly a horse."
Hence, the request for a "generosity of interpretation" directly conflicts with "mere semantics" because the latter is merely a rhetorical preemption of the former. See what I did there?
So, the "formula" I propose is to be rid of all rhetorically reductive words, especially "mere," except as needed to counteract the trivialized words such as "very" and "deeply," which by their rhetorical commonality... are reduced... to ineffection. Aw nuts...
Also, if you find yourself agreeing with any of the above, be sure to exclaim "Exactly!" or "Absolutely!" as you can tell I am very, deeply and fundamentally correct.
I would share this in response to Stephenson's post, but that requires a paid membership. Also, though not intended as one, it could be taken as a dig, given his post includes:
"Why wouldn’t it? Something that’s very big must be bigger than something that’s merely big, right?"
"Cant’s definition #6 in the OED is so spot on that I can make this essay a lot shorter merely by quoting it here."
My favorite quote involving "mere" is from the show Rings of Power:
"Hope is never mere, Elrond, even when it is meager."
Obviously, the formal premise of this statement is that "hope is inexact and should be scienced away on the immediately."
Also, to be clear, I am pro-science. Unless by science you mean the grand hunt for statistical truths and the distributive vector space that is reality, in which case I am very pro-pseudoscience. Unless by pseudoscience you mean...
I will probably end up converting this into a standalone post rather than making these points as part of a larger argument about "what can be generalized without abstraction." I was originally planning on making the response much shorter than it turned out. :)
My most hated instance of adjective bloat is when "threat" is modified by "existential." For example, a journalist or a politician may say that something existentially threatens our economic well-being. Apparently, threats are always against existence and come in no other flavors.
Even more than "deep dive," "unpack," or "let that sink in," I loathe the word "leverage" when used in corporate shitspeak. In English, we have a word with two fewer syllables that is simple and direct for that: "use." Part of me also dies whenever I hear verbs turned into nouns in classic bugman style -- "the ask," "the spend," etc.
Great piece! For me, my death row word is ‘impact’. I had a professor once say the reason people use ‘impact’ is because they don’t know the difference between ‘affect’ and ‘effect’. He said learn the difference and stop using ‘impact’!
Denis Johnson says “Write in blood. As if ink is so precious you can’t waste it.” Maybe if we strip away enough these words won’t matter because they won’t make the cut.