To the lexical reductionist Lexical reductionism, the peculiar view that an individual should only indulge in- what

can only be deemed subjective- small words as opposed to big words. Without being guilty of abusive analogy, one cannot help but draw parallels to newspeak, the dystopian dialect of Orwells 1984. The suppression of thought, the eradication of nuance, a loss of the beauty of language, however clichd. Such advocators have raised a few arguments, if they can be such termed, which shall be addressed in turn. The words in question will be referred to as big, for the sake of consistency. Using big words in conversation is unnecessary Words have meaning. Meaning differs. Big words often possess nuance with respect to their more simple comrades, which elevates the level at which the aforementioned conversation is proceeding. Using big words results in a dichotomy (irony intended) Either: 1) People will think youre some arrogant smart kid who thinks he's better than people for using big words. 2) Not care about it and not take in the meaning of the word* Its interesting to note the false dichotomy here. One simply cannot reduce the outcome of using such words to those mentioned. If we assume both premises, then there would be absolutely no situation that ever occurred, where the other conversationalist simply googles the word in question. Why would people instantly assume youre arrogant for using big words? The underlying assumption here is that people are homogenous- that they will not understand the words. It is simply ridiculous to assert that big words are synonymous with arrogance and then provide no link between both premises. The subsequent part of the statement continues in a similar manner, that because, for instance, if I use a word like esoteric, that has a very specific meaning, I therefore must deem myself to be better than the person whom I mention it to. The irony here is that by averting the word, and instead saying, understood by few people with a specialized knowledge or interest, the initial premise that big words are unnecessary is voided, as concision is lost. Why would they not care about it? One must assume that in order for that to occur, they resent the conversation in the first place. Thus, the use of smaller words would have the same effect. That people will not take in the meaning of the word is a cruel and distortive and sophistic generalization, an assumption that will be dealt with shortly. Ask any regular person and they would not know what "tangential" means and therefore it is not clear language and thus it is verbose. This is somewhat comical. Without elucidation into what defines a regular person, it simply cannot stand. Alas. One cannot assume that the majority of people do not know what tangential means. Do they not, if you are aware of what a tangent is, it becomes fairly selfexplanatory. Non sequitur somehow brings us to the premise that such language is therefore verbose.

1) Cannot the word verbose be deemed a big word, considering the line is purely arbitrary? By your own inditement, you are now are now arrogant and conceited. 2) The word verbose is generally perceived as meaning too many words, which somewhat affirms my earlier premise regarding the nuance that words possess. The word that would have more accurately expressed what you were trying to convey here is sesquipedalian. Our language isnt dying - its growing and changing, you're simply a traditionalist who views it in a different way. Tangential in itself. Yes, the language is growing and changing, however that does not prove your earlier premises. There seems to be an element of ad hominem here. That the language is changing does not in any way prove that big words are unnecessary or supercilious.

People dont conform, its nature and we need to accept that all the time, in every conversation, to every person, your whole life because it builds antipathy toward you and makes you seem arrogant. How dare you use the word antipathy! I rest my case.

I shall leave you with a few words by the ever-laconic Jesse Medcalf. This is not laziness on my behalf, merely an appreciation of argumentative concision.

Language and vocabulary helps to communicate better and more efficiently, if everyone knew the meaning of the words, we could communicate on a higher level and share more abstract ideas, to a more precise extent.

*Grammar has been improved to at least give my adversary a chance at argumentative coherence.