Vocab and other things

[prillalar]

1. Is it only in English that using the same word too much in a particular piece of writing is considered bad style, so that we rack our brains for synonyms and different ways to say the same thing?

Thesauruses never help.

I've studied several languages, but I don't know any well enough to do composition in. I imagine the hardest part is learning what good style *is* in your new language. Though I suppose you pick it up the same way you do in your native language: by reading a lot.

Does trying to find all those synonyms make you crazy?


2. Do you ever find, when you're in the middle of writing a story and it's with you (in your head) wherever you are, at work, on the bus, etc, that you start to wonder why you're not getting any feedback for it, even though you haven't actually finished and posted it yet?

Just me, then.


3. I've started thinking about getting a PC. Not to *use*. I have my Mac and I will always have my Mac. But it would be useful for checking websites in IE6 (Virtual PC is such a pain) and for using goddamn IRC to d/l files. I hope this isn't one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Comments

[mad_maudlin]

I work at my uni's writing center, so one of the things we've had to study is rhetoric across language families, to help with ESL clients. So far I haven't read anything about the nitty-gritties of style, but I have read a couple fascinating articles about discourse organization--Germanic-linear verus Romances, Semitic, Asian, et cetera.

[prillalar]

That sounds beyond interesting. I don't suppose any of said articles are online, are they?

[mad_maudlin]

Not that I know of, and...damn it, I didn't write down the original author of the article. I can probably look it up at work Monday.

The idea is that, in English and Germanic language generally, discourse is generally ordered linearlly: we expect a writer or speaker to come out with a thesis, then support it, with everything stated very explicitly, and come to some kind of conclusion. In some cultures, though, the organization is different: in many parts of Asia and Japan, for istance, stating your point explicitly is considered an insult to your audience's intelligence, so they tend to organize their writing in a sort of spiral that homes in on the conclusion without reaching it. The more general European pattern (involving Slavic and Romance cultures) is one that tolerates much more substantial digression, sometimes completely parallel to the point the author's trying to make, if it's interesting and at least a little bit relevent.

The Semitic model is the one I find interesting, and the one that probably bears on your question. It relies on repetition and parallelism as good style, both in language and the structure of the argument. So where an American or Canadian author might argue "A, B, and C, therefore X," an Arab author might argue "A, therefor X; B, therefore X; C, therefore X." The Old Testament, especially Psalms, is just loaded with kind of stuff: repeated imagery and cognate objects are considered good form, or were four thousand years ago.

[prillalar]

Thanks for this. That's really very fascinating. Language and thought seem so intertwined. I remember reading a comment on Slashdot from a guy whose first language was English (I think) but who was also fluent in Japanese. He said that when he thought in Japanese, he felt like a different person.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

And then there is D.H.Lawrence who got praised for using the same words in a repetitive manner no school kid would ever get away with *grumble*

[prillalar]

Hee! Sorry for stirring up your old bitterness.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

;)

[merith.livejournal.com]

1. I've found that there are times when it works to use the same word, though most often it will jar if used too much. Can't say about the languages though.

2. *cough* it's not just you


3. *checks the sky* not yet at least ...

[prillalar]

2. *cough* it's not just you

Good to know. :)

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

well, part of it might be that many other languages do not have the same amount of words, i.e., you simply have fewer to choose from. that being said, my main beef a lot of times is as much with repetition as with weak verbs (and that goes for non-fiction...in fiction he said she said is much less a problem than in an analysis!)

[prillalar]

What kind of weak verbs? I sometimes find that if I pick forceful verbs, they stand out too much in the text.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

well, as i said, that's my rule for argumentative writing. Miller says xyz. He says, abx. He then says bladibla. He continues with ddd and finally ends by saying nothing... that's what i meant! :-)

I agree that in fiction the rules are a bit different and that the simple inquit formula can work quite nicely, b/c you don't want to take away from the actual conversation.

Coincidentally, I just came upon this (http://www.livejournal.com/users/runpunkrun/103231.html) earlier tonight, which addresses some of these issues.

[prillalar]

Oh, I get it now. I didn't realise you were talking specifically about speech attribution. I was thinking more about nouns when I was writing the post (since that's what I was having trouble with), so I got confused. :)

[capra-maritimus.livejournal.com]

1. It really depends. I know I've been annoyed when people have used the same word twice in a sentence. :D Sometimes the repetition is used for a particular stylistic effect, in which case it doesn't bother me as much.

2. Yes, it's just you. LOL

[prillalar]

It can be really difficult to find enough different words sometimes. I've been working on something where I basically had to just alternate two words through many paragraphs. But there wasn't really anything else I could do without making up something so weird it would make the text sound strange.

[ethrosdemon.livejournal.com]

It is only in english that word scan is such a problem. It's because english has far, far more words than any other language. I could recc you many books on why this is the case, if you're interested in the history of english.

[prillalar]

I remember when I was translating Homer that the vocab was similar to English (though not to the same scale) -- lots of synonyms. It made translating slow even though the grammar was very straightforward. Classical Greek didn't do that so much.

A book or two would be appreciated. I like to learn stuff.

[ethrosdemon.livejournal.com]

"Mouth Full of Hot Air" by Anthony Burgess (Yeah, the guy who wrote "A Clockwork Orange", weird, I know.)

That one is scholarly and sometimes odd. He talks a lot about the development of English as a language with a lot of exploration of the proto-languages. Entertaining as a jaunt into seeing clearly an author's obvious opinions not hidden by editing, as well.

"The Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson

Fun. Written like a magazine article.

Those are a couple. I could bore you to death.

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

In Latin, it's considered stylistically good. That is, using different word forms formed off of the same root is, e.g. using the verb form of a word and then the adjective, noun, or adverb form of it in close proximity.

[prillalar]

I was trying to remember about Latin; it's been years since I really did any. But what you describe sounds like the opposite of good English style. We would try to avoid using words from the same root too closely to each other.

Hmm, I wonder what it would sound like to try that. When I was still in uni doing classics and writing fanfiction, I would write these great long periodic sentences and use all sorts of literary devices I found in the Greek lyric I was translating. *g* I don't do that so much any more.

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

My roommate usually proofs my papers for me:

Roommie: You just repeated yourself. You used an adjective and in the next clause you used a verb from the same root.
Cat: And?
Roommie: Bad form.
Cat: But Cicero does it...
Roommie: Are you writing this in Latin? Uh, no.

[mylexie.livejournal.com]

1. Is it only in English that using the same word too much in a particular piece of writing is considered bad style, so that we rack our brains for synonyms and different ways to say the same thing?

No, the same goes for Dutch. And probably for just about any language. It's done because if not, you get a very dull read: you'll probably feel as if you've just read whatever you're reading four times already. The only place wehere it is not only allowed, but mandatory, is scientific papers and the like. Especially in philosophy it's clear to see why this is the case: words very often have a subtly (or not so subtly) different meaning for every author, which makes it so that a piece needs guidlines, and using words another philosopher uses can make it seem like you take on their meanings as well.

[prillalar]

Interesting!

[mylexie.livejournal.com]

oh, and on this:

Does trying to find all those synonyms make you crazy?

No, I love it actually. In Dutch I'm very good at it, too.

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Irish is even more synonym-obsessed than English is. While English will use synonymous adjectives a few times in a short paragraph, it's considered very good form in Irish to write "The Noun was Synonymous Adjective and Synonymous Adjective", cramming it into one sentence as a form of emphasis.

[prillalar]

Oh, cool. I'm feeling better now that I know it's not just English. :)

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Now that I come to remember my days of poetry analysis as Gaeilge, I remember the same thing happened with synonymous nouns. "The character suffered Noun Meaning Pain and Synonymous Noun Meaning Pain" cropped up a lot in my more sophisticated analyses. Ah, moany Irish literature. If the English aren't killing ye, you're killing yourself. Or the old way of life is gone on your childhood home of the Aran Islands and you live out the rest of your days as a postal clerk in Dublin writing wrenchingly melancholic poetry that makes any poor student reading it want to cry all day. Actually, that one was just Mairtín Ó Direáin.