I raise this topic because I have now, for the umpteenth time, suffered a silly dispute that ultimately boiled down to a misunderstanding of my wording. Now, the fundamental rule of all language is that language is what people use it to mean, not what some authority says that it should mean. If I make a statement that somebody else misunderstands, then -- in general -- the fault is mine.

On the other hand, language is always in flux and people are always stretching the meanings of words in ways that make them less meaningful. Take the word "arrogant", for example. Most people use the word as a synonym for "proud", "vainglorious", or "conceited". But that's not what the word has meant in the past. Its traditional meaning is "taking or assuming privileges or powers that one does not deserve". We use the same root in the verb "arrogate", whose meaning is as yet undiluted. So what is a good debater to do: use "arrogant" in the common sense of "conceited" and contribute to the continued reduction in the semantic precision of the word, or insist on using it in its traditional sense?

Here is an apocryphal example of the kind of problem I encounter: I observe that Government Official X has taken upon himself a power that properly belongs to Government Official Y. I write that Government Official X is arrogant. At which point somebody jumps all over me for making a personal slur on the Government Official X. By the dictionary, I'm right. By popular usage, I'm wrong. Do I shoot back at my critic and tell him to learn how to use the English language properly?

What makes this dilemma so difficult is that there is a large grey area where the language is in flux. There are some usages that are so far along that to object to them is pedantic. Example: confusing the verbs "effect" and "affect". I wince every time I see this mistake, but I keep my mouth shut. There are other usages that are in early stages and should properly be denounced. Example: failure to recognize the subjunctive. Suppose I were to write "If Politician X obtained the money illegally, then we should prosecute him." and in response another person were to attack my statement for calling Politician X a criminal. I didn't call Politician X a criminal, I presented a statement predicated on the hypothesis that Politician X is a criminal. Presented this way, it is obvious that my critic is failing to understand English. Yet I have observed this kind of mistake -- in more complicated contexts -- several times here on AD. So what is the proper approach: correct the critic's poor understanding of English, or accept that some people don't understand subjunctive mood?

So the topic for debate is:

Where should we draw the line between English that's too high-falutin' for AD and English that's too dummied down for AD?

Where should we draw the line between English that's too high-falutin' for AD and English that's too dummied down for AD?

English is not predicate calculus; it's especially not propositional calculus. Try as we might the days of logical positivism are long gone -- English is not a formal system. Human language is necessarily ambiguous to some degree. Context is often more important than content when divining meaning from a sentence.

I applaud the precision by which you choose your vocabulary, Erasmussimo, yet many others (including myself) are not quite so precise. We are on a debate forum where the only context we have is what is written. We cannot see the face, read the body language or hear the verbal inflections -- the subtext if you will -- of others. Thus, we will nearly always attribute the common usage (even if inaccurate) to vocabulary. Words which could have multiple definitions will almost always be interpreted in their more common usage form. Couple that with a natural tendency for people to attribute a negative meaning to language when politically at odds. It's a difficult course to navigate.

Yet, I have also found that some folks are disinclined to consider the subjunctive case in debate. This is not unique to AD though. I've spent much time in verbal debates with my friends trying to differentiate for them the subjunctive mood versus other grammatical moods: "If I were to believe X, then Y..." vs. "I believe X, thus Y...". My solution has been to use verbal techniques like "Imagine if you will..." or "Consider the following...". This seems to increase the signal to noise ratio in comprehension.

On the topic of language, I have to wonder about the wording of this very question. High-falutin'? What does that even mean? Seems rather belittling, honestly.

When you come to you must remember that you are dealing with people of all ages, backgrounds, and education levels. Not everyone is as 'smart' as you may want them to be. If a person fails to comprehend what you are trying to explain instead of being rude and belittling to them, be patient and explain yourself or ignore them. We are certainly never going to put restrictions on members with lesser vocabularies.

Where should we draw the line between English that's too high-falutin' for AD and English that's too dummied down for AD?
I agree with logophage that misunderstandings are bound to occur. The key is to take them in stride and treat them like any other matter for debate.

Sometimes word usage is critical, if you are intent upon defending your position it would be best to do so with evidence and sound reasoning.

Always be prepared to explain yourself, that's key to any debate.

Don't be quick to attack the other poster for their "misunderstanding the language" without demonstrating this is the case.

As I've learned in many semantic debates, it could easily be one's self that is misunderstanding.

I chose that term because I have generally been more on the high-falutin' side, and so I felt that some self-deprecating terminology might help prevent the discussion from growing heated.


Yes, that's a big problem for me, because I tend to run in rarefied company, and conversing with normal human beings instead of pointy-headed intellectuals (more self-deprecation here) is both frustrating and illuminating. Frustrating for obvious reasons, and illuminating because my ultimate goal is to understand how people really think. Some people really do have poor thought processes, and I get so caught up in the back-and-forth that I fail to step back and tell myself, "OK, you've learned all you can learn here; pushing further can only produce bad feelings." Moreover, I have to admit that I do have some bad habits when encountering poorly-presented arguments. I have been dismissive, and I have a wickedly sharp yet elegant tongue when roused. I have no need for four-letter words; my four-syllable attack vocabulary is more than adequate to the task. And for that I owe numerous people apologies.

Yet I remain uncomfortable with the vagueness of the minimum standards for this site. Not that I can offer anything constructive that would allay my unease -- it's a very difficult problem. I have already written and thrown away about ten paragraphs of material for this posting, trying to articulate the problem in a tractable form. At this point, I can only muse aloud over the problem and hope that others, in attacking in from different angles, might help clarify it.

Where should we draw the line between English that's too high-falutin' for AD and English that's too dummied down for AD?

There really isn't a "line" to be drawn with language online. When attempting to get a point across, it is our job to do our best to be understood. If in the attempt, we find that some misunderstand our meaning, the discussion is best served by going back to the point in question and attempting to explain it further. It does no good to suggest the person misunderstanding our position is lacking in language skill, purposefully misrepresenting what we said, or say that we were misunderstood but then note explain how.

For example, the above paragraph. Most will read it as it is intended, a suggestion directed towards everyone, nothing more. However some, based on past experiences, could potentially read it as being negatively directed at them. I could, knowing my intent is to speak generally and offer advice, simply leave it as it is, ignoring any potential misunderstandings. Or, knowing that some may take it differently then I intended I can change it, eliminate it, or take the time to further explain that it is not directed at anyone and is only intended in the spirit of general advice to all on . As you can see, for this post I chose the 3rd option.

Communication is a skill. To communicate, we need to ensure we are understood. This is why, when addressing a wider audience it is best to work with the more common usage of language. However, there are times when we feel a need to use an more uncommon usage, archaic word, etc. In those instances, it is best to take a moment to explain it further to avoid potential communication breakdowns that are likely to follow.

I agree with Logophage. The hardest thing to learn when using an online medium to communicate is that it is difficult to project subtext when we lack vocal tone, eye contact, body language, etc. This can be mitigated to a point through the use of Smilies. That is one reason they were created, and is often the reason people use them. If we wish to be understood we have to be diligent. We need to be wary of how our words can be perceived. When writing, we should try our best to avoid wording that can be taken multiple ways. If we cannot avoid it, we should take the time to explain in further detail as to how it is we mean it, what our intent was. Of course, sometimes we just don't see it coming. In those instances, a civil response, geared at explaining our intent is the best approach.

In life, perception is often more important then intent. We see this in politics all the time. Someone says something that can be taken multiple ways. The person's supporters tend to assume the intent one way, while their opponents assume the intent another. The public, will perceive the intent based on their own experiences, while the Media will take it whichever way will generate better ratings. We see this in the business world as well. For example, every company has a sexual harassment policy. And every company I ever worked at has a policy that basically said intent is irrelevant. If the offended party perceived what was said as offensive, then the comment, regardless of intent is considered offensive and is treated as such. Of course that treatment varies from company to company and situation to situation but the bottom line is, more weight is given to perception, then to intent.

Is this fair? No not really. Though seriously, how much is life really is? However, when there is a communications failure, often times it is the communicator, not the audience that is at fault. reevaluating the situation objectively, and making an attempt to clarify our actual meaning is the best response. I have failed in my attempt to communication this on countless times. The best I can do when this happens to go back to the point I was trying to make and address it from a different angle.

It is always better when trying to convey our position, to use more words then we might see as necessary to ensure that we are understood. I frequently recommend to others that before posting, then walk away from what they have written, come back to it later, and re-read it as objectively as possible with an eye on what could be taken multiple ways. Once identified, we can usually address these potential problems with further explanation, or a re-write in an attempt to prevent misunderstandings from the beginning. As a side note, I also frequently recommend that people highlight their entire post and hit copy. This way, it is still on the clipboard in the rare instances when the post doesn't....well....post.



I can see what you were attempting to do there. But I, like others did not see this at first, based solely on that original wording. Perhaps adding (like myself ) or maybe what you did later in another post which was "(self-deprecation here)" , after "high-falutin' would have projected that intent to more readers. How others perceive what we say is key to being understood. In the above example of your attempt at making fun of yourself, you didn't really point that out in what you wrote, at least myself and some others didn't take it that way. Can you see how, more information could have possibly clarified this? Sometimes the point of what we say is lost to others when we try to be "succinct and to the point"



Thats understandable. Personally, I find it best to reiterate my meaning in multiple ways. The hope, is that someone misunderstanding one approach will understand another and back-track. In the end, the best teacher of what works and what doesn't is experience. you said elsewhere that you can be dismissive. My suggestion would be that you try not to be too quick in writing off what others have to say when they take issue with what you have posted. Your intent, was likely lost in their perception. Try to take cues from their response and cover the point in question again, this time with an eye on attempting to make your point more understandable to the person or person(s) taking issue with it. That is the best we can do, and all we can ask of each other.

I both envy and pity your ability with language Erasmussimo.

Much of great worth has already been said here, so I will limit myself to offering a few small points.

Language is important. I do not accept the contention that "It's only words." For this reason, I probably tend to be "politically correct." (Now there are a couple of words we could argue about for a long time!) It costs me nothing to try to avoid offending someone when I can.

Even with this in mind, I try to remember that my words may offend without any intention to do so. To me, the words "Religious Right" mean something very specific -- a group of individuals who support the political positions expressed by Robertson, Dobson, and so on, and who do so primarily on the basis of religious faith. I have learned, however, that some people object to the use of this term. It might be better for me to say something like "very socially conservative Christians" in an attempt to be more accurate and less offensive.

A little self-deprecating language is a good idea, in an attempt to defuse bad feelings, I think. For this reason, I will refer to myself as a "lefty" or "peacenik" or "tree-hugger" in order to point out that I am willing to poke gentle fun at myself while not denying what I am.

I try to use phrases like "I think" or "I believe" in order to point out that I do not confuse my opinions with matters of fact. It somehow seems less offensive to say "I think so-and-so is a lousy crook" instead of just "So-and-so is a lousy crook."

In a somewhat similar way, when disputes about the meaning of words come up, I try to say "I was using this word to mean such-and-such" instead of linking to a dictionary to prove that I was "right."

I try to accept that people will sometimes read things into what I say that I did not intend. When this happens, I try to clarify what I meant without blaming the other person. I'll say something like "I'm sorry if I implied such-and-such" instead of "I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I said."

To answer the debate question directly, I guess I would tend to err on the side of clarity rather than precision (which need not be opposites, of course.)

Is the question or suggestion here that there should be some form of word usage restriction or guidelines? I think the only ones in place are... you must use English and you can't curse. Do we need more? No I don't think so.

I do find it humorous that at a political debate board we have a complaint about language and it's misusage. Isn't that the nature of politics? To take ownership of a word or a set of words and then make people think how you wish them to think about them. Aren't words defined by the politics and not politics defined by words?

I think when discussing politics with others you should be more than aware of how words are used to carry certain messages and ideas and that I would guess a great many people scan your postings looking for their particular carriers.

In fact, "highfalutin" almost always appears without the hyphen - and never with the apostrophe. Just sayin'. For the sake of those unfamiliar with this colloquialism, it essentially means "pompous" or "pretentious". H.L. Mencken mentions the word as an example of the many native US words coined during the nineteenth century. Its origin is obscure, but it has always been used as a slightly derisive indictment of those who think too highly of themselves. How apropos Erasmussimo's use of the word was, is not for me to say.

In general, I don't feel that anyone should spend their time here monitoring their language aptitude, for good or ill. The SpellCheck function should be used and proper punctuation and capitalization are encouraged. Beyond that, we are all going to have varying degrees of grammar skills - and no one should waste too much time criticizing the usage of anyone else (especially when they are doing so merely to belittle). If there is a lack of clarity either due to one's scant or superabundant familiarity with proper sentence stucture, it is probably best to simply correct any misunderstandings as simply and clearly as possible and leave it at that. "Sorry, the second clause there was conditional" or "a contingency" or "That was a hypothetical statement" is bound to be more constructive than posting something like:

As to misreading the tone of a response, I'm afraid there's no way around that - it's a challenge of the medium. I know that I often come off as a condescending prig - that's just the way I write. Things that make me chuckle as I type them no doubt have others going, "God, what a twit!" Those who know me (and those here who have met me) can hopefully tell you that I'm actually a relatively nice guy - fairly quiet and reasonably self-effacing. Those who know me only through my posts here may well think I'm an overbearing, supercilious jerk. Similarly, I'd always thought of Paladin Elspeth as being level-headed, compassionate, and well-mannered on the basis of her posts - until we met. It turns out she's a loud, abrasive harridan with a positively poisonous tongue. (Just kidding! She's all I expected, though even more delightful. But the point is: you never know. )

That's just a peril of participating in such a forum and being judged solely on the basis of one's words. And, as I said, I don't think there's any way around it - our styles are our styles and, unless we're violating the Rules, we have to live with them.

Thank you for the kind words, Wertz.

I understand that most communication that goes over the airwaves is geared to a sixth grade level of comprehension. I know we have quite a few erudite individuals participating in this forum (my friend Wertz being one of the best known), but I have noticed for the most part that these members choose to strive for an easily-understood message over a lot of the more stylish prose.

For that I am grateful.

Where should we draw the line between English that's too high-falutin' for AD and English that's too dummied down for AD?

Very tall people often discover that ordinary shorties will find it difficult to deal with them on tall people's terms.

As a consequence, tall people often develop something of a stoop, from constantly leaning downward so they can relate to the rest of the world on a level more comfortable for average people. They also bump their heads on ceilings and doorways more often than average-sized folk. Tallness has some advantages - reaching high things, and playing basketball, for example, seem to come more easily to the tall.

But, they may well suffer some back pain from constantly stooping to talk to people belonging to less extreme statistical outliers.

Because of this, they may often wish that the rest of the world could wear stilts for a while so that they can stand up straight for once. Or, they may seek out the company of other, equally tall people to be able to talk and stand normally. Neither of these things are likely to be helpful in ordinary day-to-day interactions with resolutely ordinary people.

To my mind, high intelligence is like height. In itself, it isn't particularly useful for anything, though it can be a factor in attractiveness. Nor is it something to be massively proud of, since as a raw human faculty it doesn't require any effort to acruie it.

Education is perhaps a little more admirable, since it does come by dint of effort. Perhaps my tallness analogy would equate great basketball talent with high levels of education.

Most people, though, don't have more than a passing interest in basketball. It has it's fans, but even those fans, on meeting a prodigious baskteball talent, would eventually get bored talking to them if all they ever did was talk show off basketball skills well beyond their own humble capacites, and all they ever talked about was basketball generally and their own special achievements in particular.

It would be equally foolish for a very tall basketball player to pretend to be very short and uncoordinated.

They're more likely to be liked, respected and listened to if they behave with some degree of humility. To treat their fellow humans as if both parties are worthy of respect rather than disdain. To not behave as if they think basketball is the centre of everyone's universe all the time.

Occasional flourishes of skill or dexterity are forgiveable, but constantly rubbing everyone elses noses in how short they are or how bad they are at basketball is not going to help in getting a message across, even if veiled in layers of meaning only really tall people who are good at basketball can understand.

One of the first things any course in communication, be it very basic or very advanced, will say is a cardinal rule is that you must know your audience and relate to them the way they find most comfortable, not the way you, the communicator, finds most comfortable. The same is true of any management course worth its salt.

Another way to say this is an old business adage I once heard, with regard to dress codes - If I'm trying sell to you, you can wear what you like. If you're trying to sell to me, put a damned tie on!. (Needless to say the original didn't used the word "damned", but something rather lower on the brow.)

If that's dumbing down, then you just have to get used to it. If you're worried about developing an intellectual stoop, you can either see learning to communicate more effectively as an intellectual challenge, or you can join MENSA and feel superior. (Actually, you could do both, or neither.)

So to answer your question, the line needs to be drawn wherever a particular debating opponent draws it. If you're trying to get a point across yourself, you don't get any say in where the line is drawn, because each debating opponent draws their own line in their own head. One person may follow your reasoning very easily, while someone else gets lost after the first three words.

Rather than gnashing teeth over how dumb this second person might be, the challenge is to make them understand you too.

One last thing. Throughout this post, I've mostly used "you" as a generic second person pronoun in preference to the more formally correct but increasingly archaic "one". Sounding like Prince Charles can conjure negative images that would make it harder to see my points, so instead of alienating precision, I've chosen informality and imprecision, with the calculated risk of some points being misread as specific personal criticisms.

As a Dutchman English is of course not my first language. This can sometimes present problems when I am trying to express myself during a debate. (looking up words in dictionaries, re- re- re-writing a certain paragraph etc. etc.) Apart from that, I was taught to speak and write in formal British English, rather than American English. So there can be a tendency in my writings to use formal or 'archaic' words. (I love the word 'predicament', but I have hardly seen anybody use this word anymore here on AD) I can imagine that some people here on AD will think that I am sounding too much like Prince Charles.

But for me the use of correct words or nice sentence structures are not essential in discussing a certain topic / problem. It are the ideas and logics that are most important. What message is somebody trying to send, what are his main arguments etc. etc. Debates about the use of certain words or terminologies are often only distracting elements in the general discussion.

very interesting.



i've been using forums for several years now and i have, as i am sure some of you have, seen this "problem." i somewhat disagree that the problem is that words do not convey tone or meaning. they most obviously do.

the problem is one needs to be constantly on guard for the semantic mis-match, as its is often the source of most disagreements in the polemical sense. in other words, we do still disagree once we split the hair finely ehough.

so, the probablem is not word choice, or language per se, imho. but if you realize the problem is often one of semantics, the key is to ask questions - or anticipate them.

that is why i often cut tot he chase with short posts and use the socratic method. people who truly seek to understand things, ask questions. if you cannot say what you mean briefly, you may not be acutally saying anything but ranting.

people who only wish to win arguments just beat you up with their argument.

i can always get a sense for the "genuine" nature of someone by them getting pissy when i ask them something like...

what do mean by "socialist tendencies"?

Where should we draw the line between English that's too high-falutin' for AD and English that's too dummied down for AD?

I don't know. Sometimes I'll read the high-falutin' stuff, sometimes not. Same goes for simple expressions. It really depends on my interest in the debate at hand.

Mostly though, I like reading pieces that are written more toward a journalistic style, where sentences and paragraphs are usually short. The who, what, where, when, how and why of things are either explained or linked. Even with an unabridged dictionary on the local hard drive, it still annoys me to look up a term. Guess I'm in favor of using the 10-cent terms over the 10-USD terms. Adjusted for inflation, that would be the the 10,000-USD terms.

The misuse of words annoy me too, and I'm sure that I've done that since we don't have pro editors to review our posts. Ever try to figure out the real differences between effect and affect? From what I gather, the following usage conforms to what Webster's has to say:

Oh thunder storm, you've affected me with your electronic effects that affected my senses of both beauty and pain, leaving me with the effects of disorientation, loss of memory, an affected demeanor, and extremely effected cranial lobes that brought me to affect the schizophrenia effect (or is that affect).

In simple terms, the lightening was very pretty. Unfortunately, a bolt hit me square on, and I'm either lucky or cursed to have lived. [This is an example, not an actual event. I have no medical excuses for my affected effect.]

For those two terms, I'm highly forgiving. Same with lie -- lay, may -- can and so forth. I'm in favor of simplifying the language away from these awkward and arbitrary forms.

How about the illogical parts of English? At least we have the spell checker, which I bow to, shooting the bow across the bow while wearing a bow tie, yeesh, makes my brain bowlegged, and I'm tempted to strike at this word bow with a hickory bough. Curses to the Norman Conquest!

A very good point there; sound-a-likes can be a pain, but they are good for rhyming!

I'm in a Advanced Composition class now. It deals with rhetoric and argumentation. When we are depating we should try to avoid any terms that can cause confusion. Emotionaly loaded terms can destrat people from the debate at hand.

Although, we don't want to sound to formal that we sound "dry"; we, also, we don't want to too informal and people not effectively understand us.


But, it is part of the big picture when it comes to reader comprehension.

Is there a point when you sound too humble?

One technique of avoiding confusion is to have minor amount of repition in one's post, rewording in a deferent way. However, this can be taken too far and become argument ad nauseam.