It was appalling and indeed dreadful to peruse a previous submission entitled “Why You Shouldn't Ever Use Big Words.” Extrapolating epiphanies from this article, I opined it essential and in fact compulsive to provide a defence of the multifold and indeed enlightening usages of vocabulary frequently misconstrued as excessively bombastic and Herculean to comprehend. In truth, it is nearly always a wiser alternative to utilize a longer and thus stronger word over a shorter and thus weaker one. I append my quintuple rationales for this option in the following paragraphs:
#1 – Polysyllabic vocabulary is additionally effectual.
In our relentless pursuit for academic and linguistic excellence we are often confronted with the task of demonstrating our propositions in as convincing and persuasive a method as possible. And in the domain of persuasion and influencing thought, few words suffice as fittingly as those which exceed an arbitrary minimum of four syllabic units. Significantly, the continuous and conscious commitment to the contrived and complicated conforms completely to one of the wisest adages of argument which, unfortunately, is expressed in an overly simplistic way:
If you cannot convince, then confuse.
To put it sophisticatedly, if one ever, and when one inevitably, finds himself in a position in which a case one is charged with arguing for is lacking in evidence, logic, and other optional tenets of quality writing, it is possible and indeed recommended for one to gravitate towards these trustworthy lieutenants of multialphabetic origin to construct the concealment required to camouflage such aforementioned want of quality.
As an additional meritorious enhancement, the ability to utilize words associated commonly with the bombastic is ubiquitously acknowledged as a mark of true intellect and loquacity. Despite arguments towards the contrary that the mere usage of sophisticated words in writing is inadequately indicative of similar complexity in thought, it must be noted that in any successful piece of persuasion there is no requirement to actually be intelligent – it is sufficient to appear to be so.
Therefore and henceforth, it is not uncommon to observe that any writing conducted successfully in a consciously complicated manner convinces the reader of the notion that the writer of said literature must be clearly be remarkably thoughtful, and wins the allegiance of the reader’s thoughts even without making any substantial propositions.
It is even not infrequently speculated that the integer value of the summation of the syllabic units one utilizes in any piece of writing possesses a positive if not proportionate correlation to the academic marks that one receives. Evidently and apparently it is unquestionably a wiser option to always resort to the verbose. What one lacks in quality is easily compensated by quantity.
#2 – Continued employment of the verbose serves as invaluable experience and practice in sharpening one’s vocabulary and élan.
It is simplistic and indeed naïve to perceive writing as an activity conducted merely for immediate purposes, and indubitably important to acknowledge that writing should also be carried out with due attention paid to the sustained development of the personal writing style in the extended scheme of time. It is evident, thus, that one must perennially attempt to summon powerful words in his writing – such that one gains critical insights and crucial familiarity into the methods and means to improve upon his own writing departments.
Suppose one is content with simply utilizing the simple, and does not deem it necessary to conduct writing with the objective of employing the bombastic. Because there will seem never to be a requirement to use a longer word when a short one apparently fulfills the purpose, one may and indeed will never find it possible to progress upwards into the higher echelons of writing, which involve being comfortable and entirely conversant in the language of the upper classes, that is, words which, as previously highlighted, possess a minimum of four syllabic tenets.
In summarization, it is imperative, when writing, to compel ourselves towards utilizing elongated words. This is the sole way of honing our writing faculties.
#3 It is entirely easier to write in as indulgent and complicated a style as possible.
Within a letter composed by the marvelous mathematician Blaise Pascal, a solitary line stands out as an indisputable case for the complicated. Concluding his composition, Pascal remarked how he “had wanted to write a shorter letter, but did not have the time”. There exists infinite wisdom within this exclamation, notably the appreciation of the indelible fact that in order to produce writing which is shorter and perhaps simpler, far greater effort and thought is required. Considered in tandem with the existing case we have observed thus far that simple writing has none of the benefits which consciously complicated writing possesses, it is clear how writing sophisticatedly promises major benefits at minor costs.
In truth, there is, by now, an abyss of reasons to speak simply, owing to the fact that the aforementioned is an activity which requires more input and produces less output. It is an activity which requires such insignificant things as attempting to condense words into more palatable clauses and applying control on otherwise indulgently impactful vocabulary in the naïve belief that it is crucial to engineer your writing in a manner in which the target receiver is most probably able to understand.
Catering to the ignorant is nothing except a waste of time, especially since if that receiver in question does not comprehend one’s words, it does not matter. He will either be bought over by one’s verbosity, or even if he is not, it is equally probabilistic that since he has not achieved a level from which he can comprehend your words, he would not be able to appreciate its true beauty even if he did’st.
#4 – It is purely and pristinely logical to incessantly invoke intellectual vocabulary.
A modest and yet unexpectedly apt argument towards the justification of the requirements for the ubiquitous occurrence of sophisticated language is merely thus: If there remain no purposes for the existence of such words, why do they occur in the first place? Surely it is not insurmountable to perceive that the very fact that verbosity lives, or indeed, thrives, in our environment, is due to its outstanding applicability and usefulness to our species. As such it is only logical that we employ and exploit them generously.
Reinforcing the logicality of this assertion are various other instances in which the argument of pure existence has been successfully submitted in the defence of an otherwise disadvantaged situation. For instance and example, if guns are not meant to be owned by everyone, why do they exist? If money is not meant to be spent, why does it exist? If drugs are not meant to be consumed, rules not meant to be broken and other people meant to be taken advantage of, why do they exist? In all of these cases, it has consistently been proven that such existential reasoning, or specifically, that the existence of the latter justifies the former action, operates flawlessly. And applying such impervious logic to the regime of conversationalisation is nothing but the next logical and intuitive step.
#5 – The procedure of writing in an overly saturated manner successfully fulfills most occupational and academic requirements with utmost rapidity.
Herein lies the most vital and integral need for the verbose: In any situation whereby the act of writing is required, it is almost always the case that the purpose of such writing is for an employer or an educational facilitator. In this area it is clearly advantageous to write in the bombastic, because one key characteristic of such a writing technique is that it accredits one the ability to utilize a far greater number of words to express any individual concept, whereas one who writes in a simple style would be coerced to merely append a few words at maximum.
Coupled then with the fortunate situation whereby multisyllabic words tend also to comprise more characters and are thus lengthier, we observe the undeniable fact that our preferred, consciously complicated conception of writing can aid us to absolutely fulfill the requisite restrictions in any given situation – regardless of whether it is in the production of a report that necessitates a minimum of 50 pages to demonstrate that substantial effort has been poured within, or in the submission of a domestic assignment that is bundled with a mandatory 600 word limit.
In long, there are minimally a quintuplet of compelling rationales underlying why one is recommended to frequently and faithfully undertake writing as a task that demands only the very most in terms of verbosity, prolixity, extravagance, indulgence, and syllabic components. As a general regulation circumvent words with any fewer than 4 syllabic units unless presented with no other option alternatives. Simultaneously, there is, at best, a feeble case for the utilization of the simple and thus simplistic, a view championed by this article’s predecessor on “why speak simply”, because not only is it illogical, but the marginal benefits of speaking simply far from justify the additional costs required. And as we have seen and as any intellectual academic will remark, if it is illogical, or if the benefits do not justify the costs, or both, then there is never a case to do something, because it is almost always certainly wrong.