I use too big of words. Eloquency

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

You may be suffering from logorrhea... and I don't mean the psychological definition.

 

[Jeff Loper]

It has been said "You think at the level of your speech"

 

[Kolby Jack]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

You don't use more words than other people, you just replaced more common ones with ones you think are better. I'm not much of a conversationalist in real... uh, conversations, so I often have trouble relating my points, especially when nervous. For me, the simpler I can make things the better they tend to go.

If you find speaking too easy, then by all means make it harder for yourself if you want. Just don't be surprised when people find it annoying. >

 

[Catalyst6]

For an example of this, find me one person that has used the word "Zeitgeist" in a non-mocking way that is *not* a utter ass. It's tricky!

Ooooh, fun!

I don't have anybody in mind, but I could think of a few examples. For instance, I could say right here, without really trying to sound like an ass, that the fact that they've remade Syndicate as a shooter actually is a zeitgeist. Publishers taking the easy way out for extra cash-monies and whatnot.

Well, technically it would be a "shift in the zeitgeist", something can't just be a zeitgeist. I know, semantics, I'm sorry.

And I guess? Technically? More my point, saying it unprovoked just makes you silly.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Brevity is the soul of wit. It's not how many big words you can throw at your listener, but how quickly, precisely, and eficiently you are able to communicate your ideas-- a concept lost on you, since you clearly are more interested in showing off your better than average vocabulary to strangers on the internet than to curtly and effectively communicate a point.

So yes,if you do feel the need to complusively confound everything you say with needlessly complex words, then I wholeheartedly agree with your co-workers. It,s not how many syllables you use, but how few. The pointless use of 'big words doesn't make you smart: it makes you pompous

roughly this.

it's annoying to talk with someone who can't state their idea/thought on the matter in a short and quick matter, it just becomes something longer than needed and when you use bigger words just to use them, it doesn't make you smarter or better, it makes you "pompous" (as quoted used quite nicely) and an annoyance to deal with.

why use 40 syllables in a sentence when i can use 4-5 and get the same message across? it's unneeded and energy wasted for all parties involved.

 

[FFHAuthor]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

Such are the trials of life. Don't concern yourself too much with it, I once had an individual tell me that 'You need to talk english.', after I had made a statement in what I didn't consider to be remotely 'intelligent' simply 'professional'. My friend said that the expression of utter confusion on my face was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen.

There will always be stupid people, there will always be simple people, and if they're too simple to tell the difference between condescension and merely being well read, to hell with them.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

Brevity is the soul of wit. It's not how many big words you can throw at your listener, but how quickly, precisely, and eficiently you are able to communicate your ideas-- a concept lost on you, since you clearly are more interested in showing off your better than average vocabulary to strangers on the internet than to curtly and effectively communicate a point.

So yes,if you do feel the need to complusively confound everything you say with needlessly complex words, then I wholeheartedly agree with your co-workers. It,s not how many syllables you use, but how few. The pointless use of 'big words doesn't make you smart: it makes you pompous

I agree with this. It is true of most communication. A really good example is Darwin's Origin of Species. I understand that it houses some truly phenomenal ideas. However Darwin cannot express his ideas in an efficient manner. I really struggled to stay with that book for any period of time. Somebody like Sartre is an example of being able to get complex ideas across effectively.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

There's a subtle difference between eloquence and sesquipedalian loquaciousness.

I'll let you be the judge, but if I'm to use the original post and thread title to judge, I'd sway more towards the latter.

 

[Kurokami]

Your colleagues are probably more bothered by the fact that you come across as massively condescending as opposed to just the fact that you use more syllables than they do.

This.

I'm gonna assume you come off as pretentious in real life as you do on this thread. (I really don't mean that to come off as offensive)

 

[Crazy]

Your effort at being articulate erodes my elongated brain.

 

[dorkette1990]

Your grammar needs work OP.
"I use too big of words" makes zero sense.
What you meant was, "I use words that are too big."

Also, I read your post.
No offense, but you don't sound smart.
You sound like an asshat.
You're using large words in place of much simpler alternatives, simply to pad your apparent intelligence.

Please don't do that.
No wonder your co-workers are pissed.

Pretty much agreed with this. ^

Assuming your coworkers were not as well-read, I'd imagine they'd be more confused than angry. At least, that's my experience. I think the issue isn't your vocabulary but your delivery. It reminds me of an adolescent - flowery prose in daily conversation is pretentious, over the top, and annoying. I have a decent vocabulary (in most crowds, above average), but I use vernacular in common speech and save the dictionary-reminiscent wordplay for novels and academic papers.

It's the same logic behind using an emoticon - using one doesn't make you an idiot or a teenage girl, but using one at an inappropriate time does

 

[retyopy]

I c what u did there!

See? I got my message across fine. If you don't use big words on purpose, then by all means, keep going on with your business, but if you go around doing what you did in the orginal post, then you need to stcik your head in a bucket of cold water. Y'know, to wake up and such. Maybe.

Brevity is the soul of wit. It's not how many big words you can throw at your listener, but how quickly, precisely, and eficiently you are able to communicate your ideas-- a concept lost on you, since you clearly are more interested in showing off your better than average vocabulary to strangers on the internet than to curtly and effectively communicate a point.

So yes,if you do feel the need to complusively confound everything you say with needlessly complex words, then I wholeheartedly agree with your co-workers. It,s not how many syllables you use, but how few. The pointless use of 'big words doesn't make you smart: it makes you pompous

Can't tell if serious, or clever ironic joke.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I have the same issue from time to time, but not nearly as bad as you're presenting it here. I'll pick out some of the highlights.

My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day,

"Conundrum" is already setting off alarm bells. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any situation where you couldn't use "dilemma" in its place and not lose any of the verbal accuracy you're shooting for.

or theirs in not being as well read.

While this isn't a case of your specific word choice causing problems, it's a whole other can of worms. I'll come back to it later.

(Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

Well, here's a problem already: you're clearly not holding back the reigns of ole Thesaurus Rex, and yet you still apparently didn't word your question exactly as you wanted to. If your entire reason for the problematic speech patterins is trying to be more accurate in your phrasing, then what's the point?

It's a dilemma

See? Dilemma. Moving on.

that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.

Right...if I ever did see a Freudian slip, it was that.

"Verbose" is rarely used as a synonym eloquence, mate. In fact, the primary definition says that it's the usage of unnecessarily long and complicated words. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Verbose]

But, back to that previous line:

My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read.

If this post has told me anything, it's that you're the dictionary definition of verbose: you're slathering on needlessly complicated words not because you're trying to more accurately say things, but just because you can.

Even your question is loaded. You're saying that, because your coworkers aren't as "verbose" as you are, they must "not [be] as well read."

Technically, this has no debate relevance, but for example, look at me: I can quote the better part of Mark Antony's eulogy from "Julius Caesar" from memory. Same goes for a few exchanges from "Macbeth" and "The Merchant of Venice." I've read "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" from cover to cover even before the latter was required reading in highschool. I've read Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Twain, in and out of school. I can quote men ranging from Sun Tzu and Sophocles to Humphrey Bogart and Yogi Bera. I work part-time at a job that employs a good deal of highschoolers, and they consider conversations with me as an easy way to learn SAT words.

In short, I'm what you would call "well read," and I even went beyond literature, plays, etc to classic films. And with all that behind me (whether you want to believe it or not), I think you're at fault here. You're not using an extended vocabulary for the sake of clarity; you're just being verbose.

Your coworkers are annoyed because you're talking down to them. And don't try and say that you're not. Again, your own words betray you. You claim that the reason your coworkers don't like how you speak isn't because it's needlessly complicated, but because it makes them feel "average," or reminds them of "not being as well read." The simple bottom line is that you consider them your intellectual inferiors, and thus the only reason they could possibly object to your word choice is because they want you to sound less smart.

Well, news flash: you're not eloquent. You're just verbose. Look it up.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

To tell the truth, your best bet is to utilize your list of linguistics to add alliteration.

Perhaps, if that doesn't float your boat, have a bit more fun, let your phrases run, speak in rhyme, just not all of the ... time.


Or if you'd prefer: don't use big words, use pretty words.


And always keep in mind, if someone tells you to stop, and they really sound like they mean it.

Just offer them a peanut.

 

[Ghengis John]

It has become a matter of almost annoyance to some of my co-workers, my using larger words or an extended vocabulary. My conundrum is whether the fault would be my [bad?] habit of making use of my ability to convey what I think more accurately than the average 800 different words people use in a day, or theirs in not being as well read. (Try to grasp the concept underlying that bais-heavy question, as opposed to simply answering the question itself.)

It's a dilemma that has been rather frustrating to think about, since while fundamentally it would be true to say that how I conduct my speech is more verbose than the average person, people I converse with do not like being regarded as such, and become quite indignant at being relegated to the term 'average'.
I thought I'd pose the question to others who's opinions might provide some insight.

Over the years I tried to dumb my speech down to alienate people less. That kind of approach? Doesn't work. Just try not to seem condescending and hope for the best.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

That's their problem, not yours. If they think you're too smart for them, then that's fine. You'll find better people who you can talk to on an even level.


Presumably.

 

[Westaway]

I swear twice a day I'll use a word that I think everyone knows then realise they don't. Today it was frivolities. I mean what the fuck.