What's all this fascination with the word "existential," bandied about by political observers and commentators? And how does an "existential threat" differ from a "real" threat?
Is an "existential" threat more threatening or have any greater existence than a "real" threat?
Often, a four-syllable, Latin-based word is deemed to be stronger or more powerful than a one-syllable English word derived from Anglo-Saxon. The custom is likely similar to that found in the medical profession or in academia, where polysyllabic Latin- or Greek-based words are more "sophisticated" than the language spoken by us ordinarians.
Clearly, "existential" is derived from the same Latin root that gives us "existence," but a threat is a threat is a threat. Unless you want to say something is a "severe threat," or a "moderate threat" or an "ominous threat" or something else. If you do, say so, and don't try to prove your self-assigned authority by using a four-syllable word when a single syllable will do the job just as well, if not better.
Keep in mind that the word "sophist" is used to mark someone who thinks he's wise, but really isn't. And the term "sophomore" has two roots, meaning "wise," and "fool," or "moron."
Good writers go for quick understanding of their message, and the fewer syllables you use in doing that, the more efficient and readable your message will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment