I have to
admit to a certain infatuation with words. You have probably already
deduced[1]
that, of course. Why else would I write
this little collection of essays? I have
a friend who is a much better writer than I and who has a far better vocabulary
than anyone I know. She uses words I
know the meaning of, but am never able to bring to mind when I need them, and
she uses words that send me to a dictionary as well. Even occasionally using words she tosses out
with ease will lead me to an ebullience[2]
about my vocabulary that most people wouldn’t share. She once wrote me a nice note entitled “Words”
in which she expressed her chagrin[3]
over being briefly at a loss for words to describe something, but that’s
another story.
The point
is I like words. The reason all of this
is on my mind is that I ran across a book called The Vocabulary of Success today on the bargain-priced table
at Barnes & Noble. The subtitle is
actually what caught my eye—“403 Words That Smart People Should Know.” Its author is a denizen[4]
of a law firm, which surprises me—in most of the lawyers I have run across there
was a paucity[5] of
clear speech, which only piqued[6]
my interest further. It turns out the
author teaches lawyers how to write effectively.
[1]
Number 79, to derive or draw as a conclusion by reasoning from given premises
[2]
Number 105, showing enthusiasm or wxhiliration of feeling
[3]
Number 47, to vex by disappointment
[4]
Number 86, inhabitant or resident; one who frequently inhabits a place
[5]
Number 248, smallness of quantity; scarcity
[6]
Number 261, to excite interest of curiosity in
But, why
are there 403 words exactly? Surely
there is a myriad[1] of
words that would qualify. Sadly, he
offers no explanation for that, except to explain that he started with
5,000. Then, he has the effrontery[2]
to proffer[3]
his list without deigning[4]
to provide his rationale for us to ruminate[5]
about.
Some words
make the list for reasons of correcting obviously lawyerly errors. For example, lawyers often misuse the word
“therefor,” therefore, our author included it and “therefore” in his list,
while explaining the reason therefor[6]. The author aims to prevent misuse of the
regular adverb in place of the conjunctive adverb, which is, of course, a
solecism[7].
Others fail
to make the list for reasons I cannot understand. Is he trying to hoodwink[8]
us when he fails to include any words that begin with “J?” Surely a lawyer would throw in
jurisprudence, or jive or josh. In all
this travail[9]
could he not cover the whole alphabet?
He also failed to cover “K.” No,
his list is kaput in my book. Am I just kvetching? I think not. Surely someone could have kibitzed on behalf
of “K.”
[1]
Number 217, a vast indefinite number
[2]
Number 110, unblushing impudence or boldness
[3]
Number 282, to offer to another for acceptance
[4]
Number 81, to deem worthy of notice or account
[5]
Number 329, to chew over again, to
ponder
[6]
Number 367, both words—the conjunctive adverb and the regular
[7] Number 341, a nonstandard or ungrammatical
usage
[8]
Number 163, to deceive, trick, cheat,
swindle
[9] Number 372, hard or agonizing labor
[10] Number 189, incapable of analyzed,
investigated or scrutinized
people” need not be cognizant of words that begin with “X,” or “Y.”
Can “smart
people” really have insight without knowing the yin and yang of existence? Or is he merely xenophobic, fearing the ideas
because they originated in another culture?
(OK, I have now covered all four of the missing letters, we all know he
could have if I can)
No comments:
Post a Comment