These days, in matters of vocabulary, using a word that is not understood by the lowest common denominator in our society is almost seen as politically incorrect or offensive. We are so bombarded by the “write clearly and simply” mantra that to use any word that is not readily known to everyone is to be labeled “elitist” or “pretentious” or “bombastic”, regardless of whether the word in question may be legitimate. and perfectly suited to the occasion; in fact, that may be the best word for the occasion.

It often seems that when a writer uses a word that not everyone instantly recognizes, it must be an example of bad writing, because (the argument goes) the only good writing is that which is “clear” – using a limited vocabulary. understood by all. Virtually every time a word used by the writer slips past the reader’s head, he can be sure someone will complain that he “has to look up a dictionary.” However, people don’t realize how often we are presented with more difficult words, because our natural inclination is to skip over them, rather than look them up in a dictionary. Consider:

A recent editorial in a Pittsburgh newspaper stated, “The fact that [Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Joe] Views of Hoffel [state] sovereignty as a four letter word is absolutely sciolistic. Back to school, Joe. Google Article I and Amendment 10”.

The word “sciolistic” means a claim to scholarship. It was absolutely the perfect choice of words for the occasion. But how many readers of the article knew that word or, more importantly, would stop to look it up? Very few?

The beauty of many harsh words is that they are cheap because they replace several simpler (read: more mundane) words. “Sciolistic” is an example. Here’s another: In a recent issue of Newsweek, managing editor Jon Meachem, speaking of the magazine’s financial problems, declared, “We’re not Planglossian on the issues at hand.” Planglossian means blindly or naively optimistic and is based on Dr. Pangloss, Candide’s optimistic tutor in Voltaire’s novel of the same name.

Even in those situations where there may be exactly one word simpler than the one chosen, a hard word can certainly liven up the writing. For example, in a recent New York Times article on Facebook, the author wrote that “CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin credits (or blames) the 2008 election for his Brobdingnagian list.” [of Facebook friends].

Sure, the author could have been referring to Mr. Toobin’s “really big” or “huge” list of Facebook friends, but would it grab the reader’s attention that much? Should not.

As William F. Buckley once said, “We tend to believe that a word is unfamiliar to us because it is unfamiliar to us.” However, if we want to avoid a permanent reduction in our collective vocabulary, we must stop thinking that the use of harsh words by others is simply a bad reflection on the people who sue them. The introduction of harsh words should give each of us the opportunity to expand our vocabulary.