Sesquipedalophobic musings

OK, I’ll admit it. I suffer from a mild case of sesquipedalophobia. That’s the fear of long words, of course. (Don’t believe those that claim that the appropriate word is hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. That word was made up as a joke)

Well, maybe I’m not really afraid of long words. But I don’t care for them. More than long words, I dislike fancy words. It’s my belief that if you can’t explain a concept in fairly common terms, then you don’t fully understand it. There are times, I guess, when a big word is the most appropriate. But those times are rare.

I feel the same way about jargon. When you’re in a discussion and someone says, “Oh, so you take a Hognobian approach to that problem,” I can’t help but wonder who the person is trying to impress. I’ve talked before about my dislike of labels. High falutin’ labels are especially distasteful to me.

I like the story of the farmer who, while conversing with a graduate student, didn’t hesitate to say, “Why don’t you take that big word back and give me two or three little ones?” If you want to impress me with your knowledge, explain your views in a way that the non-expert can understand. If you really want to impress me, speak in such a way that a 10-year-old can follow you.

The most impressive, of course, is the person who speaks in such a way that even I can understand them.

5 thoughts on “Sesquipedalophobic musings

  1. nick gill

    I’m ambivalent on this one, Tim. Grad students won’t always be talking to farmers, and I guarantee that if that farmer starts describing the inner workings of his tractor, he’s not going to use three little words. The communicator needs to understand their audience and their purpose in speaking, but there is a place for technical jargon that is not inherently officious. I try to uphold the maxim of never using five words when one will do — but that requires knowing what I’m actually trying to do. I’m going to use different language to comment on JMH’s blog than I will when making a comment on the GP list. Different audiences require a different style of discourse. Someone trying to live out the gospel in a highly technical or academic vocation won’t be heard by their peers.

    That’s why people like CS Lewis and NT Wright blow my mind — they can write the most dense academic material, AND they can write stuff like “Mere Christianity” and the “For Everyone” series.

  2. nick gill

    oops… I had an ADHD moment there… the last sentence of the big paragraph above should continue, “…if they shun the language of the group for a simpler style of communication.”

  3. Tim Archer Post author

    Nick, I agree with the principle of audience analysis. And I may just be revealing some feelings of inferiority. But some of it goes back to my days of doing graduate study in communication, when we would ask our professors: “If these authors are experts in communication, why is the stuff they write so hard to understand?”

    One of the greatest compliments I ever got on my preaching was when a man told me: “My twelve-year-old grandson likes your sermons. After church, he always tells me what they were about.”

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  4. laymond

    Has anyone ever attained such a degree of education, they no longer understand “plain language” ? always speak at the level of those which you expect to receive your message.
    1Cor:14:5: I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
    If you feel you must exhibit your great vocabulary, please find a way to explain, without being condescending, interpret to those of us who did not major in the art of verbal expression.

  5. K. Rex Butts

    I have to agree with Nick. There is a time and place for every type of conversation and sometimes it seems ok to use a word even if we must explain that word to someone who has never encountered that term before, since in our ministry context one of our objectives is to educate people for the purpose of living more faithful lives to God (which cannot happen without ongoing learning). I think what we need to do is always check our motives at the door and ask why do we communicate the way we do? Is it to serve a noble purpose such as teaching someone or are we just trying to impress someone?

    Grace and peace,

    Rex

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.