Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

"A native English speaker would never have said that... unless they had received a really expensive education."

There's the opposite problem, too, where people with poor educations will try to use fancy words to impress people (but often wind up just sounding pretentious).

One of my pet peeves is hearing people using the word "utilize".

Just say "use"! It sounds far less pretentious and means the exact same thing.

I intentionally try to simplify my word choice, even though my vocabulary is much larger than what I use in writing or daily speech, and even when the first word that comes to mind is long/fancy word.

I try to use a five cent word when even a five dollar word would do. It sounds more natural, and you don't come off sounding like you're trying to impress anyone (which is usually counterproductive if you're using vocabulary to do it).

View on HN

> It sounds more natural

Weeeell, there's more to it than that. English has a rich vocabulary, why not use it? Just like there is more to a palette than primary colors, why restrict yourself?

Me, I enjoy using "five dollar words" where they fit, I also enjoy inserting slang, obscure puns, deliberate misspellings, foreign words, all to add some texture and color. Wakarimasu ka?

My father was felled by Alzheimers. What was interesting is his sentences became an incomprehensible jumble of words, but the words were from a well educated man's vocabulary. He never sounded pretentious, it was just how he talked.

(My family does not hail from English aristocracy as far as I can discern. He was the first to attend college.)

"I enjoy using "five dollar words" where they fit, I also enjoy inserting slang, obscure puns, deliberate misspellings, foreign words, all to add some texture and color. Wakarimasu ka?"

This reminds me of William Gibson's Sprawl slang, of Anthony Burgess' Nadsat slang from A Clockwork Orange, and of Cockney rhyming slang, thieves' cant, etc.

That sort of use can have a certain appealing charm to it in small doses (or might be annoying, depending on who you talk to and what you say), but unfortunately I don't think most users of "utilize" and the like rise to that level.

Personally I don't care to utilize "utilize", either. It smacks of annoying bureaucratic slang, like "synergy", "incentivize", "leverage".

I'm bemused by cop jargon like "vehicle". Even journalists, when covering crimes, slip into saying "vehicle".

> rhyming slang

I like dazzuble dazzutch, but am not very good at it, fo shizzle.

Yep. I'm not sure there isn't ever a place for utilize; it's not 100% interchangeable with use. But, yes, it's part of a list of business and related jargon that is usually best avoided. Sometimes there are legitimate synergies. And sometimes leverage does actually apply--as in getting outsized benefits from using something. But, yes, should probably be used a lot less than they are.

I'm from a lower class background; I learned from early on to adapt my language to that of the upper/upper-middle class, and it has 1000% earned me more credibility than my intellect or experience deserve. This isn't to say that this kind of implicit classist gatekeeping is merited--it's not--but this is the reality of the world we live in.

So the scenario in question is "someone trying to fit in with the upper classes" to which your response is something like "use the language however you like"--which is a fine thing to say, and no doubt especially easy to say for those of us who have the ability to speak in the upper class dialect/register, but that's not the stated goal. I.e., if you're trying to fit in with the upper classes, using "utilize" is a tell that you don't fit in (IMO the upper class register prefers to use very few words to convey a lot of meaning; precise, terse, and fashionable vocabulary is the name of the game)--if your goal is to use English however you like, and if you like "utilize" instead of "use", then go right ahead.

There are a lot more tells than vocabulary. There's accent, even tone.

And, of course, there's the style of clothing, haircut, makeup, accessories, etc. Pretty much everything :-)

One interesting tell that I might have heard in Jamie Johnson's documentary "Born Rich" was talk of holidays.

If you talk about holidaying with one's family in some exotic locale or of having a summer home in the Hamptons, the person you're speaking with can surmise that you're not poor.

The rich kids in that documentary also regularly go out to bars and think nothing of spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on champagne.

It's definitely not just about how one talks that signals to others that one is part of the upper class.. but once one is established as in the upper class, then things such as one's manner of speech might distinguish you.

I think the idea is not to perfectly blend in, but to get closer to that circle by being more relatable.

> I'm from a lower class background; I learned from early on to adapt my language to that of the upper/upper-middle class

I have a similar background, but I can't say I adapt my language to that of upper classes. My accent and skin color pretty much gives away my background when I utter my first word, and unfortunately, just like having a southern US accent, people are subconsciously biased to thinking I'm probably not too smart. I love using "ten-dollar words"[1] - not that I shoe-horn them in, but they are the ones that usually pop into my head first and I can't be bothered to water them down. Additionally, I figure, "dumb" accent + "smart" words cancel each other out - more or less - which puts me on equal footing with my "normal" sounding colleagues. It's easier to change/adapt my vocabulary than it is to change my accent.

I love language, I do a lot of reading, and it's a delight when you find the right word that precisely expresses what you're thinking. Reading a lot expands your vocabulary and improves your adeptness at deploying it. When done in moderation, using puns and subtle literary references is fun (even when no one picks up on it) - as long as it doesn't detract from the actual message I'm communicating.

1. I do not mean speaking like the Architect from The Matrix here. The other week, I was called out by a monolingual collegue for using "nomenclature" rather than "naming convention" or "naming system" - which feel kludgey to me. Also, when I do make the effort to use shorter words after thinking of a long one first, that adds brief pauses to my speech, which gives the appearance of an ineffective communicator.

I still need to grow out of the opposite. I had a typical lowish middle class upbringing, not poor, but parents were teachers so I was ahead of most classmates just by being around that environment and reading a lot. Being a country town this of course attracted teasing. I learned to talk plain and dumb it down. It's still hard for me to talk otherwise, but writing is OK. Only the teacher saw that so I never changed how I wrote too much.

Much worse than using high-falutin' vocabulary (I might sometimes take advantage of 'utilise' myself) is using high-falutin' grammatical constructions AND USING THEM WRONGLY. Which takes us back nicely to the OP:

> "Having lived in the U.K., I know many whose first (and only) language is English and who make routine errors when speaking and many more when writing," says Madani.

The latest horror is people trying to use the 'so [adjective] a [noun]' construction but instead saying 'so [adjective] of a [noun]'. Folks, when you say 'so [adjective] of a [noun]' you don't sound no ways educated. There's a reason that Abraham Lincoln wrote of "the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice on the altar of freedom" and not "so costly of a sacrifice"; and the reason is that Abraham Lincoln was not bloody illiterate. (It may actually have been written by John Hay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bixby_letter, but Lincoln's secretaries weren't illiterate, either.) Now you might not think it makes much of a difference; but 'much' is a determiner, not an adjective, which should be clear if you think about it for a much time.

*highfalutin (without apostrophe)

Dontcha think its awfully “high-falutin’” to correct a man on his grammar in a such as that way?

That is not obviously so. Spellings and proposed origins are fairly all over the place.

I actually purposefully try not to use sesquipedalian language much anymore ( ;) ) because I'm always afraid it's going to come off as pompous, and moreover nothing is worse than someone who learned a new fancy word but is using it incorrectly. Well, one thing is worse: when you're that person.

Of course I'll simplify the language I use when talking to people who have limited English skills, like kids or others learning the language.

Sesquipedalian means use of very long words, not quite the same as using a rich vocabulary.

> incorrectly

I sometimes pronounce words incorrectly that I'm very familiar with. What happened was I read the word a lot, yet had never heard it spoken. My mind would make up a pronunciation as I read, and eventually thought that was the real pronunciation.

I wasn't referring to pronunciation, but rather the word having a slightly different meaning than how it's being used.

The concept of "U English" vs. "non-U English" was written about in the '50s. Don't say "pardon?", say "what?" or you'll be marked as a commoner ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English

The US has had a long history of anti-intellctualism[1], and in the 1950's "egghead" was popularized as a term of abuse against intellectuals.[2]

It's possible that the popular disdain towards the use of long words in the US is related to this anti-intellectual attitude.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_Americ...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egghead

When I first studied at an English university (having been halfway through a linguistics program in Germany) my fellow students said I "sound like a book".

As being told that is embarrassing, one quickly adjusts...

(Nice examples here on HN, like "utilize the periphery of the barbecue" [to place one more sausage on it].)

But a latter move to the US led to a repeat ("Hey dude, you talk like an alien?! Goofball!!") although the British accent was well liked.

> I try to use a five cent word when even a five dollar word would do

"Short words are best, and old words when short are best of all." -- Winston Churchill

Minuscle locutions are preferable, and superannuated locutions are pre-eminent

> pet peeves is hearing people using the word "utilize"

This battle is lost, but mine is "proceeded to". People seem to feel like it makes them sound more official - "He proceeded to enter the room, and he then proceeded to sit down." Once you start noticing it it's everywhere.

It's one of the things people do when they're making fun of cop-speak. Cops are the best example of people who are trying to make what they say sound official, but instead just make it long-winded and bizarre.

> Just say "use"! It sounds far less pretentious and means the exact same thing.

I shall avail myself of that advice.

In Romanian "a utiliza" is "to use". I imagine it's the same in other Latin languages. So, see the original comment :-)

I'm talking about native English speakers. It's not as grating if it comes from a non-native speaker, who you know hasn't mastered the language yet. When a native speaker says it, it feels like they should know better and are intentionally trying to make themselves sound smart.

I think a lot of the usage you reference is blindly picked up in corporate environments, and has little to do with trying to 'sound smart'. My wife laughs at my vocabulary on my Zoom calls. After listening to myself, I have to agree.

So what I'm hearing is that your ask for everyone is to not leverage obvious linguistic synergies in order to enhance the listening experience?

Romanian is an example of the exact same thing. It did not inherit a utiliza from Latin, rather it borrowed it in the 19th century from French utiliser, because French was viewed as the posh and intellectual language then. Before that, for ‘to use’ Romanians just used the (Greek loan)word a folosi, which is generally more common than a utiliza even today.

I think a better correspondence is "a utiliza" -> "to utilize" and "a folosi" -> "to use".

Edit: Mediterraneo10 explains it better.

> try to use fancy words

As a non-native speaker of English, one that I have never grasped is the overuse of the word "vehicle" to mean "car". It's extremely common, but not sure why. It's just a car, why call it a "vehicle"?

I understand it in the very generalized context of, say, the DMV. It's the dept. of motor vehicles because they handle cars but also trucks, vans, commercial haulers, even boats.

But not sure why someone says "I bought a vehicle" when really they just bought a car.

People here wouldn't do that so maybe it's more of a US thing. It seems to be a common affectation from police to sound authoritative by using words like this, and that's all over the news and TV. Maybe it leaked from there into the general population.

I'd use "vehicle" to be more general than "car". If I just bought one, I'd know whether I bought car, truck, SUV(ehicle), etc. Although, in some cases, you might say "car" generically if the distinction doesn't matter. Also, "vehicle" sounds a bit more formal, so if I were giving, say, a deposition, I might say that. I can't say that I think people around here overuse the term.

(Midwest USA)

> Just say "use"! It sounds far less pretentious and means the exact same thing.

It's a pet peeve as well, but they don't mean the exact same thing; you "use" a doorstop to hold a door open, you "utilize" a shoe as a doorstop. "util - ize", to turn something into a utility, in a way that it wasn't before. Use an umbrella, utilize a leaf as an umbrella. Use email, utilize email as file transfer system.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-utilize-a-w...

"you "use" a doorstop to hold a door open, you "utilize" a shoe as a doorstop."

Really?

Because I'd use a shoe as a doorstop.

I'd never "utilize" anything.

Update: Well, on doing a bit of research in to this instead of just using my intuition, I found that you're absolutely right about the special meaning of the word "utilize", according to a number of sources like [1].

I guess I must have been too hard on those people who were properly using the word.

Still, a survey of articles on these terms shows I'm far from the only one for whom the word "utilize" sounds pretentious, so in ordinary, non-specialist language I'd still err on the side of caution and use the word "use", which can in fact be used correctly everywhere "utilize" is used.

There's a good discussion of various points of view on this issue in [2].

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-utilize-a-w...

[2] - https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19811/using-util...

Would you say you are trying to foster communication by using the lowest common denominator with regards to your choice in words?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com