Are you capable of expressing yourself in simplified English?

[scaltz]

I know this question may be bizarre...or even utterly weird for some but do you guys still have this ability to explain things in a simplified manner like you did when you were still a child?

I mean I'm literally having a hard time trying to summarize a single chapter to a foreign class. For instance, I have to find a substitute for the word latter for they don't know what this word means. Also, they aren't familiar to some connectives which forces me to use the same connective over and over again which is quite tiring and annoying...for me and for the teacher, I mean who would be happy hearing the same word repeated for possibly a hundred of times in two minutes?!

[L.M. The Third]

Probably not. And I don't want to be. I like using abstruse words and jargon. (But I already know I don't want to work with children.)

[Niamh]

I find life is easier if i keep my speach simplified. :)

[applepie]

I would say yes, because the things that I say are easy for me to understand. Taking into account that my son asks me, at least once a day, what I mean by things and my daughter gives me blank stares I think it is safe to assume that what seems easy for me to understand really isn't simple english :D

[JuniperWoolf]

I love dumbing down my language.

[Revolte]

It's hard to say really. My friends are rather smart, but most of the time we speek pretty plain, but when we don't we still understand each other. Most people I try to meet don't hold up much of a conversation, so I wouldn't know lol.

[Niamh]

I think in some cases over intellectualising your speech is not necessary and can come across as being pretentious. Most of the people i know who go on like they've swallowed a dictionary or two speak like that because they think it makes them "better" then everyone else. It doesnt. It just makes them looks smug and elitest and can be highly annoying most of the time, especially when they are talking to people who speak english as a second language.

[kasie]

For years I had the opposite problem - after years of teaching five to seven year olds, I automatically used short, simple words. Not only that, I developed the tendency to say the same things three times in three different ways. I was eventually cured by Himself who started to say 'Yes, Miss' to everything I said to him.:biggrin5:

[OrphanPip]

I already speak like an illiterate valley girl, so there's no need to dumb down my vocabulary, like really.

[L.M. The Third]

I think in some cases over intellectualising your speech is not necessary and can come across as being pretentious. Most of the people i know who go on like they've swallowed a dictionary or two speak like that because they think it makes them "better" then everyone else. It doesnt. It just makes them looks smug and elitest and can be highly annoying most of the time, especially when they are talking to people who speak english as a second language.

You are, of course, right. So although I'm proud of my knowledge of words, I'm really not as proud as I sound about my too frequent use of little-known ones. I still do it though, because I'm a solipsistic, narcissistic, egotistical youth.
Though I would really, truly love to "swallow the dictionary"! :biggrin5: I'm reading through it right now.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think in some cases over intellectualising your speech is not necessary and can come across as being pretentious.

I always thought that people who use excessive superfluous language sounded kinda dumb. You could totally picture them sitting at home with a thesaurus practicing the pronunciation. Lame.

[applepie]

I think in some cases over intellectualising your speech is not necessary and can come across as being pretentious. Most of the people i know who go on like they've swallowed a dictionary or two speak like that because they think it makes them "better" then everyone else. It doesnt. It just makes them looks smug and elitest and can be highly annoying most of the time, especially when they are talking to people who speak english as a second language.

The problem I run into, is that people who speak English as a second language are often taught quite proper english. My speech isn't as bad as some people in the U.S. but my meaning isn't always carried through. Regional slang makes things very difficult. Just think of this example. I had someone come up and ask me for a "fag" once. I gave a blank stare, because I simply had no idea what they were talking of, and here it is considered a derogatory name for someone who is gay. Turns out they just wanted a "smoke" (i.e. ciggarette). When I speak properly here, though, I'm all too often seen as being pretentious and I almost need to hand someone a dictionary.

[Niamh]

Oh we use fag in Ireland for both a cig or a gay person. We also use smoke.
Yeah a lot of them are taught what we call text book english, and english just doesnt work that way. I've met a few who were good English students but thought structure completely wrong. "Can you give to me..." Is one i get often. Or they use one word to associate with a broad range. Nervous to talk about being in a state of emotion and not for being nervous.
Loads use phonetics. I had an arguement with someone once over the pronunciation of Dublin. Basically was told that the Irish cant even pronounce their city right. Phonetics doesnt take into consideration the anglocisation of some words, and most places in Ireland are anglocised from the irish. Words still have a Gaelic pronounciation but an english spelling and Dublin falls into this. Dublin comes from Dubh Linn (Black Pool) Dub pronounced with like you are about to say dove but with a B instead of a v.

[Revolte]

Oh we use fag in Ireland for both a cig or a gay person. We also use smoke.
Yeah a lot of them are taught what we call text book english, and english just doesnt work that way. I've met a few who were good English students but thought structure completely wrong. "Can you give to me..." Is one i get often. Or they use one word to associate with a broad range. Nervous to talk about being in a state of emotion and not for being nervous.
Loads use phonetics. I had an arguement with someone once over the pronunciation of Dublin. Basically was told that the Irish cant even pronounce their city right. Phonetics doesnt take into consideration the anglocisation of some words, and most places in Ireland are anglocised from the irish. Words still have a Gaelic pronounciation but an english spelling and Dublin falls into this. Dublin comes from Dubh Linn (Black Pool) Dub pronounced with like you are about to say dove.

I had no idea that dublin had any real pronounciation, I just thought it was dublin. the dubliners even sing it like that O.O or maybe I'm just not puting any thought into it lol.

I do have to say though that "can you give to me..." would make me laugh, not in any "haha your dumb" kind of way, just that it makes me want to laugh a bit, I'm sure I've said far worse, plenty of times.

[blazeofglory]

English is an international language today and with this it has many varieties depending on where it is used. There are some purists who think English should purely be used the way native speakers use it. They do not want to accept deviations from the standards they frame for it. They sneer at the way the rest of speakers from other communities. They use pomposity in their expressions by profuse use of big and difficult words and complicated sentence structures.

I personally use English as a second language and I have to use to go across a wider audience in fact or else I will be confined within my national boundary. In my case the use of English is limited to sheer communication and While it comes to writing poems or fiction I feel more comfortable with my native language.

Maybe I will have to translate my fictional works into English so that I can have a larger readership or I will have my readers on a global scale. But the problem facing me is the style of English.

All I feel is that English should be used in a way that many language communities can use it comfortably as a second language and it should not be only in the hands of conceited native speakers, making it a great global language. The Mantra to this end is make it simpler, free of quirky purists' notions of English. I was often considered low profile just because I use a different variety even on this forum and these few native English speakers have a superiority complex

I think English must be used in a simple way and one should be open no matter whether he is a native speaker or a non-native speaker.

[applepie]

Oh we use fag in Ireland for both a cig or a gay person. We also use smoke.
Yeah a lot of them are taught what we call text book english, and english just doesnt work that way. I've met a few who were good English students but thought structure completely wrong. "Can you give to me..." Is one i get often.

I had never heard the term used that way, so I was pretty confused and not sure if I needed to take offense :D

I get that a lot as well. It makes sense. Our sentence structure is reversed from that in many other languages. I've heard that it is one of the more difficult languages to learn, but since I grew up speaking it learning a bit of French gave me fits.

[Niamh]

i just realised it should have read "can you give for me", not "to me" (which does make some sense)

[Maximilianus]

I'm not especially prone to difficult speech. However, I strongly believe that if a word exists, there should be someone to use it. I always enjoy finding new words and trying to incorporate them to my regular vocabulary, though I realize it's not exactly the habit of most students. When I was spending my first years of English studies, I often found myself being stared at in wonder when I used a word my classmates didn't know, as though they were saying "this guy came up with a nonexistent term". By the time, it seems that the only two people aware of "comprehend" being a synonym for "understand" were the teacher and me. Oh well, always doomed to be the black sheep :p Fortunately, I never made up such fictional terms like "bejesus" or "wobbles" :D


Yeah a lot of them are taught what we call text book english, and english just doesnt work that way. I've met a few who were good English students but thought structure completely wrong. "Can you give to me..." Is one i get often. Or they use one word to associate with a broad range. Nervous to talk about being in a state of emotion and not for being nervous.
Loads use phonetics. I had an arguement with someone once over the pronunciation of Dublin. Basically was told that the Irish cant even pronounce their city right. Phonetics doesnt take into consideration the anglocisation of some words, and most places in Ireland are anglocised from the irish. Words still have a Gaelic pronounciation but an english spelling and Dublin falls into this. Dublin comes from Dubh Linn (Black Pool) Dub pronounced with like you are about to say dove but with a B instead of a v.

Text books can be blamed for people having a narrow linguistic mind. Or people can be blamed for believing that the only linguistics they will ever need reside only within the boundaries of textbooks and nowhere else. I would rather adhere to the latter, IMHO.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that Dublin is the black pool of the Irish, and therefore the Irish should decide how to pronounce their own black pool. After all, it's theirs, right? :D

[L.M. The Third]

I'm not especially prone to difficult speech. However, I strongly believe that if a word exists, there should be someone to use it. I always enjoy finding new words and trying to incorporate them to my regular vocabulary, though I realize it's not exactly the habit of most students. When I was spending my first years of English studies, I often found myself being stared at in wonder when I used a word my classmates didn't know, as though they were saying "this guy came up with a nonexistent term". By the time, it seems that the only two people aware of "comprehend" being a synonym for "understand" were the teacher and me. Oh well, always doomed to be the black sheep :p Fortunately, I never made up such fictional terms like "bejesus" or "wobbles" :D



:iagree:
I was very pleased when I used the word ubiquitous in conversation lately, and got an intelligent reply, also using the word, without raised eyebrows, or pleas for an explanation.

In my speech class, a man was cited who uses many uncommon words, but always explains them to his audience. This, I was told, was the correct method. I'll admit to a certain recalcitrance in this regard, as I question why I should use the words if I must give an explanation half-way through my sentence. I suppose the use of long words is more pardonable in writing, when they may be looked up, than in everyday conversation.

[The Comedian]

Can I express myself in simplified English? Can I ever!

I want beer! Women! Beer! Books!

Ahh. . .Happy.

[Maximilianus]

I was very pleased when I used the word ubiquitous in conversation lately, and got an intelligent reply, also using the word, without raised eyebrows, or pleas for an explanation.
Satisfaction from using words comes when everyone knows them :nod:


In my speech class, a man was cited who uses many uncommon words, but always explains them to his audience. This, I was told, was the correct method. I'll admit to a certain recalcitrance in this regard, as I question why I should use the words if I must give an explanation half-way through my sentence.
I agree with this. I wouldn't feel comfortable if I had to throw an explanation for every used term. It just interrupts the flow of the conversation, but I guess there's no other choice if you are obliged to talk to people with a scarce vocabulary.


I suppose the use of long words is more pardonable in writing, when they may be looked up, than in everyday conversation.
Maybe, though I keep thinking that scarce vocabulary is a personal choice whose effects are evident even if you use the most democratic words of the language. There are people with whom communication is utterly impossible.

[L.M. The Third]

I wouldn't feel comfortable if I had to throw an explanation for every used term. It just interrupts the flow of the conversation, but I guess there's no other choice if you are obliged to talk to people with a scarce vocabulary.


I agree that vocabularies are simply not even reasonably expansive today.When I began to think about it, I was surprised at how many words I habitually passed over, without knowing their meaning.

I can see both sides of the 'argument', if it is fair to call it such. In the same speech class in which I was being told to simplify, the reason was given that back 30 years ago some studies showed that the average person thought on a 13 year old level. (Now I really don't wish to start an argument over this. I don't have the statistics.) So, sometimes our limited vocabularies are due to mental laziness.

At the same time, I can see how pretentious it can seem to be talking to a person of average or limited education, etc. and be using eight syllable words.

The 'answer' is to know something of our audience, I guess. I'm occasionally coerced into playing Scheherazade (not as in our dear forum mod!) to a roomful of obstreperous children. So I was reading a book about improving story telling and it was giving examples of vocabulary usage for age groups. Rather interesting.

College: "The revolving succession of diurnal and nocturnal intervals, elemental as it may appear in our scheme of life, is yet a phenomenon inviting not only the deepest researches in science but also the most profound celebrations in philosophy."

Ordinary Adult: "Every morning is a miracle. We watch the sun go down at night, we see it come up at the dawn... " etc.

Child (I'd say small child, lol) : "Good morning, merry Sunshine! How did you wake so soon? You scare the little stars away, and shine away the moon..." etc.

Personally, I have an almost insurmountable difficulty telling a story in a toddler's vocabulary. And even when I'm preparing stories for children, I find myself questioning the appropriateness of the words I'm using. To adults, hopefully I can still speak comprehensibly. But now I'm rambling, so must stop.

[Maximilianus]

I agree that vocabularies are simply not even reasonably expansive today. When I began to think about it, I was surprised at how many words I habitually passed over, without knowing their meaning.
It often so happens. I think it can be solved by developing the habit of immediately picking up a dictionary, as soon as one spots an unknown term :nod: It's what I've been doing since almost one year ago, when I joined this forum, though I confess the aforementioned habit to need some further polish :p


I can see both sides of the 'argument', if it is fair to call it such. In the same speech class in which I was being told to simplify, the reason was given that back 30 years ago some studies showed that the average person thought on a 13 year old level. (Now I really don't wish to start an argument over this. I don't have the statistics.) So, sometimes our limited vocabularies are due to mental laziness.
Statistics or not, in my opinion it's very reasonable to talk about mental laziness :nod:


College: "The revolving succession of diurnal and nocturnal intervals, elemental as it may appear in our scheme of life, is yet a phenomenon inviting not only the deepest researches in science but also the most profound celebrations in philosophy."

Ordinary Adult: "Every morning is a miracle. We watch the sun go down at night, we see it come up at the dawn... " etc.

Child (I'd say small child, lol) : "Good morning, merry Sunshine! How did you wake so soon? You scare the little stars away, and shine away the moon..." etc.
Outstanding example. Thanks for sharing it http://smiles.kolobok.us/artists/just_cuz/JC_goodpost.gif


Personally, I have an almost insurmountable difficulty telling a story in a toddler's vocabulary. And even when I'm preparing stories for children, I find myself questioning the appropriateness of the words I'm using. To adults, hopefully I can still speak comprehensibly. But now I'm rambling, so must stop.
No rambling at all. It's been an instructive conversation :nod: I too have experienced the almost insurmountable difficulty of trying to talk to children. One can never be so sure of what they will understand. However, I think that our duty as adults is to let them know what they ignore, so that they don't ignore it anymore. Still, I admit it's quite an art to teach a toddler, as they have their own ways of life :p and the people who do it with patience and utmost skill are worthy of admiration.

[L.M. The Third]

It often so happens. I think it can be solved by developing the habit of immediately picking up a dictionary, as soon as one spots an unknown term :nod: It's what I've been doing since almost one year ago, when I joined this forum, though I confess the aforementioned habit to need some further polish :p


I've been doing that (and writing the words in a notebook) for only a few months now, and it's astounding how many new words I've learned in a short period of time. One of my friends also uses a notebook, but claims she still can't remember a lot of the words. I find I remember them more if I use them a few times.

And I too really admire those who can speak to small children on their level. It's not something I can do well, so think it is a gift.

[Maximilianus]

I've been doing that (and writing the words in a notebook) for only a few months now, and it's astounding how many new words I've learned in a short period of time. One of my friends also uses a notebook, but claims she still can't remember a lot of the words. I find I remember them more if I use them a few times.
Exactly. It's easier to remember what we use frequently, as it is easier to forget what we don't use on a regular basis.

[Scheherazade]

I want beer! Women! Beer! Books!
What kind of books?

[Themis]

I know this question may be bizarre...or even utterly weird for some but do you guys still have this ability to explain things in a simplified manner like you did when you were still a child?


Is that a trick question?

(Sorry. But that's what most people do who learned their English at school.)

[scaltz]

Is that a trick question?

(Sorry. But that's what most people do who learned their English at school.)

Yes but what I mean is when you start to speak eloquently, don't you start to forget to express yourself, or explain things in a simplistic manner? For example, not using the word "like" anymore because you don't know how to speak--or rather forgot how to speak the 'like' language. Or using your vocabulary to your advantage instead of saying "it" in a repetitive fashion because it sounds ugly and repetitive.

[Themis]

I know what you meant. ;)

[Madame X]

I was very pleased when I used the word ubiquitous in conversation lately, and got an intelligent reply, also using the word, without raised eyebrows, or pleas for an explanation.

I hear ya; I’ve been waiting years for a chance to use ‘defenestrate’ in a sentence. This sort of counts, I suppose, but then it doesn’t really prove that I know what it means…but, I swear, I do, I do! :D

[OrphanPip]

For example, not using the word "like" anymore because you don't know how to speak--or rather forgot how to speak the 'like' language.

I honestly revert into that kind of language all the time, it depends on the sort of people you're around. I don't speak the same at work as I do with my family or friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnVE3UTIgEM

[Maximilianus]

Yes but what I mean is when you start to speak eloquently, don't you start to forget to express yourself, or explain things in a simplistic manner? For example, not using the word "like" anymore because you don't know how to speak--or rather forgot how to speak the 'like' language. Or using your vocabulary to your advantage instead of saying "it" in a repetitive fashion because it sounds ugly and repetitive.
Yes, repetitions are very common among people who have little vocabulary, or who have a difficulty to devise a rather meaningful sentence. However, a good sentence doesn't have to be excessively complicated. I think there is a midterm between bad and too good language, and such a midterm is good language. I believe it's a matter of mental laziness not to reach such a midterm, and it can be solved through some mental/linguistic exercise :)


I hear ya; I’ve been waiting years for a chance to use ‘defenestrate’ in a sentence. This sort of counts, I suppose, but then it doesn’t really prove that I know what it means…but, I swear, I do, I do! :D
We believe you, or at least I do. You seem to know what it means. Otherwise you wouldn't have used such a word, being quite infrequent in regular speech as far as I have heard it used :nod: good for you :thumbsup:


I honestly revert into that kind of language all the time, it depends on the sort of people you're around. I don't speak the same at work as I do with my family or friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnVE3UTIgEM

Makes sense :nod: However, someone should tell valley girls there are other words than "like" :p

[JuniperWoolf]

Sometimes I revert to pretentious, over-intellectualize language when I argue. I think it might be a stupid attempt at jackass intimidation on my part.

[Satan]

Are you capable of expressing yourself in simplified English?
After a decade of learning a dozen artificial languages and interacting with people from across the globe -- yeah, very much so.

[Paulclem]

Yes but what I mean is when you start to speak eloquently, don't you start to forget to express yourself, or explain things in a simplistic manner? For example, not using the word "like" anymore because you don't know how to speak--or rather forgot how to speak the 'like' language. Or using your vocabulary to your advantage instead of saying "it" in a repetitive fashion because it sounds ugly and repetitive.

By "like language", do you mean people who constantly repeat the word like all the time like?

If you do, then its called a phatic word - and it's used to fill in the gaps whilst our brain catches up with our mouths. Prince Charles - now he never says like or anything comon like that, but he does go errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr for an inordinately long time while his brain is catching up. it just that he's been to elocution school where they forbid you to say like or y'know, but they positively encourage errrrrr. :D

[Maximilianus]

By "like language", do you mean people who constantly repeat the word like all the time like?

If you do, then its called a phatic word - and it's used to fill in the gaps whilst our brain catches up with our mouths.
That's the term I was looking for, phatic word. Thanks Paul.


Prince Charles - now he never says like or anything common like that, but he does go errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr for an inordinately long time while his brain is catching up. it just that he's been to elocution school where they forbid you to say like or y'know, but they positively encourage errrrrr. :D
:D

[Propter W.]

Yes but what I mean is when you start to speak eloquently, don't you start to forget to express yourself, or explain things in a simplistic manner? For example, not using the word "like" anymore because you don't know how to speak--or rather forgot how to speak the 'like' language. Or using your vocabulary to your advantage instead of saying "it" in a repetitive fashion because it sounds ugly and repetitive.

Using "like" or "you know" fifteen times in a sentence isn't simplified English. These phatic words will not necessarily make your language more easily accessible. They might even hinder clarity.

When you are addressing a group of non-natives speakers it is important to adjust your language accordingly. In my opinion it's a good exercise to think about how you can express yourself clearly and concisely in plain language. Because if you can't express yourself clearly in simple terms, it says a lot about your command of the language as well.

[blazeofglory]

I never thought about writing in Complex English, since English is not my mother tongue and expressing things in complex English is unthinkable for me. I do not know difficult or bombastically big word. I do not like to be a hypocrite. Or I have no arrogance at all. I put forth my ideas in such a way the majority understand it.

I know some of the conceited writers who write for the intellectual few and the majority uncared

[Patrick_Bateman]

If I was forced to for the benefit of a class of foreign or remedial students. Then yes I think I could.

But I love the English language and literature and the extensive personal lexicon it has bequeathed to me to be restrained in my use of it. Vanity may play a part but overall it is to help perpetuate older and antiquated words and to improve my eloquence. (I sometimes have trouble articulating ideas or explaining something coherently when asked. I even develop a slight stammer and start talking too quickly, not because of any confidence issues as I was used to talking in front of 200 other soldiers and love to be the centre of attention but more because everything comes to the forefront of my mind all at once and so it all tries to come out at once.)

It makes me sound like a right 'tard sometimes :p