So there is no reason for our youth to use/learn/spell words you have never heard of. It is a part of academic discipline. It is part of communication, poetry, literature. No, spelling words will not get you a job- but I suspect the mind training that occurs at this age will be useful in their futures. I don't know- has anyone ever looked at the top winners and see what they did as they progressed?
I don't know why golf is on tv every weekend.
Gary

I've never watched golf either. I don't recall saying anything about not teaching kids to spell. I just don't see why spelling bees are a big deal or why people are impressed to hear words they don't know the meaning of and will never use.

I guess others do care? I certainly do, and think it is good that at least such a basic academic skill is promoted. The spelling bee is probably as far as any knowledge-based programming could go in this country (other than Jeopardy!).

Would you get excited about watching a bunch of high-schoolers in a true academic team contest - you know discussing complex geometry/calculus, Platonic philosophy, or Babylonian archeology? They actually have those kind of televised contests in Europe (and I'm guessing in various other countries), but I doubt would ever fly here. Simply because the general public would rather watch mindless ball chasing and don't have the chops to understand/remember the answers to some of the questions.

Ultimately, if academics is accorded the same attention that sports has had in this country, maybe our schools (and parents) will produce more scientists, engineers, philosphers etc that help the US stay ahead of the rest of the world in something other than baseball; "The World Series" - please how ethnocentric. The closest to that is Little League, and the US always gets beat by Cuba or Japan (OK, maybe not always)...

[QUOTE=Rick Lee;3976671,,,or why people are impressed to hear words they don't know the meaning of and will never use.[/QUOTE]

When I hear a word that I don't know the meaning of, I'm usually curious and inclined to look it up if I can't figure out what it means from the context it's used in.

I think having an impressive vocabulary is just that; impressive. It's also usually indicative that the speaker is bright. People with limited vocabularies abound and I don't look down on them nor am I condescending when I'm talking to such a person. I try, above all, to communicate effectively, not to impress or intimidate.

I do get irritated with people who use their vocabulary to "speak down" to people, knowing that they are talking "over their heads". That's just boorish and rude in my book.

Just out of curiosity, what are some words that you don't know the meaning of and if you did, would never use?

Daifinguator? :D

When someone speaks to others in words they themselves know their audience won't understand, I'd call that ineffective communication at best and arrogance at worst. My wife isn't a native English speaker and I certainly don't speak to her in the same manner in which my dad and I trade wits via email, dissecting this or that newspaper article or book. It's a real talent to be able to get one's point across with the smallest number of truly meaningful words. I call it thrift and brevity. But I've not been moved to look up a word I didn't know unless it was one I'd heard several times and it started bugging me that I should know it.

Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings:

"If I had more time I would have written you a shorter letter"

I can't think of any at the moment, but I usually come across them when I see the Nat. Spelling Bee on the news. Kinda like the SCOTUS's definition of porn - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

BTW, I'm far more impressed by good grammar and polished prose (how's that for alliteration?) than big words. Grammatically correct writing is a far better measure of one's command of a language than is knowing big words.

Exactly. I had a guy writing a deliverable for a client that did stuff like that. All $10 words and couldn't convey the basic meaning. I discussed it with him and he'd speak that way as well. Made me want to punch him. :)

I agree that to be grammatically correct is essential (and I won't turn you in for allitering :)), but a broad vocabulary enriches communication, be it conversation, literature or poetry.

I have, however, always wondered why "abbreviation" is such a big word :D.

Damn you, kstarnes!
:D

I agree - to quote myself "I do get irritated with people who use their vocabulary to "speak down" to people, knowing that they are talking "over their heads". That's just boorish and rude in my book."

This thread reads like a Seinfeld script but without the humor. :p

Good points for conversational language.

As was pointed out by you previously, prose and poetry are perfectly appropriate media for all kinds of "extreme" words. Writers should not have to dumb down their language to fit the most common denominator. The works of Shakespeare, Milton and Donne, among others, would certainly sucketh if that was the case.

Isn't OT just our version of paipai?

Big words are relative, but they often convey more meaning and subtlety than their everyday counterpart.

I write technical material for the masses, and that means writing to the 6th grade level (short sentences, minimal use of multi-syllable words, etc.) Would you like all the material you read composed at that level? If so, you probably read at the 6th grade level.

I think the above is more descriptive than elitist. BTW, if you read at a 6th grade level, I'd probably have to recompose the previous sentence.

Sherwood

Perhaps you just don't see it due to a cloudiness of your aqueous humor? :)

askew obsfucation...

I had a sweet piece of paipai once :).

Funny:). I'll raise ya one; eschew askew obfuscation.