Sometimes my college freshmen tell me that they use a thesaurus to find synonyms, so that they don’t have to use the same word all the time. Using the same word, they’ve been told, is repetitive, and repetition is bad. Well, that’s complete nonsense. I’ll turn to repetition in later lessons. For now, I imagine Jesus saying:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Those who mourn are going to be happy too, because they will be comforted.
The inheritance of the earth will belong to the meek, and that will be most fortunate for them.
People who hunger for righteousness will experience a favorable state of affairs . . .
Anyway, Thesaurus polytropus is a wily old dinosaur. He doesn’t attack head on. He baits his prey by leaving in open view the carcasses of words, and just when you think you’re going to enjoy an easy meal—no hunting, no skinning—pounce! He’s got you by the throat.
The thing is, very few words are really synonymous with one another. This makes English especially baffling for non-native speakers. English is phenomenally rich in words, from the Germanic foundations, from the Viking variants, from the French by way of the Norman Conquest; words borrowed or invented from Latin and Greek from the Renaissance to this day; we even borrow ways of making new words. No language has as many words as English does. No language is even close.
So we use words that are sort-of-synonymous, but assign them to special areas of meaning, with differences in nuance. Look at a few “synonyms” for big: large, vast, massive, enormous, great, gargantuan. Put them in sentences:
Elsie is a big woman on the committee.
The distance between Earth and its moon is vast.
The elephant’s shoulders are massive, weighing hundreds of pounds.
Mr. Calhoun wears large pants.
The football player put away a gargantuan supper.
It’s a great deal.
Now change them around:
Elsie is a large woman on the committee.
The distance between Earth and its moon is massive.
The elephant’s shoulders are vast, weighing hundreds of pounds.
Mr. Calhoun wears gargantuan pants.
The football player put away a great supper.
It’s a big deal.
Different, eh?




January 12th, 2013 | 10:14 am
Wonderful! I use the Thesaurus to find a more descriptive word, not to hide the beauty of selective repetition. Your selection of the Beatitudes to illustrate your point was perfect.
January 12th, 2013 | 10:44 am
Very helpful. Can you clarify why the elephant’s shoulders are not properly vast? Granted they’re not comparable to astronomical distances, but aren’t they vast *as shoulders go*?
January 12th, 2013 | 7:34 pm
Pentamom: “Vast” generally connotes a great expanse or extent – of space, distance, etc., so it’s not nearly as apropos for an elephant as “massive.”
January 12th, 2013 | 9:05 pm
RE: Pentamom and “vast.”
In my ear, “vast” suggests a feeling of large emptiness. A room is vast and the Milky Way is vast, but both are mostly empty although their dimensions are large. I surely would not say that a room was massive.
January 12th, 2013 | 10:59 pm
On “vast”: It comes from the Latin stock, and suggests wide open wastelands, waste distances, waste emptiness in outer space, and so forth (it is indeed cognate with English “waste”). “Massive” means “great in mass,” and suggests heaviness and bulk.
January 13th, 2013 | 12:15 am
Massive also connotes heavy, and that fits the elephant.
January 13th, 2013 | 5:42 am
True synonyms are rare, but they exist, “furze” and “gorse,” for instance.
January 13th, 2013 | 3:58 pm
Yes, I understood why massive was best, but not why vast was inappropriate. I’d never realized that it had the connotation of empty expanse. Thanks!
January 13th, 2013 | 7:03 pm
English will not be corraled.
January 14th, 2013 | 1:27 pm
I recall taking a “Writing Clarity” course some years ago, during which the leader insisted that we should use the most common “synonym” for less familiar words, in order to simplify our writing. I pointed out that “sashay” and “lurk” might both by broadly equated to walk, but would hardly imbue the text with the same meaning. Still not sure that she understood my point.
January 14th, 2013 | 2:04 pm
“When European colonists first arrived in the Americas, the skies could be filled for days by vast flocks of passenger pigeons.” Vast does imply spatial extent, but not necessarily emptiness.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact