zlacker

>>cosmoj+(OP)
I couldn't disagree more with this piece, especially the idea of a "draft #4" where you go through what you've written and replace all "pedestrian" words with less common ones from the dictionary. I know these writers, and how they "write" - it's painful to read and oozes pretentiousness. You can always tell when someone tries to fake having a wider vocabulary.

>>suctio+l9
The whole point here is not to mindlessly replace words but to be able to find words that more accurately describe what you are trying to convey. The expanded definitions and examples are great starting points for digging deeper into both the language and the underlying motivation.

>>adzm+Fa
I understand it wasn't meant to be "mindlessly", I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

Still, if you don't have the more accurate word in your vocabulary, then don't use it. It will sound stilted and unnatural in the context of your sentence.

>>suctio+cb
There’s an important subtlety here — you’re meant to be replacing the words that don’t sit right with you. Your starting point is that it’s already potentially stilted and unnatural and you’re trying to fix that.

Most importantly though — this is a tool, and not a replacement for taste and judgment. Seen from that perspective, it’s a much more potent tool than what a traditional dictionary offers.

>>pdpi+Sb
To quibble a bit, in American English, Webster's is the traditional dictionary. That's why most American English dictionaries have "Webster" in their name, even if, as Somers writes, their "contents bear no relation to Webster’s original." It's the leaden, imprecise form of definition Somers criticizes that is a break with Webster's tradition.

>>kragen+Ic
Hah, that is, perhaps, a perfect example of the article’s point!

“Conventional” might’ve been a better choice of word than “traditional”, or something else that better conveys the meaning of “in common usage today”, without the “in the olden days” baggage that comes with “traditional”

>>pdpi+Ke
"common"