Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
I would agree completely with that gentleman...and it is part of why "law" as a whole field is so difficult.SerScot wrote:Vraith,
A gentleman I went to Law School with made a strong case that there are no true synonims in the English Language. Everything has a slightly different meaning and connotation therefore they are not truely synonmus.
I remember hearing about this in reference to Hemingway. Didn't he use "utilize" in ways that made this point explicit? Or was he saying the opposite? Being ironic?Vraith wrote: One example of the "rule" I remember was "don't say "utilize" when "use" will do...
"Use" and "utilize" are two verbs with distinct meanings. Don't confuse them.
"Use" is to employ objects for the purposes they were designed for.
"Utilize," on the other hand, is to employ objects for unintended purposes.
Authoritative proof:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb use as "to make use of (some immaterial thing) as a means or instrument; to employ for a certain end or purpose."
But utilize is defined as "to make or render useful; to convert to use, turn to account."
MSN Encarta Dictionary defines to utilize as "to make use of something, or find a practical or effective use for something."
And here is the logical proof of the crucial distinction between these two verbs: the logical extreme of "use" is "abuse," referring to the act of using something in ways that is contradictory to its original "mission statement" or designed function.
But there is no corresponding logical extreme for "utilize" like, let's say, "disutilize" or "abutilize" since by its very definition, to utilize something means to use it in ways that is different than the purpose for which it was originally designed or created. "Abuse," so to speak, is a built-in semantic component of "utilize."
WRONG: "The TV set utilizes coaxial cable to connect to the antenna." (A TV unit and a coaxial cable were meant to be used together, by definition.)
CORRECT: "The TV set uses coaxial cable to connect to the antenna.
CORRECT: "The TV set utilizes paper clips to connect to the antenna." (A TV set is not designed to use paper clips to connect to the antenna. That's a highly unusual improvisation and -- in the stretched sense of the word -- an "abuse" of paper clips.)
I've read his answer, but I'm not sure I see the distinction. A thesaurus is a word list, too. If these are words which are regular parts of his own vocabulary, why does he have to make a list of them? We don't usually make lists of words we already know and use. And if he has to look them up in his list, what's the difference between that and looking them up in a list someone else compiled (i.e. a thesaurus)?Seareach wrote:No. He doesn't. He compiles word lists. He said something about it in the GI once.
It's the difference between learning about a hammer in use, or by pointing and naming one in a toolbox. It's really just a process thing...the two reinforce each other...as a pragmatic, educational matter though, vocab through exposure/reading is in all ways superior to memorized vocab lists.Zarathustra wrote:I've read his answer, but I'm not sure I see the distinction. A thesaurus is a word list, too. If these are words which are regular parts of his own vocabulary, why does he have to make a list of them? We don't usually make lists of words we already know and use. And if he has to look them up in his list, what's the difference between that and looking them up in a list someone else compiled (i.e. a thesaurus)?Seareach wrote:No. He doesn't. He compiles word lists. He said something about it in the GI once.
Ok, yep Z. I'll agree with that, although I think its kinda different in the sense that he doesn't go out of his way, flipping through a thesaurus to be clever. And if you actually look up these words (the obscure ones), most of the time (imo) they're absolutely perfect for what he's trying to convey.Vraith wrote:It's the difference between learning about a hammer in use, or by pointing and naming one in a toolbox. It's really just a process thing...the two reinforce each other...as a pragmatic, educational matter though, vocab through exposure/reading is in all ways superior to memorized vocab lists.Zarathustra wrote:I've read his answer, but I'm not sure I see the distinction. A thesaurus is a word list, too. If these are words which are regular parts of his own vocabulary, why does he have to make a list of them? We don't usually make lists of words we already know and use. And if he has to look them up in his list, what's the difference between that and looking them up in a list someone else compiled (i.e. a thesaurus)?Seareach wrote:No. He doesn't. He compiles word lists. He said something about it in the GI once.
[which, if I remember SRD's post correctly, is how he acquires the words.]
Good point. I suppose there is a difference between choosing from a wordlist you compiled yourself because those words particularly fascinated you, and just flipping through a bunch of words you don't know in order to sound more clever than you are. [There's that damned "earned knowledge" concept popping back up again ...Seareach wrote:Ok, yep Z. I'll agree with that, although I think its kinda different in the sense that he doesn't go out of his way, flipping through a thesaurus to be clever. And if you actually look up these words (the obscure ones), most of the time (imo) they're absolutely perfect for what he's trying to convey.
] I'm sure Donaldson wanted to distinguish what he does from the way a high school student with a poor vocabulary might use a thesaurus as a crutch or an illusion. But I think there could be a bit of overlap between the two techniques and the two different kinds of wordlist sources. A thesaurus can be used in an intelligent, intentional manner, too. 
SerScot wrote:Well, I just met the Ardent and discovered about 20 new colors.
