In “Elegy for lost verbiage,” Economist Obituary Editor Ann Wroe wrote a wonderful piece using words that are disappearing from the SAT verbal test in 2016.
The piece was sent to me recently by my friend (and clipping service) Barbara S. Rivette. The editor in both of us just can’t let items like this pass by.
Now, I’m not opposed to eliminating antediluvian words such as cleave, gourmand, pellucid, penurious, vituperate, and obstreperous. However, I think the College Board has gone a little too far.
Among the words headed for the garbage heap are garrulous, virtuoso, duress, licentious, dirge, bashful, quaint, negligent, and (appropriately) extraneous. I think these are words that can pinpoint meaning and give just the right seasoning to our writing. Other words on the chopping block that I think are vivid and useful are maelstrom, nadir, beguile, morass, tirade, and anachronistic.
With immediate access to online dictionaries, why are we eliminating these words from the vocabulary of our young people? Will we revert to monosyllabic synonyms to ensure students can pass their SATs with enough points to get into college? What then?
One of the best things about English is its lush, expansive vocabulary. It has a huge inventory that allows for beautiful verbal creations. Can you imagine poets 25 years from now not having diaphanous in their word arsenals?
By not expecting students to stretch their vocabularies, are we doing a disservice to future writers?
2 thoughts on “Does Culling Vocabulary ‘Dumb Down’ Future Writing?”
Wow ! Something I sent you was useful. And The Economist got additional readers. Their obituary writer is very good about peop
Oh, Mrs. R! Everything you send me is useful (often distracting, but very useful).