# Learning new words



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

As a non-native English speaker, it is easy to skip the words you do not know, as long as you get (or think you get) the gist of the story. But I try to be more disciplined and look up the words I do not know. Mind you, sometimes it makes me seething even more, like when I read Conrad Black’s writings about DJT.

Anyway, today I’ve had to check two words – roundhouse and contumelious. 

The first one came up in a positive news story from the National Post: “Hungarian reporter filmed roundhouse kicking and tripping fleeing refugees sentenced to probation.” There is some decency left in the Orban’s Hungary.

The second one brought to mind a book I’ve been reading recently: Christie Blatchford , “Life Sentence: Stories from Four Decades of Court Reporting -- or, How I Fell Out of Love with the Canadian Justice System (Especially Judges). “ 
This is from the cover blurb:

“…Back in '78, she loved the courts, lawyers and judges, and that persisted for many years. But slowly, surely, she suffered a loss of faith. What happened? It was at the recent Mike Duffy trial she had the epiphany: That judges are the new senators, unelected, unaccountable and overly entitled. Yet unlike senators, they continue to get away with it because any questioning by government or its agents is deemed an intrusion onto judicial independence. 
In her explosive new book, Christie Blatchford revisits trials from throughout her career and asks the hard questions--about judges playing with the truth--through editing of criminal records, whitewashing of criminal records, pre-trial rulings that kick out evidence the jury can't hear. She discusses bad or troubled judges--how and why they get picked, and what can be done about them. And shows how judges are handmaidens to the state, as in the Bernardo trial when a small-town lawyer and an intellectual writer were pursued with more vigor than Karla Homolka.”

At the end of the book ChB imagines a motto which should adorn a court coat of arms “Omnia membri fellanto!” (all cocks should be sucked.) I imagine that lawyers must be really disappointed when stepping out of the court into the non-lawyerly world they do not get their membri fellanto.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

I always read Lord Black's articles mostly to enrich my vocabulary.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Don't feel bad about contumelious. It's archaic and not in common usage. Virtually no english speakers know even half the words in English when you include all the archaic words. I take it as a sign as bad/vain writing to use an archaic word when there are perfectly serviceable words available in common usage for the same meaning.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

Considering Black's degree in History, I don't consider his writing vain in the least, it just comes naturally to him, imho.

More new words. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-a-word-of-reply-to-my-critics


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There are smarter people who express more complex thoughts that are accessible to more people. Black's writing is designed to leave many readers mystified by his meaning and impressed by his sesquipedalian loquaciousness.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Or in plain language, babbling 

FWIW, I'm more impressed with people that can get their point across, in as few words as possible, succinctly. To me, that's impressive. It means they have thought about what they want to say and found an optimal way of saying it. There is beauty in simplicity and efficiency.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I've done a lot of reading and haven't encountered a new word I didn't understand in years, other than slang. I never heard of contumelious. In 60 years of reading thousands of books, I have never seen it and have no idea what it means. If I had to guess I would say something to do with insulting someone or telling unpleasant things about them.

Roundhouse is more of a sports term and has to do with a type of kick or punch.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

To me, roundhouse is what one finds, for example at Davie St, and Pacific in Vancouver, defined thus:

"A roundhouse is a building with a circular or semicircular shape used by railroads for servicing and storing locomotives, and traditionally surrounds, or is adjacent to, a turntable."

I have never heard of any other use of the term. I believe the one in Vancouver is still functional, and has a locomotive on the turntable, although no longer in use.

In my youth I heard of people described as "rounders", but that's another story. Anyway, as pointed out by andrewf, that is a term to viewed as an archaic relic of a bygone era, best forgotten. Now, one should spend a certain amount in video arcades, frequented by adolescents. Adopt their language. It's very modern. Any term they do not use should be deleted from one's vocabulary. While my mother taught me that to fail to retain words and expressions handed down from previous generations is a sign of an impoverished vocabulary, I now realize that she was both vain and a bad writer.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I have seen the term "roundhouse punch" or "roundhouse kick". I associate it with street fighting or some kind of bullshit Ultimate fighting. Not being a sports fan I can't be any more specific. But, it is in current use.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

My Own Advisor said:


> There is beauty in simplicity and efficiency.


"I leant upon a coppice gate.." such simplicity. 

You think Lord Black would win a spelling bee contest? I don't mind Old- Middle English, Latin or whatever from time to time - I find it refreshing. The way some write and speak these days is depressing, and that goes for uh, um, our own PM.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Well, as an aside, in my professional life of a scientist, I always wrote - had to write, really, for clarity - in a very specialized jargon. But my intended audience was 10-20 people worldwide. There was not too much I could share with “civilians,” even with my colleagues next door, apart from it works or it does not work. I’ve recently learned that my kid thought I worked in accounting or finance, because the things about my day I would be sharing at dinner were “stock market is up” or “stock market is down.” 

But I also subscribe to the opinion that if you cannot explain something to a kid you probably do not understand it yourself.

People who do not work in science can easily talk about their work with civilians, but when they use their professional jargon in such situations, or in a popular press, like Lord of Someharbour, I am always convinced they are BS-ing. There is even a body of philosophical works which I find supports this point of view, [1].

[1] Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit, Princeton University Press, 2005.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

andrewf said:


> Don't feel bad about contumelious. It's archaic and not in common usage. Virtually no english speakers know even half the words in English when you include all the archaic words. I take it as a sign as bad/vain writing to use an archaic word when there are perfectly serviceable words available in common usage for the same meaning.


So true! 

OTOH, I cringe at at the obvious incorrect homonym uses, such as can be seen with... their, there, they're... your, you're... etc. 

Then there's "I seen" rather than "I saw", or "I've seen", depending on context. 

Sometimes common expressions have been heard, but repeated incorrectly.... "For all intensive purposes", "Chomping at the bit" ( s.b. champing), for example.

Misuse of the word "literally" has fallen into such common practice that it's now difficult to express that something actually happened rather than a figure of speech. My head literally explodes!


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Userkare said:


> So true!
> 
> OTOH, I cringe at at the obvious incorrect homonym uses, such as can be seen with... their, there, they're... your, you're... etc. ... My head literally explodes!


Not everybody agrees:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-nazis-arent-just-annoying-theyre-often-wrong


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> To me, roundhouse is what one finds, for example at Davie St, and Pacific in Vancouver, defined thus:
> 
> "A roundhouse is a building with a circular or semicircular shape used by railroads for servicing and storing locomotives, and traditionally surrounds, or is adjacent to, a turntable."
> 
> ...


Roundhouse is not archaic. And you are using the strawman fallacy. I did not argue for all communication to be done at a fourth grade reading level.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

I wonder if Tubby and Babs do "The Cleveland Steamer"?:dread:


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Parkuser said:


> Not everybody agrees:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-nazis-arent-just-annoying-theyre-often-wrong



O.K. I corrected the title of that article....* Like correcting people? Than take up Latin. Why grammar Nazis aren’t just annoying — there often wrong.*


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Userkare said:


> So true!
> 
> OTOH, I cringe at at the obvious incorrect homonym uses, such as can be seen with... their, there, they're... your, you're... etc.
> 
> ...


The use of language to confuse the listener bugs me-Wall Street comes up with new jargon every day that is total B/S.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Userkare said:


> O.K. I corrected the title of that article....* Like correcting people? Than take up Latin. Why grammar Nazis aren’t just annoying — there often wrong.*


Sounds right :smile-new:.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

"Contumelious" = good word, helpful to know. One can find it in the books by Charles Dickens and Mark Twain. And in the Bible. And according to these guys, it's a legal term: http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...on-root-between-contumacious-and-contumelious


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Roundhouse is not archaic. And you are using the strawman fallacy. I did not argue for all communication to be done at a fourth grade reading level.


Two comments:

1. Nowhere did I say that "roundhouse" is archaic. I simply admitted my ignorance as to its meanings other than in connection with railways.

2. I never said you contended for all communication to be done at a fourth grade reading level. I jokingly suggested that we should all strive to eliminate any aging terms from our vocabularies. Even "archaic" has perhaps outlived its usefulness. What's wrong with just plain "old"? Or maybe it too has been around too long.

I recognize that CMF is not a place for saying anything in jest. Its denizens are a serious lot and levity will not be countenanced. This is a place for solemn and sombre reflection. It is also a place where one must expect to be called out for any perceived shortcomings, even where wholly unrelated to any particular matter at hand. While one might offer an opinion on a financial topic, however meritorious might be that opinion, it will be rendered nugatory if couched in archaic language.

A certain pecking order is part of the culture here and the little peckers must take care not to provoke the ire of the big peckers. The animus is palpable, barely covered by a thin veneer of civility.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> ... The animus is palpable, barely covered by a thin veneer of civility.


Well, not really, but this is what social media is all about. This is how empires are being run today. By Twitter. (Do not try it at home.) But before Twitter and Facebook, there were listservers and discussion lists, like this one. 

In the spirit of this thread, have you ever heard about ”flame wars?” Easily googleable.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Shurely in this day & age you mean "flame war ' s" ? 
On the new word's topic....2 I never heard much til i was pretty well grown-up: hirsute & halcyon . I[ve grown to rather like those 2 word's!


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Parkuser said:


> Well, not really, but this is what social media is all about. This is how empires are being run today. By Twitter. (Do not try it at home.) But before Twitter and Facebook, there were listservers and discussion lists, like this one.
> 
> In the spirit of this thread, have you ever heard about ”flame wars?” Easily googleable.



I am familiar with flame wars. In fact, some years ago, in my expat years, I signed up for a forum inhabited primarily by expats living in the same foreign land. The forum name and much of what appeared there was in the local language but, translated to English, the forum name was "House of Flames". It was unmoderated and, indeed, one of the underpinnings of its existence was its free-wheeling, brakes off, no holds barred philosophy where members were free - indeed encouraged - to speak their minds, to utter what they saw as the unvarnished truth about anything and anyone, including fellow members. I did not last long. It really brought out so much nastiness, seemingly just for the sake of being nasty, that I could derive no pleasure from reading or participating there. It lasted a few years I think, before even its diehard supporters and founders could not stand themselves anymore.

CMF is not in that league, but it shares some of the characteristics. Of the handful of forums in which I participate, and in which I have participated since my first home internet connection more than 20 years ago, this one is the least user-friendly (leaving aside the House of Flames). Maybe it's because of its money focus and a tendency to attract a lot of big egos who see themselves not only as financial rockstars, but just generally smarter, more educated, experienced, savvy, literate and plain knowledgeable overall than most. I have tarried here for as long as I have because, despite what humble_pie calls "the ruffians", there's a sprinkling of more modest, decent folk and just want to engage in a civilized exchange. But aside from the mitigating effects of that group, CMF qualifies as the Canadian Masochists' Forum. Not for the timid or those who who bridle at being beaten down.

As for Twitter and Facebook, I have avoided them. I don't get the point of putting one's whole life out there and to expect that an unwieldy list of "friends" really gives a damn about one's life, hanging on one's every word, poring over one's endless selfies, etc. From what I gather, Facebook (i cannot say for Twitter because I have never looked at it and I don't know much about how it works), is a leading contributor to psychological issues because the narcissistic bunch who do most of the posting there do their best to portray themselves as having perfect lives, leading others to compare and to see themselves not doing as well, having as much fun, etc.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> ... But aside from the mitigating effects of that group, CMF qualifies as the Canadian Masochists' Forum. Not for the timid or those who who bridle at being beaten down.


Wow, really? This is your impression? In spite of the fact this is an anonymous forum, hardly ever, and I am lurking here beneficially for almost 3 years, anything happens. Maybe once, and I did not understand why it flared up.

Anyway, from participation in flame wars I quickly learned never ever reply immediately when something had made me mad. When you sleep on it magic happens. An unprecedented attack on your professional competency becomes a matter-of-fact statement. A palpable animus turns into a good-natured ribbing. On the internet, time works in mysterious ways.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Parkuser said:


> Wow, really? This is your impression? In spite of the fact this is an anonymous forum, hardly ever, and I am lurking here beneficially for almost 3 years, anything happens. Maybe once, and I did not understand why it flared up.
> 
> Anyway, from participation in flame wars I quickly learned never ever reply immediately when something had made me mad. When you sleep on it magic happens. An unprecedented attack on your professional competency becomes a matter-of-fact statement. A palpable animus turns into a good-natured ribbing. On the internet, time works in mysterious ways.



Absolutely my impression. I am guessing you must have studiously avoided all the threads related to the US election. They dominated for some time. They were larded with invective and undignified hurling of calumnies that I would be hard pressed to in any way characterize as good-natured ribbing. 

You, Parkuser, I'll give credit for being made of sterner stuff if you did happen to read through even 10 percent of that tripe and were able to see it as sporting or statesmanlike. As I said, I suspect you did not take a look, hence avoided seeing how ugly things can get here. I guess I have led a sheltered life. For me, those venomous exchanges among members of a forum were something I had not encountered before. Even on the "House of Flames" forum, members did not act that way vis-a-vis fellow members. Here, I stayed out of those election threads almost completely, so I was never the brunt of any of the flaming. Nonetheless, my wings got singed just flying over.

One should also read the pithy "Fake News" thread which is also growing to significant proportions. A reflection of CMF gentility at its best. All good clean fun.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1. Nowhere did I say that "roundhouse" is archaic. I simply admitted my ignorance as to its meanings other than in connection with railways.
> 
> ...


Sorry for responding humourlessly (character flaw). I agree with you that the forum has taken a turn for the worse in its tone and civility, though I have to say it is still well above average by the standards of internet discussion.

Humour can too often come off as snark when written.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Sorry for responding humourlessly (character flaw). I agree with you that the forum has taken a turn for the worse in its tone and civility, though I have to say it is still well above average by the standards of internet discussion.
> 
> Humour can too often come off as snark when written.


I appreciate your apology for lack of humour. Very fair-minded. It is that kind of character trait that distinguishes the forums in which one cares to participate from the hurly burly of those more unruly places one prefers to avoid.

In turn, I'll acknowledge that I can come across as a bit less than the ideal forum member. I do not always rein myself in as appropriate. Parkuser's "sleep on it" advice has some merit, but then some of the crap dished out here will still be crap in the morning.


----------

