Using 'archaic' words. Tip top or total tosser?

[pongo_3931]

Over the years as I've muddled through too many assignments to count and during this time have discovered I have a fancy for using words that are now considered 'archaic', that is, they're old and no one uses them any more.

I was told of late that this is a bit of a no-no and normally I'd be happy to go along with that but I'd be letting go of words that feel natural to use.

For example, I have always used the word 'agreeance', that is to say that two things are in agreeance with one another (dammit spell check put a red line under it!).

So what are your thoughts on all this? Do you use archaic words? Do you think it's a good idea to use them, or is it a bit of a wank to dust off some crusty ye old english word and use it to impress your friends?

 

[Ricky90]

Yeah, not so much in essays and what not but my girlfriend likes to think her vocabulary runs deeper than mine. At which time, I start busting out a few of these bad boys.

She then resigns with a hasty, "you're a f*ckin' idiot, mate".

Howbeit, as cliche'd as that was, I do think they're pretty terrible words to choose in any form of sentence. There's a reason they're archaic. And just because they are archaic does not mean they're retro.

 

[mdc]

Over the years as I've muddled through too many assignments to count and during this time have discovered I have a fancy for using words that are now considered 'archaic', that is, they're old and no one uses them any more.

I was told of late that this is a bit of a no-no and normally I'd be happy to go along with that but I'd be letting go of words that feel natural to use.

For example, I have always used the word 'agreeance', that is to say that two things are in agreeance with one another (dammit spell check put a red line under it!).

So what are your thoughts on all this? Do you use archaic words? Do you think it's a good idea to use them, or is it a bit of a wank to dust off some crusty ye old english word and use it to impress your friends?

It depends on context. In a lot of cases, though not always, using archaic (or more generally uncommon) words tends to give whatever you're writing either an air of levity or pretentiousness. So if you're not after the former, you have to be aware that you might be creating an impression of the latter.

I used to write a lot of my mathsy assignments in Victorian-era English simply because I got a kick out of it and the words weren't really what was being assessed. But otherwise, unless I have a rapport with the person reading/marking it, I'll stick to convention, occasionally straying for precision.

In your specific example, agreeance doesn't really offer any added precision when c.f. agreement or accord, and could strike certain readers as a clumsy formulation of your own, so I'd avoid it.

That said, in general conversation or in emails or whatever feel free to drop as many of these bad boys as you wish.

 

[Magnus the Magpie]

If an archaic word or phrase makes meaning more precise and reduces ambiguity, then go ahead and use it by all means.

What gets up my nose are trendy, fashionable words that can mean anything. 'Sustainable' is a current example: it has a very specific meaning when talking about the continued balance of various dimensions of complex systems (e.g. the economic, environmental and social impacts of climate change) but is used in all sorts of other, inappropriate contexts (e.g. when 'survival' is the issue - and too many other contexts to mention).

 

[Stripes B and W]

How about, whence, thence, ergo and betwixt....

They dont particularly add anything to a sentence other than to define the scribe as a tosser!!!

 

[thecig]

It's better than just making words up. In one of my management subjects at uni the lecturer kept saying "satisficing". At first I thought he had a speech impediment, but apparently its a "portmanteau word". I don't care what wiki says. It's not a real word! >_<

On topic, its ok as long as u don't push the limit and look like you're just doing it for the lulz.

 

[Pie eyed]

These supposed "archaic" dinosaurs of text are the "nipple clamps" and "ice cubes" of grammar.

They keep it interesting.

If you're writing a 3 sentence response to a forum thread there is rarely a need, but if you're going to write tome and hold a readers interest for more than 5 minutes you're going to have to resort to proper "English"

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I love archaic words and expressions, I think they add spice. Moreso in the spoken form than the written, I might add, but they're all good.

What I loathe, is new words brought in or redundant words that become recently fashionable. Like "healthful". WTF is healthful if not healthy? And "normalcy". Hello, normality anyone? People who come up with that stuff should be ostracized with a very sharp ostriss.

 

[Quicky]

I say keep fighting the good fight pongo!

Also agree with the above Sampler. Along with healthful, not so bad mind you, but it is an annoying buzz word right now is wellness. I find it irksome!