/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21531638]

why do books use words we never use in conversations?

[Anonymous No.21531648]

dey for big brain ppl

[Anonymous No.21531650]

>>21531638
The better convey the meaning.
And because you’re a dunce.

Ignore all frog posters. Close their threads on sight

[Anonymous No.21531651]

>>21531650
Some of the frog stuff makes me chuckle ngl

[Anonymous No.21531664]

>>21531638
why don't they use simple words they work just fine

[Anonymous No.21531726]

>>21531650
>Ignore all frog posters. Close their threads on sight
and yet you opened this one like the faggot you are

[Anonymous No.21532642]

>>21531638
To sound pretentious and "educated". Modern literature is all about appearance and vanity.

[Anonymous No.21532645]

>>21531638
>>21531648
>>21531650
>>21531651
>>21531664
>>21531726
>>21532642
Big Brother called, he's looking for a new minister of truth.

[Anonymouṡ No.21532648]

>>21531638
Wrong way round. Correct question: why do you, in conversation, only use a small subset of the words you know from reading?

[Anonymous No.21532649]

for the same reasons films have overtly smooth dialogue

[Anonymous No.21532656]

>we are less conscious while talking than while writing. and that is why, conversely, a writerly style of speech is repugnant to us. only a few manage to combine the speaker's elegance with the thoughtful clarity of the written style.
t. rivarol

>A principal use of the study of the ancients is that it preserves us from verbosity; for the ancients always take pains to write concisely and pregnantly, and the error of almost all moderns is verbosity, which the most recent try to make up for by suppressing syllables and letters. Therefore we ought to pursue the study of the ancients all our life, although reducing the time devoted to it. The ancients knew that we ought not to write as we speak. The moderns, on the other hand, are not even ashamed to print lectures they have delivered.
t. schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.21532750]

>>21531638
different fields of knowledge and areas of experience use separate words and terminology, so within those areas the language might be conversational. it's all a matter of whether those words can be seamlessly slipped into ordinary writing. and this is not just limited to academic or scientific words, that's why I said "areas of experience", words can have unique cultural or social definitions which only make sense in certain contexts

related: go on google ngrams, find any book written before 1700 or so (before things became so hyperspecialized), and you'll find very dense prose with heavy language, but they all talk about God and providence and shit and it all sounds very samey.

[Anonymous No.21532869]

>>21531650
>Ignore all frog posters. Close their threads on sight
I am posting in this thread, without sage, solely to spite you for disrespecting your own advice.

I will remain silent where you remain silent, and I will reply to the threads in which you hypocritically discourage others from doing the same.

[Anonymous No.21533114]

>>21532648
Because it conveys the intended meaning; is often quite quick and easy to pronounce; and allows the audience to follow regardless of whether they are well read.

[Anonymous No.21533591]

>Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written. It is not enough even to be able to speak the language heard and the language read. The one is commonly transitory, a sound, a tongue, a dialect merely, almost brutish. and we learn it unconsciously, like the brutes, of our mothers. The other is the maturity and experience of that; if that is our mother tongue, this is our father tongue, a reserved and select expression, too significant to be heard by the ear, which we must be born again in order to speak. The crowds of men who merely spoke the Greek and Latin tongues in the middle ages were not entitled by the accident of birth to read the works of genius written in those languages; for these were not written in that Greek or Latin which they knew, but in the select language of literature.

[Anonymous No.21534188]

>>21531650
Faggot! Faggot! Faggot!

[Anonymous No.21534528]

>>21531638
because books are an old media from a more literary time. If you look at speeches from before the telegraph they sound exactly like a book

[Anonymous No.21534757]

social conversation, especially those who practice the standards of today's culture reject the idea of wittgensteinianword usage, thank fuck though, because wittgenstein was a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.21534804]

>>21531638
So that when I try to use them in a conversation, everyone with a decent education laughs at my pronunciation. Seemingly.