I am pleasantly surprised at how the monotonous crunch of the author’s meandering monosyllables really underscores how wrong he is. At times it’s forced caveman speech -- oops, I mean “words of ones who lived before books in caves and did not talk good.” At other times it seems to be railing against embellishment and condensing ideas—for which I prefer Strunk and White’s “omit needless words” dictum, as, I mean, how embellished is this:
> Some might say a shaft of light and then a dim glow, some warp as well as weft, both fire and ice, a roll on the drum as much as a toot on the flute.
Hard to determine whether the self-parody was intentional. But it was funny either way.
I asked GPT4 to rewrite this using words of maximal length, complexity, and token-density, as a humorous exercise.
-----
Consequently, and not for the inaugural occasion, his assertion was veracious: succinct lexemes prevail in superiority. Albeit unadorned they might appear, therein lies their robustness. They manifest with lucidity, acuteness, and directness. One's linguistic faculties effortlessly enunciate them. Their orthography is unchallenging to master. Ocular perception, cerebral processing, and verbal expression collaboratively welcome them as allies, rather than adversaries. For that is precisely their essence. They fulfill every requisition imposed upon them, executing these tasks with commendable proficiency. In moments of serendipity, when the cosmos aligns in harmony, they contribute additional reasons for jubilation. Conversely, in times of disquietude, when cranial discomfort prevails, one can easily engage with them, comprehend their essence, and assimilate their significance. Thus, they incite a desire to persist in reading, rather than inducing a cessation of engagement.
Indubitably, one might argue that such a notion sounds plausible. However, periodically, exemplary prose necessitates a modulation in rhythm—a surge in velocity, a modulation of momentum, a gradual arc, an energetic leap, a sudden halt. Some would suggest an interplay of illumination and subdued luminosity, a mix of distortion and uniformity, elements of both fervor and frigidity, rhythmic percussion as well as delicate woodwind melodies. Designate it as you will. The crux is that achieving a spectrum of movement, from measured steps to expansive strides, requires the integration of lexemes of varying lengths: some elongated, others concise, and yet others occupying a median linguistic space. Furthermore, although it may seem feasible to compose solely with brief lexemes temporarily, eventually one must concede and resort to those terms which, irrespective of preference, consist of multiple segments, culminating in a considerably extended word.
Additionally, there is the matter of eschewing neologisms, or at least advocating for antiquated vernacular. Why this bias? The temporal continuum has advanced. The linguistic constructs of bygone eras necessitate augmentation to remain pertinent in contemporary discourse. Moreover, is there certainty regarding the preeminence attributed to the ancient Greeks, Gauls, and Roman scholars? Challenge my assertions if you must, but they were adept at concocting elongated lexemes just as proficiently as any contemporary German, American, or French literary artisan.
Indeed, the vocabulary of those historical figures did include words of substantial length, yet such lexemes were not exclusively prevalent. Even though the language in which this discourse is presented has assimilated terms from diverse origins, and continues to do so, its foundational lexemes were succinct. One might contend that these initial "words" were mere primitive vocalizations. Yet, they evolved into vocalizations with underlying meanings, and historical evidence suggests that, despite augmenting the length of one's vocabulary, surpassing a well-articulated primitive vocalization with a clear intent remains a formidable challenge.
This is the rationale behind the enduring supremacy of concise lexemes, even when aged. Whether resilient as footwear or delicate as woven silk, as incisive as forged steel or as unassuming as common bread, there exists an array of ancient, succinct lexemes to suit every conceivable necessity. Whether one's intent is to express affection, engage in discourse, inquire for directions, express gratitude, lament misfortune, or indulge in vehement expression of emotion, one merely needs to select an appropriate, time-honored, brief lexeme. Should there be skepticism regarding the availability of the desired term, consider what can be achieved with minimalistic expression: "To exist or not to exist?" "And the Deity proclaimed, 'Let there be illumination'; and illumination there was," "Our essence is akin to the substance of dreams," "The annum commences in springtime.../The dawn is nigh.../The lark ascends;/The gastropod adorns the thorn."
It is feasible, as demonstrated. With earnest endeavor, one can articulate effectively and convey the intended message using brief lexemes. Nor is there a necessity for an extensive array. Some words merely contribute to the length of your prose. That metaphorical piece of twine, whose dimensions you perpetually endeavor to ascertain, is no less exemplary in brevity than in prolixity; in isolation, its length is neither advantageous nor detrimental, merely a summation of its components. Thus, with lexemes, the merit resides in the application. Whether you adeptly or poorly utilize your twine, its length becomes inconsequential. Convey your point effectively with brief lexemes, and you will find no necessity for prolonged ones. Fail to do so, and the brevity will be appreciated. So too will those who engage with your discourse.
> Some might say a shaft of light and then a dim glow, some warp as well as weft, both fire and ice, a roll on the drum as much as a toot on the flute.
Hard to determine whether the self-parody was intentional. But it was funny either way.