Have you ever noticed that the Word of the Day sites usually provide words that no one has ever heard of, no one will know the definition or meaning of, and no one will ever use said word because of the former points? I wonder why they do this. It's almost like they don't want you to use it, but to see how smart they are for finding a word so archaic that you've never heard of it.
As I write this, here are today's words:
Merriam Webster's word is "tyro", which means novice.
Dictionary.com is "hebetude", meaning lethargy, or the state of being dull.
The New York Times is "virago", meaning a noisy, scolding, or domineering woman. (teehee)
WordThink is "abate", which I have actually heard of, meaning to lessen.
WordSmith's word today is "leptodactylous".
Are you fucking kidding me?
"Leptodactylous" means having slender fingers or toes. Where on earth would you work that into a conversation? "Your hands are beautiful and leptodactylous."
These word of the day "helps" are not helping at all. Perhaps these sites simply cycle through the dictionary, and each word, no matter how odd/old/abstruse (now, THERE is a good word for you, that you can actually use, meaning obscure) the word, it is presented.
But, no, that can't be the case because you will never see simple and common words listed. There has to be an algorithm that pulls these words. Well, dear word-of-the-day sites, it's not working. You are going overboard. There may be a very, very small number of the population who truly want to try to learn and incorporate these words, but I would think that most of us simply see the word, read the definition, and roll our eyes. Right before we delete it. Is that what you want? To be so highbrow that you are not relevant?
You appear to be obtuse because your output is too abstruse.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Comments