Forum: Author Hangout

I don't like $10 words for fiction.

I was just writing something where the character "transferred the glass of milk from the tray to the table." I changed "transferred" to "moved."

I agree, though if the $10 word has a more precise or nuanced definition, then I'll consider it. That's especially true if you're writing about professionals. After all, if you write a sci-fi story, you'd better use the proper context for 'theory' (rather than "that's my theory").

In these cases, the $10 weather words are interesting, but it's hard to imagine ever putting in enough work to make them acceptable to most English speakers. None of them exactly roll off the tongue, or sound even vaguely natural.

My rule of thumb is: use the simplest word possible, unless using the more precise word buys you (the author) or the story something, otherwise forget it.

Thus "trechorous" is acceptable, while "virga" isn't. Trechorous is a mean specific word (vs. plain "dangerous", while "virga" would take a half page to set up before you could use it.

But my rule is that I don't use words that I don't know. I don't play thesaurus bingo. When I use a thesaurus, it's because there's a perfect word, and I know there's a perfect word, but I can't quite dredge it up out of deep storage. So I'll search a thesaurus site for something close, and hope it pops up the word I was trying to remember.

In my case, I can't spell my way out of a paper bag, and can't spell well enough to use a dictionary (I can't find the word to check it). I'll typically know the word I want, but just can't figure out the spelling (thank God for Google Search!)

For my thesaurus uses, I only use one when I use the same word a couple times in succession, and then I'll look for suitable replacements, but I don't look for 'better' words.

But, I am curious about words, and knowing a LOT about different weather conditions, went looking for something I could use (namely, the name for the smell after it rains, though I would use "thundersnow", as I've encountered those and have used them frequently).

The latest chapter of my current WIP includes "tenebrous", "coruscating", "coalesced", "stygian", and "incandesced", among other words that my spellchecker insists aren't words.

I see a problem - coalesce doesn't mean shining blackly ;)

AJ

There is a definite place for the use of precise use of definition and vocabulary in stories as well as real life.

I once got to figuratively bust an entire case of raw eggs against a workplace enemy's face because she insisted on using the wrong word in issuing a direct order to me even though I questioned her three times to insure I understood what she was ordering. (I understood the first time she said it and she didn't like to be corrected. I was letting her dig herself deep)

I then proceeded to follow her order and place the facility in complete and absolute lock down.She got to explain to the top tier brass why this occurred and all I had to say was I followed her orders and I even asked multiple times to insure their was no miscommunication before complying. 😃

An author can chose to have one or more characters that are distinguished by typically using $10 (or foreign) words. In either case, a brief translation of the term to words in the discount bin would be very helpful.

For example:

C1: The conditions are ripe for a haboob.
C2: A what?
C1: Haboob - otherwise known as a dust storm.
C2: Why didn't you say so in the first place?
C1: I did...

As opposed to

C1: The conditions are ripe for a dust storm.

It wouldn't hurt tossing in "it's a Saharan dust storm", to distinguish it, especially if you have an Arab character to contrast it.

Any word that can cause a reader to have to look the word up in any dictionary is a potentially lost reader. Sure I am a curious type who will look up some words, but too many and I just go and read something else.

That's why providing context is essential. Ideally, readers should be able to figure out what a word means without having to look it up, especially if you're referring to regional businesses or phrasing.

Someone shouldn't have to have been born here (wherever "here" is) to read a particular story. But that's what I meant about it taking to long to provide the 'proper context'. You don't always have a smartass character handy when you need one. 'D

Actually anything that can break the readers attention away from the story can be bad. Although I have noticed that Ernest is good about providing links for many potential technical items in his stories which work nicely.

I don't know. Having to stop, clink a link, and follow wherever it takes you also takes me out of a story. While it's relatively simply to simply type in an unfamiliar term and have Google identify it isn't that much of a distraction.

It sounds like we have two separate determinations of what 'breaks' a story between us.

No chance for haboobs there however.

No, but plenty of chance of thundersnow, bombogenesis, graupel, virga and "hunch weather" (no chance of a "monkey's wedding", however).

If proper contrast and context cannot be used, it's better to stick with generalizations rather than tossing about ten dollar words in a half assed attempt at legitimization.

The key is, the word/term has to flow, naturally, from the story and not require the reader to drop everything and perform a deep dictionary dive to figure out what the hell is going on.

Many authors aren't willing to invest the necessary context (to identify a term from it's usage), while in this case, I expressed doubt that the time required to provide sufficient context would largely negate the use of the word (in the time it takes to explain why you're saying "haboob", you could have said "duststorm" thirty times).

Though I disagree with several who argue that ten-dollar words don't add anything. I believe, as I was originally taught in school, that the more advanced words have specific uses which justify their use and make up for their unfamiliarity, but their use has to be evaluated on a case by case basis (i.e. how easily you can fold the usage into the story so the terms don't stick out like sore thumbs).

That said, I gave up on exchanging "Word of the Day" desk calendars with my sister years ago for fear I'd be overly tempted to sprinkle them in my stories. I'm more confident now, and willing to risk it, but it remains a niggling worry for many.

(in the time it takes to explain why you're saying "haboob", you could have said "duststorm" thirty times)

Yet 'dust storm' doesn't carry the same connotations as 'haboob'. If the story was set in Arizona that's fine, but if it were set in the Sahara or on the Arabian peninsula, no, I'd prefer 'haboob'. 'Scirocco' carries further meaning than 'hot wind', as does 'Santa Ana' - the name conjures images of the region with which it is associated. 'Chinook' brings with it images of the great plains with the Rocky Mountains in the background.

Beyond weather words things like BlacKnight's 'stygian' carry a wealth of connotation beyond the denotive 'dark', all of which is thrown away if you take the easy way out (or you have to describe it, which still doesn't duplicate the flavor of the one word.)

Chinook' brings with it images

of a helicopter.

Our local weather folk are known for sometimes using the big $10 words. Then they get reminded that this is Oklahoma, and the KISS principle applies. Especially since we're getting into mid-winter, which means that their favorite season of the year is coming up.

But I actually do agree with you, regarding dust storm in Arizona, versus haboob in Dubai. You'd still probably have to include an explanation unless you included it in the description. Something along the lines of, "We spent hours sweeping the dust from the streets following the haboob."

OK, within the context of the weather 'chinook' brings to mind images of the plains backed by the Rockies. If that sort of context hasn't been established I'll be thinking of salmon when I hear the word.

"We spent hours sweeping the dust from the streets following the haboob."

Hee-hee:

"Those little Arabic critters certainly cause a ruckus around heres!"

"We spent hours sweeping the dust from the streets following the haboob."

Imagine if she'd revealed a WHOLE breast ;)

AJ

Haboob is actually coming into more common use in weather reports here in the desert Southwest,

As is "virga." That's the streaks of rain coming from clouds that evaporates before it hits the ground.

Dialogue is another matter entirely. You use the word that your character would use.

Stilted, over-precise or technical jargon can really define a character, when used in dialogue—as well as it highlights just annoyed the other characters are by his use of those terms.

It's been fairly common in the last ten years at least to refer to these Pacific storms as hurricanes when they hit the west coast. I don't remember one hitting the west coast of the United States but Mexico has been smacked multiple times lately by hurricanes originating in the Pacific.

I agree with Ernest that most of those terms are strictly regional. The one exception is that I've heard haboob used for storms in the United States as well. My feeling was that it is used by some for a particularly memorable storms.

It's been fairly common in the last ten years at least to refer to these Pacific storms as hurricanes when they hit the west coast. I don't remember one hitting the west coast of the United States but Mexico has been smacked multiple times lately by hurricanes originating in the Pacific.

I agree with Ernest that most of those terms are strictly regional.

That's certainly true, but there's a specific reason for that. Hurricanes have fairly strict limits as to wind-speed and size, whereas typhoons routinely grow much larger and more severe. Switching names arbitrarily will only cause confusion, as people make assumptions about the storm based on the name alone.

However, that seems to be how 'hurricane' is used on the Pacific Ocean, the usage seems restricted to storms of certain size characteristics, thus you can have typhoons and hurricanes in different parts of the Pacific at the same time.

some people use "cyclone" when referring to a hurricane.

To my knowledge, hurricane, cyclone, and typhoon are the same thing, but are called by a different name in different parts of the world.

To my knowledge, hurricane, cyclone, and typhoon are the same thing, but are called by a different name in different parts of the world.

Once again, their characteristics (wind speed, size, formation, movements, etc.) are different for each and are based on the types of storms faced in specific regions. That goes beyond mere 'regional' names and forms a distinct category. Indian Ocean cyclones are traditionally MUCH more severe than Atlantic Ocean hurricanes.

As such, I don't mind using the terms interchangeably when they fit (i.e. a Pacific 'hurricane' matches the typical hurricane characteristics in the Atlantic), but you've (everyone) needs to be cautious about just using common regional terms arbitraily.

Once again, their characteristics (wind speed, size, formation, movements, etc.) are different for each

Not according to the weather channel: https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2018-06-26-hurricane-typhoon-tropical-cyclone-names-around-the-world

They have a map of the world that shows where the terms are used.

A common question that comes up during hurricane season is: What is the difference between a hurricane and a typhoon?

The answer is that the terms both refer to the same type of storm, a tropical cyclone, but is called a "hurricane," a "typhoon" or a "cyclone" depending on the ocean basin in which it forms.

Not according to the weather channel

That's the standard argument, but if you check the stats, Atlantic (and Pacific) hurricanes top out at 150mph, whereas Indian Ocean monsoons go up to 200mph, and generally span wider areas (and kill a LOT more people). Though the lower-end typhoon does overlap the hurricane ranges.

But again, using my logic, applying "hurricanes" to the Pacific make sense, as you could have both hurricanes and typhoons (but not monsoons) happening at the same time, while most people would have an intuitive feel for what each consists of.

That's the standard argument, but if you check the stats, Atlantic (and Pacific) hurricanes top out at 150mph, whereas Indian Ocean monsoons go up to 200mph, and generally span wider areas (and kill a LOT more people). Though the lower-end typhoon does overlap the hurricane ranges.

Not according to NOAA. Their take is that hurricane, typhoon and cyclone are strictly regional differences when referring to the same phenomenon. They're as close to an authority on what the terms mean in specific usage as we're likely to find handy. Feel free to try to redefine things but I'll stick with the authority here.

As far as hurricanes topping out at 150mph, where in the world did you get that? Category 5 for hurricanes indicates a minimum sustained speed of 157mph.

As far as monsoons and 200mph, huh? The monsoon is the prevailing wind that generates what we call monsoon storms, torrential rain. This has nothing to do with cyclonic storms. Maybe you meant typhoon?

It's certainly plausible that cyclonic storms in the Pacific and Indian oceans can be stronger given the different geography of the region (more open water, maybe different currents, etc...) but I haven't seen any evidence for it being a fact.

As far as hurricanes topping out at 150mph, where in the world did you get that? Category 5 for hurricanes indicates a minimum sustained speed of 157mph.

Yep. When I went back and checked, my stats were WAY off. North America has had several intensive hurricanes, including a 200mph one in Mexico and several 180+ in Haiti and Florida.

So I'll concede my pet theory about hurricanes vs. typhoons, but if you check the average speeds, combined with the frequency, and typhoons (both in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean) are much intense than Atlantic hurricanes. What Atlantic hurricane have going for them are the densely packed cities aligned along the East Coast, hence they get much more dramatic reporting (sheer financial damage vs. devastation or total death counts).

typhoons (both in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean) are much intense than Atlantic hurricanes

There may be two reasons. One, the water temperature plays a role in the severity. Second, the storms lose power over land. So maybe typhoons don't his as much land mass.

cyclones

Digression - we Brits also use a term 'anticyclone'. Do you Americans use 'countercyclone'? ;)

AJ

1. EB is Austrailain, not American.

My bad. I intended to invite Americans to dive in, but using a reply to an Aussie wasn't a good way of doing so.

3. What the fuck is an anticyclone?

Given your use of the word 'fuck', I'd love to reply that it's 'licking a pussy in an anticlockwise direction'. Sadly it actually means a weather system with a high-pressure centre, typically associated with fine, calm weather.

AJ

by dint of

It's in my desk dictionary and means 'by means of'.

AJ

H'mmmm, their etymology is off. 'Dent' and 'dint' come from the same origin and 'a small hollow' was the primary meaning. Meanings to do with force and striking evolved later relating to the creation of a dent.

AJ

That's understandable. I've used the expression myself but it seems to be becoming archaic.

Perhaps $10 words should be expanded to include $10 expressions too.

AJ

dint

Looks like didn't with the second d and apostrophe missing.

Curious about the Etymology (which I never found), here's the definition of 'dint' (separate from the phrase being discussed).

dint (n)
1) force; power: By dint of hard work she became head of the company.
2) a dent.
3) Archaic . a blow; stroke.

dint (v) (used with object)
1) to make a dent or dents in.
2) to impress or drive in with force.

Thus "by dint" doesn't simply mean "due to", but rather "because of physical force or force of will". The alternate meaning ('blow') follows as an example of such force.

Thus, when Keet complains the word added nothing to the story, I suspect it was used in reference to the intent (who the character felt was responsible for the situation developing).

"Force of habit" is a pretty common expression.

Deriving from Nunja Warriors ;)

AJ

The complete sentence was this: "Of course, there had been idle time on Sunday, but by dint of long habit, it was while exercising that he did his best concentration.". I can't really see the 'force' part but reading it like "as a result of long habit" I understood the meaning and that's what counts.

Again, that usage emphasizes 'based on sheer force of will' rather than physical force (pulling, pushing or punching). Thus the 'by dint' refers to the subject's drive determining the results, rather than it's being a sheer chance occurrence (as is often the case with "due to"/"because").

However, while I'm familiar with the term from my youth (not having heard it for a long, long time), I never associated it with force before, though it makes sense once you allow for the 'force of will' contingent. Otherwise, the 'due to' usage doesn't fit the definition of 'dint' at all. :(

Since i try to provide context when I use regional/obscure/technical words, I'd probably have another character respond to its use (when used in dialogue) questioning it's use or even asking 'what the hell' it means. But you're right, authors can't really assume that anyone will recognize the word without some serious contextual clues.

I just encountered the phrase "... but by dint of long habit ...". I was sure it was a typo but I couldn't think of what the word "dint" was supposed to be.

Now that's a term I am familiar with, though it doesn't come up very frequently anymore, though I'm unfamiliar with whether it's an American regional usage or not.

In this case, I'm guessing the author was trying for a relaxed and homespun feel.

Cyclonic storms on the northern hemisphere rotate opposite to those on the southern hemisphere.

As does water going down a drain.

I remember reading of a series of experiments some time ago - probably in the early 80's - that were designed to show that you could demonstrate the Coriolis effect with draining water. IIRC they ended up having to use a special, super smooth, round 'tub' several meters across, covering it prevent interference from air currents, and letting the water sit for several days to allow residual currents to die. At that point the water showed a higher probability of draining counterclockwise (the experiment was setup in Australia), but even then it wasn't a sure thing.

In general, though, small local condition swamp the Coriolis effect for areas not separated by large distances.

I thought the direction of wind rotation of a typhoon and hurricane were in opposite directions. Well at least that is what I remember from school.

I suspect that's a general Northern/Southern hemisphere issue, rather than being related to the nature of the storms themselves.

"worst snowstorm in years"

Yeah, no. 1978. That's my comparison winter for snowfall. Indiana, 36" of snow, drifts taller than school buses. I know the Buffalo area of New York gets that much frequently - Indiana doesn't.

Either that or the January about 15 years ago when the high for the month was -5, and it averaged about -20. It had snowed on Halloween, gotten cold, and it just stayed. We kept getting more snow, making it colder. Finally went away about St. Patrick's Day.

We've got almost a foot and a half of accumulation here

I think it was 71 degrees and dry here yesterday.

Of course my Pinetop house 4 hours away in the White Mountains is buried in snow. But I shut that house down for 8 months of the year.

what do weathermen and porn writers have in common?

Sounds like a fish story to me.