The Thinker's Thesaurus: Sophisticated Alternatives to Common Words

1028 Pages·2010·5.85 MB·English

by  Peter E. Meltzer

TO MY WIFE, DEIRDRE:
Self-deprecation notwithstanding, I’m sure that you are way more
captivating than Mrs. Webster or Mrs. Roget ever were.
CONTENTS

Begin Reading
INTRODUCTION
word (just the right . . . or phrase) n.: mot juste [French]. That words
matter has few dissenters, especially among those who try to make sense
with them. The right word is the writer’s Holy Grail. Often elusive, the
mot juste is the lullaby that sends one into rapturous sleep, while its evil
twin—the ill-chosen word—can have the opposite effect. (Kathleen
Parker, “Putting Words to Rest,” Oakland Tribune, 7/8/2006.) ABOUT
THIS THESAURUS
The Limitations Inherent in Existing Thesauruses
and How This Thesaurus Came into Being We seek
in vain the words we need, and strive ineffectually to
devise forms of expression which shall faithfully
portray our thoughts and sentiments. The appropriate
terms, notwithstanding our utmost efforts, cannot be
conjured up at will. Like “spirits from the vasty deep,”
they come not when we call; and we are driven to the
employment of a set of words and phrases either too
general or too limited, too strong or too feeble, which
suit not the occasion, which hit not the mark we aim
at.
DR. PETER MARK ROGET—introduction to his original 1852
thesaurus This book had its genesis in a 1994 discussion with a group of
friends and colleagues, all of whom were involved directly or indirectly
in the writing profession. The issue of thesauruses arose. To a person,
our reactions were virtually identical: While in theory a thesaurus is a
marvelous reference aid, the reality tends to be quite different. That
“eureka” moment we all hope for when consulting a thesaurus (“That’s
just the word I need!”) occurs far too rarely. Conventional thesauruses
present “le mot juste” far less frequently than they should (and never
present the term “le mot juste” itself). Moreover, as a vocabulary
enhancement tool, a regular thesaurus is almost useless, since the
synonyms tend to be just as common as the base words.
Thus, in fulfilling Dr. Roget’s original goals, other thesauruses today exist
primarily only to remind us of words we already know but which we have
temporarily forgotten, those “tip-of-the-tongue” words that “cannot be conjured
up at will.” I therefore had an ambitious (some might say foolhardy) goal: to
create a new kind of thesaurus that is intended to be a genuine improvement over
existing versions for the benefit of casual and serious writers alike who want to
be able to use just the right word for a given occasion. One may ask: “Isn’t that
precisely what conventional thesauruses are for?” The answer is yes, but only in
theory. The reality is that existing thesauruses suffer from two primary flaws.
The first problem is that one usually finds that no matter how many synonyms
an ordinary thesaurus contains, it rarely seems to offer interesting choices.
Typically the synonyms offered have already been considered and rejected
before the user even consulted the thesaurus. This is because those synonyms,
while numerous, are mostly uninteresting. The mere fact that people own
thesauruses means not only that they care enough about words to want to be able
to find precisely the right one for the right occasion, but also that their basic
vocabulary is probably such that any synonyms that are of equal or lesser
complexity than the base word given are generally not going to be of much use,
because they will have thought of those synonyms anyway. To address this
problem, a thesaurus was needed that would contain interesting, rather than
mundane, synonyms.
The second problem is that all thesauruses (other than this one) start with one
word—the base word—and then list a number of synonyms for that one word. In
addition, they inevitably compare like word forms—adjective to adjective, noun
to noun, and so forth. What if, however, the would-be synonym does not easily
lend itself to a single base word? This can occur in numerous different ways. For
example, some words involve two distinct concepts. “Nephew” requires
reference both to “son” and to “sister” or “brother”; “claustrophobia” requires
reference to both “fear” and “confined spaces.” In other words, there is no one-
word synonym for “nephew” or “claustrophobia.” Similarly, the most common
definition of “elopement” is flight with a lover with the intention of getting
married. However, it is obviously not a synonym for “flight” or “marriage”
standing alone. Nevertheless, Roget’s International Thesaurus (6th ed.,
HarperCollins, 2001), lists “flight” and “wedding” as synonyms for
“elopement.” “Embezzlement” is stealing something that has been entrusted to
one’s care.
Another example of the “one base word” limitation is where the most logical
base word–synonym comparison involves different word forms. Consider the
adjective “maternal,” in the sense of “maternal grandfather.” If this were the
synonym, what would be the most logical connecting base word? The answer is
obviously “mother,” but that word is a noun. Because traditional thesauruses will
only list other nouns as synonyms for “mother,” there is no way they can lead the
user to the synonym “maternal,” as simple as that word may be.
The most serious problem, however, with the single base word system is its
inability to deal with nuance. Take, for example, the word “smile.” Most
thesauruses will include “grin,” “smirk,” “snicker,” and “grimace” as potential
synonyms for this word. Each of these words means something totally different
from the others, yet they are invariably all listed as synonyms for “smile.”
“Embezzlement” is a type of theft. But one does not break into a stranger’s
house and “embezzle” her belongings. Nevertheless, Roget’s International lists
“embezzle” as a synonym for “steal” and “misuse.”
How can the writers of these thesauruses get away with these types of
comparisons? Easy, because (precisely in accordance with Dr. Roget’s original
vision) they start with the premise that the user already knows the synonyms. For
example, the foreword to Webster’s New World Thesaurus states that “the editors
asked themselves which bodies of synonymic expressions are sufficiently
common so that they belong in a general reference work.” Similarly, in
recommending one common thesaurus, Will Weng, a former New York Times
crossword puzzle editor, stated: “Every so often one finds oneself trying to think