Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

Recruitment based on knowledge of words in following article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17777556

[johntpartee]

I'm in! What do I get? Apart from the pseudo-intellectualism required to make some of us feel superior, I liked "kidult".

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

I perused the article but now I'm in a quandary: where are the "difficult" words?

Regards,
John

[choudoufu]

bah! what kind of linguistician would write "syllabuses?"

it's syllabi, dagnabbit!

[smithrn1983]

Can I start the Peevers United Front?

[smithrn1983]

[johnslat]

Dear smithrn1983,

I have it on good authority that John used the word "difficult" (in quotation marks, which, by the way, served two purposes: to signify that the word came from the article and to signify that adjective is silly if used to describe vocabulary) because that is how the article describes them.

"No, now I confine myself to making the rueful point that although the subject matter of my stories and novels - which includes such phenomena as sexual deviance, drug addiction and mental illness - has become quite unexceptionable, the supposedly difficult language they are couched in seems to have become more and more offensive to readers.

"Difficult" is the key word here. In the past, before the withering away of censorship, it was the depiction of sexuality and the bodily in general - together with anything smacking of anti-authoritarianism - that was perceived as difficult."

I hope I'm not being "difficult" here.

Regards,
John

[Chancellor]

[Phil_K]

Strangely, "floccinaucinihilipilification", is not a "difficult" word, and very useful, too!

Just hope that no one floccinaucinihilipilificates this post.

[johnslat]

Dear Phil_K,

That's easy for YOU to say.

But I'd never trifle with floccinaucinihilipilification; it's too valuable a word.

Regards,
John