> You will want a tall tree with an excurrent growth pattern—a single, undivided trunk with lateral branches, delicate on top and thicker as you cascade downward.
I had not encountered the word excurrent before. They provide a bit of a definition directly after using it but I was still curious so looked it up. Turns out it is a general botanical term but when used in the context of tree shapes (specifically the crown) it contrasts with decurrent. I found this image [1] which illustrates the different shapes of excurrent vs decurrent trees.
It seems logical that using a large vocabulary impair communication since most people would not know what your words mean. However, up to a degree, it seems like the opposite is the case.
Is there any theory in linguistics for why that is so?
I could see a couple of things that might be at work:
- People are able to figure out what you mean from context and a larger vocabulary allows language that is more aesthetically pleasing.
- People associate a larger vocabulary with greater intelligence and therefore are more likely to listen.
- Access to multiple synonyms allows you to construct more complex sentences without them becoming repetitive or confusing. For example, someone doesn't know what the adjectives you are using mean but they are able to understand that you are making a distinction between two things.
- Due to context, past exposure, an instinctual sense of etymology, etc. people are able to understand a much greater vocabulary than they are able to use.
I think you are just describing jargon, which allows greater specificity when the audience is assumed to have a fundamental grounding in the topic being discussed.
And to all of you who will soon stumple upon excurrent again, maybe multiple times, even though you have never heard about it until now. This is called Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.
To lay down another level of irony, I just learned about Baader-Meinhof phenomenon an hour ago while watching Stranger Things S03E02. I am now prepared to read about this all over the place.
> Turns out it is a general botanical term but when used in the context of tree shapes (specifically the crown) [excurrent] contrasts with decurrent.
Wow, that's weird. Excurrent is transparent (if you know Latin) as "running out [from something]". But ex- [out] would usually contrast with in- [in]. Contrasting with de- is really unusual, since to a first approximation ex and de both mean "from". (Compare indent/dedent, where de is the opposite of in.)
At a more detailed level, excurrent is "running out [from somewhere]" and decurrent is "running down [from somewhere]", but to me it looks like the decurrent tree branches are running in every direction at once.
The difference is that the decurrent branches fork and decrease in size at each fork from the main trunk, whereas the excurrent branches are all relatively small and mostly branch out from the trunk itself. So I think the term is 'down' in terms of 'down the length of the branches'.
I had not encountered the word excurrent before. They provide a bit of a definition directly after using it but I was still curious so looked it up. Turns out it is a general botanical term but when used in the context of tree shapes (specifically the crown) it contrasts with decurrent. I found this image [1] which illustrates the different shapes of excurrent vs decurrent trees.
[1] http://countrysidelandscape.net/files/2018/10/Branch-pattern...