It’s irritating when people use terms

1. that could be replaced with fewer-syllable terms without loss or alteration of the conveyed meaning.
2. they understand only vaguely or not at all.

Regarding the 1st point, candidate term-pairs guilty of this offense cannot merely be synonyms, for most synonyms differ subtly in meaning, usually through differences in connotation. In fact, the only example I can think of is utilize vs. use. One could argue that their meanings are not exactly the same and they are therefore not a case in point. “And why are their meanings not exactly the same?” I would ask. And one would answer “Because their connotations differ. Utilize is associated with formal language, while use is casual.” But this argument defends formality for formality’s sake, which I find nauseatingly pretentious.

How far will a champion of utilize go? Will they up the ante by two and dare to speak the 5-syllable utilization, a behemoth for which use, again, is a 1:1 substitute? Reading this is liable to make future instances of utilize more difficult to ignore, and I apologize, but this should only be temporary. In accordance with my previous post, its prevalent use means that, with time, it joins the background buzz.

Onto 2.

This happens more often than people would like to admit, but it’s usually inconsequential and so doesn’t warrant drastic counter-measures. In fact, it’s something of a benefit, insofar as it can help one distinguish the posers from the real deals. Here’s one I’ve come across a few times: diametrically opposed. Why use the diametric qualifier as opposed to, simply, opposed? What additional meaning is conveyed? I suspect even the speaker isn’t sure, and that instead of for providing a clearer understanding to the audience, they use it for artificial linguistic lift to the plateau where live the visionaries in whose company they aspire to be.

I know very little about anything. I’m not even sure whether a majority of earth’s land surface annually experiences four seasons. But I do have a good idea about where to find answers to some things. In this instance, a consultation with the undisputed authority on English words is the best choice. The OED provides 3 definitions for diametric, with the 2nd one corresponding to its use with opposed.

“In the way of direct or complete opposition. Usually with opposite, opposed, contrary: Directly, exactly, entirely, completely.”

I think the default intent when the term opposed is used alone is that the two things being compared are understood to be completely opposed. This makes diametrically opposed almost redundant. If nothing else, one could step off the pedestal and substitute the 6-syllable diametrically with any of the four 3-syllable options given in the above definition.