In 1066, the Normans, led by William the Conqueror, won the Battle of Hastings (over Harold the Loser) and thus Great Britain.  Actually, he was known as Guillaume le conquérant.  Normans come from Normandy, in France, and when they took over England, they brought their language with them.  Over time, its Latin-based vocabulary spread through the Anglo-Saxon-based English language, as educated people adopted the speech patterns of their new rulers. Today, we have a Latin-root equivalent of almost every Anglo-Saxon word, especially nouns.

When the natives finally regained control, there was some reaction to this.  It's joked that King James I, who was Scottish, went to a Shakespeare play. He couldn't understand half of it and vowed to restore the real, plain, Anglo-Saxon English still spoken by most of the people.  It may be just a joke, but when he commissioned a new translation of the Bible, the King James Version, he insisted that it be "kept familiar to its listeners and readers," the common people.  And it is very Anglo-Saxon.

What on earth am I talking about?  We're so used to the Latin vocabulary you may think you don't know the difference. But you do. You grew up speaking Anglo-Saxon English. The words are not just shorter and simpler than their Latin equivalents; they have meaning in the heart, not just the head.  Think of a child's language: run, hit, throw, laugh, cry, eat, drink, play, sleep, hurt… Each one brings a picture immediately to mind. Latin words are longer, but more abstract, intellectual.

Here's a good example from business writing and talk: "objective" (from the Latin objectum) vs. "target" (from Old English targe, a shield). When you hear "objective," don't you see words on a page, say in a planning document or your performance appraisal? But when you hear "target," the picture comes up immediately—concentric circles, bright colors, a bull's-eye—and feelings—the fun of archery or shooting. It's a metaphorical word, and a strong one. "Goal" is another one. Do you see the uprights, the net, the basket? "Objective" is abstract and weak by comparison. 

If you want your writing and talk to be lively, inspiring, touching, engaging, memorable, hard hitting—name the attribute—always reach for the Anglo-Saxon words. They're your readers' native tongue, and they'll touch their feelings, not just their minds.

Sadly, we're taught to think the Latin vocabulary more sophisticated. One student said, "If I write like that, people will think I'm uneducated or low-brow." It's simply not true. Great writers have always used mostly Anglo-Saxon words, and great teachers of writing have always urged it. Some say "write like you talk," for when we speak, we use our native tongue more than when we write. 

But most of us have caught "Latin-itis" from our other teachers or our peers. Kick the idea that it lifts your image to say "eliminate" rather than "kick," "elevate" instead of "lift," "procrastinate" for "put off," "accommodation" for "room," "pedagogy" for "teaching," and so on. 

Of course, there are times when the subtle differences are useful, or the precise definitions of technical jargon are important. At those times, by all means use the Latin word if it suits best. But they're sparse in everyday writing and talk. If you've trained yourself to find the longer, more "sophisticated" word, try to break the habit. Your readers and listeners will thank you.

But how to tell the difference? I'm not telling you (almost said "advocating") to look up word origins all the time. There's a simple rule that works most of the time: If it's more than three syllables, it's probably Latin, not counting common endings and prefixes (–ity, -ally, -at ion, pre-, dis-, mis-, non-, etc.).

Don't worry about this in a first draft. Write for content, then go back and check for Latin-itis. Find the long ones and try their Anglo-Saxon equivalents. Imagine you're saying it to a group of young people and you want to make an impact. I mean "hit 'em hard."

                                     © Copyright 2021 by Robert D. Smith