sorry to revive this discussion if it has already been past expiration, but i think not nearly enough has been discussed about this subject. I must warn anyone i usually have an indirect and evasive way of writing or speaking, so please forgive me if i lack coherence. Also my grammar is not very conventional, but in fact, i communicate strictly for effectiveness (if i had a choice, i'd rather be a philologist - a lover of words than a linguist - a scrutinizer of words).  I am not an expert at language like i imagine many others in this board are, but i am a keen observor and i believe in what i am about to explain with enough conviction to give a go at it. I have noticed that Americans are indeed very lazy with their speech. I have been raised all my life in America, and as i am learning more and more literature, i am becoming more and more appalled at this laziness. Americans write their literature properly and effectively (at least to meet ends), but their speech is far shallower and the greatest tragedy is americans are unable to express deep feelings with the use of more sophisticated sentence structure and vocabulary (ill try to explain later). English has about 500,000 or so words in the dictionary, but Americans (at least here in California) unfairly neglect a huge portion of that library. In fact, its especially the most sophisticated and rich words (often latin) words that are unused. Sure, it is better to use the simpler words instead of the more complex in any given situation, but it is sad when the more intricate and sophisticated word is not used when appropriate and the speaker is unable to communicate effectively. Please, before my fellow Americans dismiss me, please understand that it is sad for me as someone Pakistani in nationality and an urdu (you must realize that urdu ultimately evolved from Sanskrit) speaker, to see how people of my nationality can convey emotion (especially love) with so much more affection because of proper use of language, wheras Americans are unable to compete  in conveying emotion. How do they lack this? Americans, at least here in California, firstly, speak at a relatively sluggish speed and have difficulty forming coherent well structured sentences. WHen they do attempt to form a well structured sentence, their speech contains many breaks as the speaker tries his best to figure out the next word they will use in the sentence. During these breaks they will often say "um" or "ah". They will do this many many times when you speak to them.  This is why they often prefer "small talk" and i know this is used in other languages, but its overuse has reduced it to banality in american speech. "Went to the store, checked it out, ran back, was like "dang", and then i never went back". THat previous sentence is how a person described a visit to the store to briefly check something (notice how much detail is emitted in this common speech). That previous sentence can be spoken with fast speech and is communicated effectively enough to describe the incredibly shallow details that the speaker cares (or rather, cares little) enough to express. However, if an American describes technical information in proper format they will stumble and experience many breaks and, again, take notice how slooowly they speak and how difficult it is for them to form proper sentences and how many times they say "um" or "ah" within sentences. And you wonder how we produce a President Bush! Actually, there are many people that speak like him. The problem with him - in spite of his many sentence breaks and difficulty in forming well-structed sentences -  is that he speaks too much like ordinary Americans! And what need am i of evidence of ordinary Americans speaking in this manner - come here to California and speak to these otherwise normal, perfectly intelligent people! No, dont read what they write on the boards, or how they speak on televised speech, come and converse with everyday Americans.

Is it perhaps that americans are complacent and therefore avoid use of eloquent language (except in linguist circles and in literature) because they simply "dont feel like it". No, because there are times that admist this decay of language, when Americans like any other individuals must also convey strong emotions through expression. Perfect example: courtship. It is such a pity to watch "Jerry Maguire" and see Tom Cruise in his speech during the climax of the film, in which he displays the pinnacle of human empathy in Hollywood film. It was in his desperate attempt to bring back his wife that he must express to her how greatly he loves her. I dont remmeber the details, but you've all seen that movie. He stumbles upon words trying to express the love he has for his wife- sure he is certainly not nearly as eloquent or enchanting as romeo, but it is a pity that he is reduced to merely saying this: "you complete me" and that was the pinnacle of American romance film and far more than enough to win back the heart of his wife. Sure maybe the whole romantic aspect of that scene was the fact that he was unable to express himself. But i am focusing merely on that whole problem of stumbling and being unable to express oneself with langauge to begin with (and it also bothers me why that is considered the peak of romance films set in post modern times - you  would expect some other romance to exceed this standard, but they rarely do), which has poisoned and pervaded everyday American speech. Americans within their families and among loved ones or most sadly, in courtship, are unable to express emotion effectively and stumble in this aspect. They are unable to use express the weight of their emotions through the right sophisticated vocabulary or proper sentence structure becaues that very same weight translates into sentences of length and complexity too much to bear for the everyday American. And so they begin stumbling and speaking very slow when they are poised to express themselves deeply. In similitude, it really is like an impotent and invirile man trying to mount a lady of most luscious beauty -  no matter how bravely he climbes he is unable to surmount the mountain of his affliction and deficiency and reach his most lovable desire. The similitude is a case of pity, but in contrast, the case for americans is not only a pity, but it is a shame. Sure, comparing to my own sanskrit derived language is an unfair  standard (as we all know, indian film is infatuated with its own adeptness in expressing love) for communicating emotion, but surely a lot of the luster of English language has been lost in the United States by oversimplification in everyday speech. Or do you not understand? Go ahead, ask a common American to describe how they feel about someone they love - be it kin or spouse, etc - and see if they can explain with nearly as much eloquence as common speakers of other languages (i already know Americans do not even compare to urdu and hindi speakers, and i am far more advanced in english than urdu).

friend, i agree with you point by point and i believe there has been some miscommunication between us. I explictly stated that the simpler word should be used instead of the more complex one. 

 "Many of those 500,000 words would not be understood by many people. I am a firm believer in Plain English. People that use fancy Latin terms when a nice, understandable Anglo-Saxon one would do are annoying."

 i stated earlier, "Sure, it is better to use the simpler words instead of the more complex in any given situation, but it is sad when the more intricate and sophisticated word is not used when appropriate and the speaker is unable to communicate effectively."

To put it more clearly, in a situation where two words are equally as effective but one is simpler, use the shorter word.  However, when you are trying to express deep emotion and conviction, in which case you must try to find a word that is inclusive of a wider range of emotions, do not settle for words that are fitting for mere common expression. Find that word that will leave a stronger impression - and in the example of courtship that i explained earlier, this is very fitting. And who can argue with this? But even if i were one of the overly ornated and eloquent speakers, isnt it better to be overequipped with words than to be underequipped in battle? Please try to understand. I'd rather go through the pain of saying too much even if it alienates my audience a little bit, rather than being inept and incapable in those moments when i am in greatest need of a word that befits my emotions.

Again, it is better to be overequipped with words than underequipped with them. But it is best to use words like i recommend - equipped highly with words for the right occasions, but using them only for the occasions  for which they are appropriate (so rather minimalist, in a sense)- in which case i imagine you would use them sparingly lest you confound your audience.

"Believe me, you don't want any more detail than that. I know someone who would describe the colour of the doorhandles that he saw on his way in to the store, as well as the cost of each item that caught his eye. How much more detail do you want for someone's visit to the store."

You are right, and you will see exactly why our views at least in close examination do not conflict. Describing going to the store and coming back like i explained is a common mundane activity that does not deserve critical description. I was just giving an example of the manner in which we speak and i was not focusing on the subject itself. The truth is, this small talk, or semi-small talk of fracturing proper sentences into less expressive and detailed ones, often extends to subjects that are actually important - such as kin and spouse relationship. Many times i've had close friends try to express to me how they feel about being neglected by their loved ones but their words do their feelings very little justice. Its their eyes that make me sad or the desperation in their voice that makes me empathetic. Its almost frustrating, however, that i have to extend a further hand to resonate with them. This is not the case in other languages where the merit of the words alone, or the power of movement and tone in the accent, is enough to cause tears. Yes, this extends to tone and movement in one's voice as well. Nevermind, just the ineptness in language, but i doubt many can argue against the fact that Americans are extremely plain-speakers and i think as a consequence we are relatively dull in our language expression - that is, in the tone and movement in our accent in addition to selection of words.. Look, it is okay to be plain-spoken (and relatively dull in my opinion), but we should be equipped for those moments when we must use more dynamic and complex words and adapt (or elevate ourselves to) more movement and poignance in our tone  (this is the one reason why southern accents, despite the lack of sophisticated vocabulary by its speakers, are very much preferred for powerful sermons and speeches - just listen to "I have a dream" by MLK (he used african american speech of his time that was relatively equivalent to southern speech)).  Again, i appeal to my audience (that is, other people on this board) to see if they agree with me based on personal experience with actual common American folks (not televised speech or highly intelligent people or linguists). Also i am no expert in language - this is merely day to day keen observation.