5

I have authored an answer to a SWR. While I believe my suggestion provides a near precise answer to the asked question, it seems to be rather unliked.

I understand the word may be rare, but an unusual word usually does not generate a lot of controversy.

If I could get some help understanding how the answer should be improved, or why the answer is considered such a bad one, that feedback would be much appreciated.

  • This is a HOT META POST. Congratulations on making the Big Time. – John Lawler Sep 4 '18 at 18:58
3

Your answer has eight up-votes and four down-votes, so it's more controversial than bad. I suspect the controversy stems from your discussion of "babble", since some commenters disagree that it's not the same as "babel" in this context.

You could try adding a definition of "babble" to support your position, or (if those definitions don't pan out), you could soften your statement to list "babble" as a similar (etymologically unrelated), but potentially more ambiguous, term.


Incidentally, I would tend to agree that "babble" is an OK term here; the relevant ODO definition is

  1. [i mass noun] The sound of people talking simultaneously.

But I also agree with you that there is a greater connotation of rapidity, as seen in the first definition of the verb:

  1. Talk rapidly and continuously in a foolish, excited, or incomprehensible way.
  • Thanks, I will clarify the connotation comes from the verb definition, and soften my stance. – jxh Aug 29 '18 at 20:57
2

Provide some historical references to accentuate the legitimacy of the usage.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

  • Thanks, I have added some context. – jxh Aug 30 '18 at 19:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .