used words, will, other things equal, call up images with less loss
of time and energy than their later learnt synonyms.

6. The further superiority possessed by Saxon English in its
comparative brevity, obviously comes under the same generalization.
If it be an advantage to express an idea in the smallest number of
words, then will it be an advantage to express it in the smallest
number of syllables. If circuitous phrases and needless expletives
distract the attention and diminish the strength of the impression
produced, then do surplus articulations do so. A certain effort,
though commonly an inappreciable one, must be required to recognize
every vowel and consonant. If, as all know, it is tiresome to listen
to an indistinct speaker, or read a badly-written manuscript; and
if, as we cannot doubt, the fatigue is a cumulative result of the
attention needed to catch successive syllables; it follows that
attention is in such cases absorbed by each syllable. And if this
be true when the syllables are difficult of recognition, it will
also be true, though in a less degree, when the recognition of
them is easy. Hence, the shortness of Saxon words becomes a reason
for their greater force. One qualification, however, must not
be overlooked. A word which in itself embodies the most important
part of the idea to be conveyed, especially when that idea is an
emotional one, may often with advantage be a polysyllabic word. Thus
it seems more forcible to say, "It is _magnificent,_" than "It is
_grand._" The word _vast_ is not so powerful a one as _stupendous._
Calling a thing _nasty_ is not so effective as calling it _disgusting._

7. There seem to be several causes for this exceptional superiority
of certain long words. We may ascribe it partly to the fact that a
voluminous, mouth-filling epithet is, by its very size, suggestive