I recently finished reading Word Wizard, a collection of essays by Richard Lederer. (If you’ve ever been forwarded the email that asks why if we say “tooth” and “teeth,” why don’t we pluralize “booth” as “beeth,” Lederer’s the guy who wrote those musings.) Two of the essays struck me as ironic, but it’s likely that I noticed the irony only because the two pieces were placed near each other in the book.

One is called “Cut the Verbal Fat,” and the other, “Add Wealth to your Vocabulary.”

They seem contradictory at first glance. But are they?

“Cut the Verbal Fat” talks about how adults may let ulterior motives get in the way of their ability to communicate concisely. For example, a business executive wants to look impressive, show expertise, and get some credit, so he writes a drawn-out memo to prove his knowledge and value. The result is lack of direct and effective writing; for example, “at this point in time,” Lederer notes, is “the bureaucrat’s seventeen-letter word for now.”

At the same time, in “Add Wealth to Your Vocabulary,” Lederer talks about how knowing more words can improve your ability to communicate. But if you know more words, isn’t your writing going to be inflated?

Not necessarily.

At the heart of a good vocabulary is understanding. Lederer provides this exchange between NASA’s Werner Von Braun and a woman from the audience of one of his talks:

Woman: Dr. Von Braun, I just loved your speech, and I found it of absolutely infinitesimal value!

Von Braun: Well then, I guess I’ll have to publish it posthumously.

Woman: Oh, yes. And the sooner the better!

Two words: Communication breakdown.

A person with the best command of words understands the words she’s using. When you truly comprehend the words you’re using, you usually don’t have to add fluff to qualify your meaning. The more words you know, the more you have to select from, and therefore the easier time you have putting meaning across succinctly.

Knowing more words doesn’t necessarily equate with using more words. A single word can convey more meaning than another. Consider calling yardwork a drag or calling it a drudgery. Which carries more connotations and imagery? In my opinion, drudgery wins.

The more meaningful word doesn’t always have to be longer, either. Which carries a stronger meaning for the same thing: incapable or inept? The latter gets my vote.

Of course, it depends on exactly what meaning you’re trying to invoke. Different words, though listed in the thesaurus as synonyms, carry different associations. One of Lederer’s examples consist of words for big. Mountainous carries “the suggestion of solidity and immovability,” while hulking brings “a sense of threat to the impression of size.”

Taken together, these two concepts aren’t contrary. In fact, I think they’re harmonious. The more words you understand, the greater ability you have to communicate effectively. Of course, your audience also has to command enough vocabulary to get the effect. But I, for one, am more impressed by a correctly worded, concise statement that requires a trip to my dictionary later than by bloated discourse that I know could have given the same meaning in half the words.