Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

25%
+0 −4
Q&A Should writers shun cognate stems that share roots, because readers take longer to process these stems? [closed]

Question 1 Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds? For exa...

0 answers  ·  posted 1y ago by TextKit‭  ·  closed 1y ago by Canina‭

Question word-choice
#13: Question closed by user avatar Canina‭ · 2022-08-03T08:26:39Z (over 1 year ago)
#12: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-08-01T00:00:42Z (over 1 year ago)
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning stems that share a root?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Should writers prefer synonyms that don't share roots and stems — like _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • ## Afterword and Context for my questions
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*.
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*.
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_).
  • - *than* vs. *then*.
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*.
  • I am not a linguist. I cannot distinguish between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake linguistics terms, just edit and correct my post. Thanks!
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning stems that share a root?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Should writers prefer synonyms that don't share roots and stems — like _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • ## Afterword and Context for my questions
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*.
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*.
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_).
  • - *than* vs. *then*.
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*.
  • I am not a linguist. If I misused linguistics terms like [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428), then please edit and correct my post!
#11: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:59:11Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Should writers shun stems that share roots, because readers take longer to process these cognate roots?
  • Should writers shun cognate stems that share roots, because readers take longer to process these stems?
#10: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:55:29Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)
  • - *than* vs. *then*
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning stems that share a root?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Should writers prefer synonyms that don't share roots and stems — like _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I am not a linguist. I cannot distinguish between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake linguistics terms, just edit and correct my post please.
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning stems that share a root?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Should writers prefer synonyms that don't share roots and stems — like _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • ## Afterword and Context for my questions
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*.
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*.
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_).
  • - *than* vs. *then*.
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*.
  • I am not a linguist. I cannot distinguish between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake linguistics terms, just edit and correct my post. Thanks!
#9: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:44:58Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)
  • - *than* vs. *then*
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning stems that share a root?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Should writers prefer synonyms that don't share roots and stems — like _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)
  • - *than* vs. *then*
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning stems that share a root?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Should writers prefer synonyms that don't share roots and stems — like _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I am not a linguist. I cannot distinguish between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake linguistics terms, just edit and correct my post please.
#8: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:44:06Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)
  • - *than* vs. *then*
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster, than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)
  • - *than* vs. *then*
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning stems that share a root?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Should writers prefer synonyms that don't share roots and stems like _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
#7: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:37:41Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *farther* which stems from *further*
  • - the participles of *lay* vs. *lie*
  • - [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)
  • - *than* vs. *then*
  • - *through* that stems from *thorough*. *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • - *to* vs. *too*
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish between stems (and bases) that share the same root, even if merely picoseconds?**
  • For example, do bookworms distinguish *climb* vs. *descend* faster, than *ascend* vs. *descend*?
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve bibliomaniacs' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
#6: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:31:50Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) — like certain stems (and bases) that share roots — as expounded in [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), sharing *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Another pair of [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) is *increase* vs. *decrease*, sharing *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* doesn`t etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) like [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), because these are stems that share the same root *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Similarly, *increase* vs. *decrease* are quasi-homophones, because they share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* doesn't etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
#5: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:28:10Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Aviation forbids roots (and bases) that share stems, as expounded in [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), sharing *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Another pair of [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) is *increase* vs. *decrease*, sharing *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) confuse too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* doesn`t etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
  • Aviation forbids [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) — like certain stems (and bases) that share roots — as expounded in [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), sharing *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Another pair of [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) is *increase* vs. *decrease*, sharing *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) are quasi-homophonous too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* doesn`t etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ — over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
#4: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:24:50Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Should writers shun bases that share roots or stems, because readers take longer to process them?
  • Should writers shun stems that share roots, because readers take longer to process these cognate roots?
  • Aviation forbids bases that share roots and stems, as expounded in [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435) (that share *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend)). Another confusing and forbidden pair is *increase* vs. *decrease* (that share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881)). But Germanic pairs confuse too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* is not etymologically related to *through, thorough*. But all three can be confused because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). Just edit and correct this as necessary.
  • Aviation forbids roots (and bases) that share stems, as expounded in [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435), sharing *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend). Another pair of [quasi-homophones](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80199) is *increase* vs. *decrease*, sharing *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881). But Germanic [Minimal Pairs](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/80200) and [rhymes](https://www.quora.com/What-are-similar-sounding-words-called/answer/Andrew-Siegel-9) confuse too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • Here I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* doesn`t etymologically relate to *through, thorough* — but all three are confused, because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems like favoring _drop, lower_ over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). If I mistake terms, just edit and correct my post.
#3: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T22:45:53Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Aviation forbids bases that share roots and stems, as explained in [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435) (that share *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend)). Another confusing and forbidden pair is *increase* vs. *decrease* (that share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881)). But Germanic pairs confuse too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ### Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* is not etymologically related to *through, thorough*. But all three can be confused because they are spelled so alike.
  • ### Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from these processing delays? How can writers prevent these processing delays, to improve readability and reading comprehension? Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms for *increase* (e.g. raise, rise) and *decrease* that don't share roots and stems (e.g. drop, lower)?
  • I do not fully understand the distinctions between [bases, stems vs. roots](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). Just edit and correct this as necessary.
  • Apology in advance.
  • Aviation forbids bases that share roots and stems, as expounded in [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435) (that share *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend)). Another confusing and forbidden pair is *increase* vs. *decrease* (that share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881)). But Germanic pairs confuse too — like
  • - *than* vs. *then*,
  • - *to* vs. *too*,
  • - the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*.
  • ## Question 1
  • But here, I am asking about merely reading and writing. **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend* — compared with *climb* vs. *descend* — even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?
  • *though* is not etymologically related to *through, thorough*. But all three can be confused because they are spelled so alike.
  • ## Question 2
  • **What can writers learn from Question 1? How can writers prevent these processing delays by their persuers? How can writers improve their perusers' readability and reading comprehension?
  • Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**
  • Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*? Should writers even excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms that don't share roots and stems — like favoring _drop, lower_ over _decrease_?
  • I don't grok the distinctions between [base vs. stem vs. root](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). Just edit and correct this as necessary.
#2: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T22:38:31Z (over 1 year ago)
  • Should writers shun bases that share roots or stems, because readers take longer to process them??
  • Should writers shun bases that share roots or stems, because readers take longer to process them?
#1: Initial revision by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T22:38:13Z (over 1 year ago)
Should writers shun bases that share roots or stems, because readers take longer to process them??
Aviation forbids bases that share roots and stems, as explained in  [*ascend* vs. *descend*](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/50435) (that share *-cend* from Latin [*scandere*](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ascend)). Another confusing and forbidden pair is *increase* vs. *decrease* (that share *-crease* from Latin [*crescere*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/decrease?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_881)). But Germanic pairs confuse too — like 
- *than* vs. *then*,
-  *to* vs. *too*, 
- the participles of *lie* vs. *lay*. 


### Question 1

But here,  I am asking about merely reading and writing.  **Do human readers take longer to distinguish *ascend* vs. *descend*  — compared with *climb* vs. *descend*  —  even if merely picoseconds?** Same question for *increase* vs. *decrease*? Same question for *farther* which stems from *further*? [*lose*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/lose#etymonline_v_12441) vs. *loose* (from Proto-Germanic _*lausa-_)? *through* that stems from *thorough*?

*though* is not etymologically related to *through, thorough*. But all three can be confused because they are spelled so alike.  

### Question 2

**What can writers learn from these processing delays? How can writers prevent these processing delays, to improve readability and reading comprehension? Does this processing delay suggest shunning bases that share roots or stems?**

  Should writers shun *ascend* as much as possible, in favor of *climb*?  Should writers even  excise *ascend* from their vocabulary? Similarly, should writers pick synonyms for *increase* (e.g. raise, rise) and *decrease* that don't share roots and stems (e.g. drop, lower)?



 I do not fully understand the distinctions between [bases, stems vs. roots](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/q/9428). Just  edit and correct this as necessary. 
Apology in advance.