Writing

#13: Question closed by

Canina‭ · 2022-08-03T08:26:39Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

#12: Post edited by

TextKit‭ · 2022-08-01T00:00:42Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

## 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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:59:11Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

~~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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:55:29Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:44:58Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:44:06Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:37:41Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:31:50Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:28:10Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T23:24:50Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

~~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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T22:45:53Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T22:38:31Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

~~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

TextKit‭ · 2022-07-31T22:38:13Z (over 2 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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.

word-choice

Communities

Post History