Ugly-sounding words can describe beautiful things

The meanings and negative associations of moist make it ugly, just as positive associations can make other words seem lovely.

Staff

People seem to dislike the sound of the word moist. It tops so many “Ugliest Words in the English Language” lists that psychologists at Oberlin College in Ohio and Trinity University in Texas decided to investigate. Their study participants tended to blame the word’s “phonological properties.” “It just has an ugly sound that makes whatever you’re talking about sound gross,” one person said. Foist, hoist, and rejoice, though, did not evoke negative responses, despite their similar sound patterns. Participants thought “moist cake” was just fine, too. It was only when they were cued to associate the word with disgust at bodily functions that they likened moist to “fingernails scratching a chalkboard.” 

The meanings and negative associations of moist make it ugly, just as positive associations can make mother into one of the most beautiful words in English. There are some words, though, that defy this pattern; (almost) everyone agrees they sound terrible, but they signify something lovely. Ironically, pulchritudinous means “beautiful,” though most people find the word anything but. It derives from the Latin pulcher (“beautiful,” “noble”), and seems to have first been used in English as a way to elevate one’s tone. One 14th-century text, for example, describes what poetry does as taking “the truth” and dressing it up in “oblique [indirect] figurations with pulchritude.” In other words, poetry makes things less clear but better sounding. 

When John Milton was looking for a synonym for “radiance” in his poem “Paradise Lost” (1667), he took effulgence from the Latin ex + fulgere (“to shine forth”). This word does a great job of conveying the radiant splendor of God. From a phonological standpoint, though, it leaves something to be desired. 

If you want another way to say “twilight,” you might go with crepuscular. Or you might not, unless you are a biologist or a poet trying to rhyme “muscular.” Crepuscular is the scientific term for animals, like cats, that are most active around dawn and dusk, as opposed to diurnal dogs or nocturnal raccoons. 

By some measures, these three words should sound good. They have more than three syllables, contain “l” sounds, and derive from “musical” Latin – factors that, as we discussed last week, tend to make words pleasant sounding. They seem to be semantically irreproachable, too. Beauty, splendid radiance, twilight – who could find fault with those?

Perhaps the cacophony of their consonant clusters (lchr, nc, cr) and their plosive sounds (“p” and “k”) outweigh the loveliness of their other features. Or maybe we appreciate their meanings but object to how they mark whatever discourse they appear in as self-consciously “educated.” If you think moist is bad, consider its near synonym, muculent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.