Anyone with a decent vocabulary

coder1

Senior member
Jul 29, 2000
433
0
0
Is there anyone aware of a word that would describe somone who would only give a short, yes, no answer. Somone not really interested in a resolution, just answering as quickly as possible. I'm putting together a proposition for our department that will resolve a lot of the problmes we get from other departments not willing to do their part. It appears that most of them will only give a quick answer as they seem afraid of any hard work or research. Thanks to any of you literary folks.
 

AvesPKS

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
4,729
0
0
Terse. Hmmm...after reading further, I'm not sure 'terse' fully encapsulates the word you're looking for.
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
Main Entry:brusque
Variant:also brusk \*br*sk\
Function:adjective
Etymology:French brusque, from Italian brusco, from Medieval Latin bruscus butcher's-broom (plant with bristly twigs)
Date:1651

1 : markedly short and abrupt
2 : blunt in manner or speech often to the point of ungracious harshness
synonyms see BLUFF
?brusquely adverb
?brusqueness noun

Main Entry:curt
Pronunciation:*k*rt
Function:adjective
Etymology:Latin curtus shortened more at SHEAR
Date:1630

1 a : sparing of words : TERSE b : marked by rude or peremptory shortness : BRUSQUE
2 : shortened in linear dimension
synonyms see BLUFF
?curtly adverb
?curtness noun


Main Entry:imperious
Pronunciation:im-*pir-*-*s
Function:adjective
Etymology:Latin imperiosus, from imperium
Date:1540

1 : befitting or characteristic of one of eminent rank or attainments : COMMANDING, DOMINANT *an imperious manner* b : marked by arrogant assurance : DOMINEERING
2 : intensely compelling : URGENT *the imperious problems of the new age J. F. Kennedy*
synonyms see MASTERFUL
?imperiously adverb
?imperiousness noun
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: coder1
Is there anyone aware of a word that would describe somone who would only give a short, yes, no answer. Somone not really interested in a resolution, just answering as quickly as possible. I'm putting together a proposition for our department that will resolve a lot of the problmes we get from other departments not willing to do their part. It appears that most of them will only give a quick answer as they seem afraid of any hard work or research. Thanks to any of you literary folks.

I'm not sure exactly - but something around the folowing make sense to me.

Abrupt
Curt
Nonchalant
Following the path of least action/resistance

I think number 3 sums it up best for me.

From www.webster.com

nonchalant - "having an air of easy unconcern or indifference"

Good luck,

Andy
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: AvesPKS
Terse. Hmmm...after reading further, I'm not sure 'terse' fully encapsulates the word you're looking for.
Yeah, terse implies some irritation on the part of the person making the reply. ie- you ask your wife where your blue socks are and get a quick "Try looking in your drawer." answer because she's pissed you got drunk last night and has better things to do than help you find your socks. ;)

Maybe "perfunctory" is a better word?

 

coder1

Senior member
Jul 29, 2000
433
0
0
LOL, I appreciate the answers. Maybe you guys are right. I should just come out and be blunt. "Lazy" would definitely sum it up.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Main Entry: per·func·to·ry

Pronunciation: p&r-'f&[ng](k)-t(&-)rE
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin perfunctorius, from Latin perfungi to accomplish, get through with, from per- through + fungi to perform -- more at PER-, FUNCTION
Date: 1593

1 : characterized by routine or superficiality : MECHANICAL <a perfunctory smile>
2 : lacking in interest or enthusiasm
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
"It seems obvious from your, monosyllabic at worst and ambivalent at best, answers to our queries, that you are avoiding answering the question more explicitly for fear of assuming responsibility."

feel free to add "you fvcking bastard" at the end.
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
There is no point of using fancy big words when most people won't know what you mean. Just describe the people the way you did in your original post, that should be fine.
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: maladroit
There is no point of using fancy big words when most people won't know what you mean. Just describe the people the way you did in your original post, that should be fine.

Those words exist for a reason - Do not cater your vocabulary to idiots, say precisely what you mean to say without wasting words.

Viper GTS
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: maladroit
There is no point of using fancy big words when most people won't know what you mean. Just describe the people the way you did in your original post, that should be fine.

Those words exist for a reason - Do not cater your vocabulary to idiots, say precisely what you mean to say without wasting words.

Viper GTS

Language exists for a reason, and that reason is to communicate, and I think being clear is more important than "not wasting words"
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
succinct.
Nope, succinct would be a short and also correct response. The right answer put as briefly as possible. He's talking about people who just throw out anything to get you to go away.

 

Electric Amish

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
23,578
1
0
Trite is incorrect....

Main Entry: trite
Pronunciation: 'trIt
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): trit·er; trit·est
Etymology: Latin tritus, from past participle of terere to rub, wear away -- more at THROW
Date: 1548
: hackneyed or boring from much use : not fresh or original

amish
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: maladroit
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: maladroit
There is no point of using fancy big words when most people won't know what you mean. Just describe the people the way you did in your original post, that should be fine.

Those words exist for a reason - Do not cater your vocabulary to idiots, say precisely what you mean to say without wasting words.

Viper GTS

Language exists for a reason, and that reason is to communicate, and I think being clear is more important than "not wasting words"

The words that have been mentioned are in no way "big" or "fancy."

If you're writing for adults, there is absolutely no reason you should hesitate to use them.

Viper GTS
 

palad

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2000
1,586
0
0
There's always 'laconic'.

The etymology I have heard follows a Roman legend. Supposedly the Lacons were a tribe that the Romans had wanted to take over for some time. At one point, a Roman general issued them an ultimatum. 'If we come into your city, we will take it over. If we take it over, we will throw down your homes and kill your families. If we invade, your lives will be over."

The Lacons responded with a single word. 'If.'
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: fuzzy bee
succinct.
Nope, succinct would be a short and also correct response. The right answer put as briefly as possible. He's talking about people who just throw out anything to get you to go away.

yep - misread what he was looking for.

maybe nonchalant? or maybe not. hmmmm....
 

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76
Perfunctory is a good one! You might also consider apathetic (which I like mainly because it contains the word pathetic which most likely applies also :)).

l2c

Edit:

ap·a·thet·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-thtk) also ap·a·thet·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
Feeling or showing a lack of interest or concern; indifferent.
Feeling or showing little or no emotion; unresponsive.
 

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,019
156
106
I can only think of one possibility that wasn't already mentioned - pithy.
 

brtspears2

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
8,659
1
81
nef would work, but thats not really a real word.

Lazy would be the best, the irony is there between how small the word is and how simple the word is too.