What’s Another Word for Thesaurus? Finished!: My Roget’s II Thesaurus Review

All the way through reading the thesaurus, I was hard on it. I’m not some ivory-tower dwelling linguist, but I know enough words to not need to use the thesaurus the way the introduction section sells it. Using the thesaurus to add color and bigger words to your writing may feel satisfying but it can also make you look foolish. I do, however, have to concede a few points its way.

Toolbox Level 1: A-
Remember this category? It’s the engineering of writing (vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and mechanics). Much like the dictionary, the thesaurus is all about vocabulary. I only caught a handful of spelling errors, none of which were the main word entry. Rather, all spelling errors came in the short sentence or fragment examples of proper use of the word. This rating is a bit of a cop-out when you consider that most of this book was just single words in rapid succession. The dictionary was the same way.

Toolbox Level 2: A-
Just like the dictionary, the thesaurus, as a reference book, defies much of what anyone can throw at it from a stylistic analysis perspective. The only style here lies in the introduction section, which was pretty straight-laced. The rest is just words, fragments, and occasional sentences. This feels like a cop-out too but I am hopeful that I can rein in this category and Toolbox Level 1 more as I hit books with actual style to evaluate.

Fulfillment of Purpose: B-
The people at Roget’s want you to use this book to fluff your writing and possibly expand your everyday vocabulary. The former makes me gag and the latter seems like a lofty goal. Vocabulary is something you either have or you don’t. You can build it up but only if you expose yourself to it in use. I think you are more likely to remember words when you hear them coming from the mouths of others. I found a few new-to-me words while reading the dictionary, but I haven’t put many of them to use. The environments I find myself in certainly don’t use them and they may not even be appropriate for most of them anyway.

At the end of the day, I have to concede that most of the synonym suggestions my thesaurus lays out are in-bounds. I still hate the fact that there was only a halfhearted caution about context. If you want to use a word that you aren’t 100% comfortable with because it’s not already in your vocabulary, please look up the definition of the word in the dictionary and pay attention to all possible definitions and even the etymology.

Similar to the dictionary, I have to wonder about the future of print thesauri. Having one handy may be useful for a quick check in an office, dorm room, or the home, but most people are carrying around smartphones that double as powerful inquisitorial tools. Merriam-Webster keeps some information behind a pay wall with their definition contents but I don’t see how an online thesaurus could keep much hidden without being abandoned and becoming irrelevant.

Reading Experience: C-
The thesaurus rates higher than the dictionary in this category because it was so much easier and faster to read. After a bitter fight to the end with the dictionary, I kept myself detached while reading the thesaurus. There’s very little to latch onto here, so I made “it’s just a bunch of words” my mantra for the 175 days it took to read it.

Points of interest were few and far between. Maybe part of that is due to my cold approach to the book. I didn’t give it much of a fair shake but I still believe it didn’t warrant much of one to begin with. There were times when the act of reading became a bit of a chore but there weren’t spirit-crushing lengthy ruts to contend with. I read it to read it and get it out of the way. The thesaurus gave about as much pushback to that goal as I expected.

Overall Score: 2.917 out of 4 (high B-)
Of course the thesaurus would come away with the same score as the dictionary. Why not? Their journeys to a high B- had different paths but it’s a fitting score. One was informative but bothersome to work through. The other was easy to read but void of anything approaching engaging reading. The thesaurus is another book that’s just not meant to be read cover to cover like this but it can be done. To do so in such a short span of time after completing the dictionary gives me the feeling of momentum. I hope it’s not a false sense though.

READING UPDATE: The Thesaurus- Part 4- Ransack – Zoom

November saw a crucial resurgence in reading progress. October was a very busy month, and I expected November to be similar. To my pleasant surprise, I found myself blasting out pages in large blocks.

This was most helpful as I hit the letter S. As with the dictionary, the letter S is the longest section of my thesaurus, but there were fewer chunks of redundant prefixes bogging me down mentally. S was not a stumbling block at all.

December began with an extended halt in reading. My family passed a cold around a few times, which left me tired and not keen on reading. We got a lot of holiday shopping done early somehow this year, which left me with plenty of time to pick the thesaurus back up in the middle of the month. I was surprised with how many pages I cranked out in just a few sittings.

While I finished this book off quickly, I didn’t stop looking for words to protest. I couldn’t find any worth protesting in December, however. Maybe the end of the alphabet doesn’t lend itself to the kind of synonym abuse I found in earlier sections.

I’ll post my official review in a few days. For now, here are my synonym objections for the final quarter or so of the thesaurus:


Retract/Palinode- I suppose the latter term has some place still in artistic and literary circles but it’s far from acceptable as a straight synonym. A palinode is a poem or song that serves to retract information laid out in a previous song, verse, or poem. What an artful way to present a contraction!

Rodomontade/Boast or Boastful- While the former initially sounds like a very snotty and boastful way to say boastful, context reveals all. This word comes from the name of an Italian literary figure- a haughty and boastful fictitious king. If you’re a fan of medieval Italian literature, I won’t roll my eyes at you if you use this word. If not, don’t try it.

Scarecrow/Tatterdemalion- The latter is a French term used to describe anyone or anything that is ragged in appearance. I can see how the two words may have overlapped over time but even Merriam-Webster Online doesn’t list scarecrow as a synonym. I’m willing to let it slide for any Frenchies and Quebecois that I may run into but not for anyone else.

Shrewd/Perspicacious-Both words refer to the ability to perceive things clearly, but they have distinct qualities. Shrewdness stems from practicality in mindset, while perspicaciousness suggests something more than practicality. It’s more of an uncanny power, making these words close but not at all interchangeable. Perspicacious is also a few syllables too long to get the point across.

Stupid/Hebetudinous- The latter comes across as a snobbish, condescending way to confuse the very person they may be using the word against. Of course, it’s rooted in Latin, making it more outdated than useful. It’s rooted in the Latin word for dull. Only through extensions of that root term, does one arrive at stupid. Save your syllables and you’ll less like a pseudo-intellectual.

Terpsichorean/Dancer- The former comes the name of one of the Muses from Greek mythology. Terpsichore was the patron muse of dancing and song. It works but only if your audience knows their Greek mythology.

Tintinnabulate/Ring- When checking for specifics on the former, I found that Merriam-Webster Online doesn’t even list it as a word in their database! I’m not an M-W purist or anything but that should probably give one pause. Tintinnabulum is the Latin word for bell, so fans of Latin can argue that this word makes sense and should be in bounds. But I hail from the ‘save your syllables’ school of thought, so it just sounds wordy and unnecessary.


Page Count: 528/528 (100.00%)

READING UPDATE: The Thesaurus- Part 3- Gossipy – Rankness

I never posted a reading update for the month of September. By the time I realized I hadn’t posted yet, October was half over, so I just skipped it and decided to lump September and October into one post. October was a very lean month for reading. I had a few side projects going on and a busy schedule at home.

Two spelling errors that I found during this last batch of pages included an e missing off the end of the word adjective and an s missing off the end of what I assume was supposed to be the word his. Those are the only spelling errors I’ve come across so far. While it is a knock against the editorial staff, it’s still not bad to only have two mistakes in 376 pages. Both mistakes occurred in example sentences and not the main word, making them a little more forgivable.

Reading progress has dipped each month. With the holiday shopping season right around the corner, I have minor concerns about finishing the thesaurus this year. I only need 76 pages per month to complete the journey before we ring in the New Year though. The calendar for November has some busy patches but I believe there will be several opportunities to make up for lost time.

There will be a reading update post for November’s progress. Until then, here are the unnecessary synonyms I came across the last two months:

Heavenly/Empyrean- The latter is a 15th century Latin word derived from the Greek word empurios. I can see the appeal- it’s a flowery, grandiose kind of word but it also sounds a little pretentious to me.

Hypocritical/Pecksniffery- While I love that the latter comes from a character in a Charles Dickens, the word just sounds naughty. I can see Brits getting away with using pecksniffery but American’s should probably stay away.

Introduction/Prolegomenon- Use of the latter word should only be done in the proper situation. Introduction and prologue are suitable for simple, introductory remarks at the beginning of a literary work or theatrical production. Prolegomenon should be reserved only for sophisticated opening remarks on a scholarly work. To suggest it is interchangeable with the other two is inappropriate.

Logical/Ratiocinative- Why waste time and energy on extra syllables? Ratiocinative refers to a very precise form of reasoning. To hear someone use it to describe themselves today, however, would lead me to believe they are a little full of themselves. Call yourself logical and I’ll go along with you. Call yourself ratiocinative and I’ll call you arrogant.

Long/Sesquipedalian- On the surface, this is just silly. Why use a six-syllable word when you can just say long? That’s actually the point though. Sesquipedalian literally means a foot-and-a-half long. It was first used to describe long, unnecessary words in a work of satire. Stuffy literary critics took it too far though, embracing the obscure and ironic word and wielding it as a weapon against authors deemed to use flowery, long, unnecessary words.

Obsolete/In mothballs- Does anyone use mothballs anymore? I took that question to Google and learned that all the advances in central heating and air conditioning over the last 60 years, as well as the boom in synthetic fibers, have all but rendered mothballs and other such clothing storage pesticides unnecessary. Does this mean that the idiom ‘in mothballs’ is itself obsolete? I suppose this idiom was still common 20 years ago but I’m going to check to see if current edition of Roget’s still includes it.

Pabulum/Food- The former is an old Latin word that isn’t a perfect match for the word food. It’s got a history of being used to describe any kind of fodder necessary to keep plants or animals alive, any kind of nutrients suspended in a solution suitable for absorption, and even intellectual food for thought. To present it as such a straight synonym is misleading.

Pusillanimity/Cowardly- French, from Latin, and a few syllables too many, the former may work in the über-intellectual, hoity-toity crowd but it’s not a word to use when communicating with the general public. I’m not anti-big words but you have to respect the fact that they have a very specific time and place to be considered appropriate.


Page Count: 376/528 (71.21%)
Countdown to the Letter S: 26 pages

READING UPDATE: The Thesaurus- Part 2- Craze – Gossipmonger

I came up a hair short of matching last month’s reading pace but I am pleased with my progress so far. If I can keep chewing through 100 pages a month, I should be finished with the thesaurus by Thanksgiving. This is an attainable and optimal goal. December was always a difficult month for commitment to reading due to Christmas shopping and holiday get-togethers. If I do complete this read by Thanksgiving, I may take December off and pick up book number three in 2019.

For kicks and giggles, I checked on where I was in the dictionary at this percentage complete point. I was partway through the letter L at this same point, so there are substantial differences between the length of the letter sections in each book. Letters P and S look to be the longest sections of the thesaurus, which was true for the dictionary as well, so it’s not completely different.

There has been very little value in reading the thesaurus. I’m already familiar with many of the suggested synonyms, even if they weren’t at the forefront of my mind. Many of these suggestions are in bounds but I’m not giving up my distrust of the thesaurus as a writing tool.

The following are some of the most over-the-top synonym suggestions I came across during August. Some of them may have their place in scientific or discipline-specific circles but very few of these should be used outside of those audiences:

Defection/Tergiversation- The latter is an almost archaic Latin term. Ironic that a big, fancy-pants word also means “evasion of a clear-cut statement.” This word is probably only used to trip people up.

Defiant/Contumacious- The latter is legal jargon derived from Latin. ‘Nuff said.

Dithyrambic/Passionate- The former actually refers to a specific type of enthusiastic, short poem of unconventional structure. Not exactly a perfect synonym!

Dress/Habiliments- The latter used to refer to complex outfits, such as a suit of armor. Nowadays it can refer to any kind of industry-specific uniform. Save yourself at least one syllable and find a shorter word.

Eidolon/Ghost- MW Online defines the former as “an unsubstantial image,” not a specter or ghost. It’s also in the bottom 30% of MW’s word popularity rankings. Anyone using this term is just trying to sound smart.

Eleemosynary/Benevolent- The former is a Latin term, the root of which the English shortened to ælmes, which became alms. Thus the direct connection to benevolent. However, MW Online defines it to mean “of, relating to, or supported by charity.” Not a perfect fit but I have to admit that it is in the right vein.

Exuviate/Shed- Biologists can use this word all they like when referring to molting and skin shedding. Everyone else should pick something else to describe any other form of changing or undressing.

Faithlessness/Perfidiousness- Shakespeare used the latter in All’s Well That Ends Well but that should tell you something right there. If it’s old and flowery enough to appear in Shakespeare, it’s probably not best for use in modern day-to-day conversation.

Fastigium/Height- The definition of the former refers to both the angle of a ventricle in your brain or the point during a disease where symptoms are most notable. The thesaurus just says it’s interchangeable with the word height, without specifying which definition of height links best to it. There is a link but the thesaurus fails to safeguard against misuse.


Page Count: 228/528 (43.18%)
Countdown to the Letter H: 6 pages

READING UPDATE: The Thesaurus- Part 1- Introduction – Crawly

There was a point in late July where I thought hitting the 25% mark was possible. I came close but life intervened. This wasn’t as demoralizing as constantly missing my reading goals with the dictionary, because after just a few pages into the thesaurus, I realized how little I was going to take away from it.

Given that I view the thesaurus as a tool rife for misuse, I was not surprised to find only the scantest of cautions against inappropriate use of the words found herein. In the opening introduction, my thesaurus boasts that it will help the reader “find the right words to express your thoughts precisely and add color and variety to your language.” Toward the end of the introduction section, it cautions that “even though two words may be synonymous, they may not be equally appropriate in all contexts.” Rather than encouraging readers to double-check the exact definitions of fancier words plucked from the thesaurus before using them, it just rambles on about certain fields that words might be limited to.

Reading the ‘synonym’ content of the thesaurus is a breeze. My approach to the thesaurus makes this even easier. Unlike the dictionary, I’m not trying to discover or retain much of anything with this book. My goal is to push through it and move on to books with substance. I’ve got a respectable vocabulary but if I didn’t absorb new words from the dictionary, I won’t add to my lexicon from the thesaurus.

I found one or two words with ‘synonyms’ that were highfalutin and seemed completely unnecessary outside of trying to make yourself sound smart. I don’t remember what those words were, but I will keep an eye out for them from now on. Other than that, I don’t have any interesting thesaurus entries to report on because it offers no interesting details about the words like the dictionary did.


Page Count: 118/528 (22.35%)
Countdown to the Letter D: 5.5 pages

NOW READING: Roget’s II Desk Thesaurus- Home, School, and Office Edition (1995)

You might think I would move on to something with a narrative (or at least full sentences) after completing the dictionary, but this next selection for Project Bookshelf is part of a planned process. Trust the process. I do, even after the dictionary left me with egg on my face for years on end.

I chose the dictionary first to expose myself to as many words as possible. The thesaurus serves a specific purpose as well. It’s a doubling down of sorts on vocabulary. It exposes me to similar words. I won’t go so far as to use the term synonyms, because I know that words grouped together in a thesaurus are not true synonyms. Some are but there is a wide array of variation and differentiation that must be respected and understood when choosing words.

My mental approach to the dictionary was a positive one. It is a reference book with a noble purpose- helping people spell and understand the meaning of words. This is not the same approach I bring to the thesaurus. It is a dangerous book that is used as a crutch by lazy writers. I’m sure I was guilty of trying to make my writing look better via a thesaurus back in middle school and possibly even high school, but somewhere along the way I came to understand that a thesaurus is more of a frenemy and best kept at arm’s length.

As with the dictionary, there’s not much backstory to describe with this choice. I believe this particular thesaurus moved into the house with me, but I am not 100% certain. One point to clarify is the pronunciation of this book. Growing up, I heard a few different pronunciations but the primary one was Ro-gets. This is incorrect. It is pronounced Ro-zhays, and it is named after Peter Mark Roget, who created a comprehensive English-language reference work in 1805. This book is different from the original, as it is simply presented in alphabetical order, start to finish. Roget’s original (and more extensive thesaurus) is broken up into categories.

Roget’s II offers larger font, more white space per page, and only a third the number of pages that the dictionary threw at me. I know better than to overestimate my reading prowess, so I will simply say that I am confident that I will not take four years to read this one. Onward!