Yes, but we all use math to balance our checkbooks. If someone routinely tries to sneak complex calculus into a bunch of routine interactions, I’m going to look at him as a blowhard. We all do a lot of things for which we assume a baseline in ordinary interactions, even though there greater heights to the activity.
The point I was trying to make is that at some point the language does become in a sense technical. Switch Bose-Einstein condensation with isentropic. Now if you haven’t taken a thermodynamics class you probably haven’t the slightest idea what that word means. Its a highly specific word that is used to convey an explicit explicit meaning. Compare that with a word like egregious. Its a highly specific word that is used to convey an explicit meaning. Writers could just as easily use really bad instead of egregious just as an engineer can say without entropy change instead of isentropic.
In other words some of the more obscure words can be considered technical jargon for novelists. Of course these words have more application in the real world but still unless you read novels you probably aren’t going to come across words like fastidous, ameliorate or egregious in every day conversation. The point I am trying to make is that if someone doesn’t know the meaning of ameliorate it doesn’t mean they are stupid rather they probably don’t read a lot of novels. Just as you not knowing the meaning of isentropic doesn’t make you stupid rather that you don’t do a lot of thermodynamics problems.
Yes, but is math the mode of communication for most people? (Computer programming aside, of course, and even then the communication is still text-based.) Language is the means we have of establishing and continuing interaction with other people. If somebody finds it easier to balance his checkbook using calculus, why shouldn’t he go for it?
Similarly, I find it easier to speak using what some might consider “$10 words”. Does that make me a blowhard? It’s not trying to “sneak” vocabulary into conversations to impress people, it’s that those words are the ones that come to me as I try to express my thoughts. It’s more of an effort to think of simpler words than it is to use the ones already in my head.
I disagree with your “technical jargon for novelists” idea. I don’t think the English language itself is a technical tool for anything but human interaction. You might come across “egregious” in everyday conversation because I said it to you – unless I was trying to be a more social person by acting like I have a smaller vocabulary than I do. 
I see where you’re coming from, though, I just disagree.
I don’t know if this was answered but it’s from an old Bill Cosby routine. In case you wanted to know.
Thanks, I was wondering.
This quote seems appropriate, thought posters here might enjoy:
It’s far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without your help.
Judith Martin
No, a writer couldn’t, or at least shouldn’t. Your second sentence that I’ve quoted contradicts your third. Egregious does not mean bad, any more than fastidious means neat, or ameliorate means improve. When the meaning of egregious is meant, the word should be used. And I’ll use the words in conversation if that’s the meaning I wish to convey. It’s the way I think.
I’d say something, but I’m afraid that due to my stratospheric IQ, comprehensive erudition, prodigious vocabulary and jaw-dropping good looks, the rest of you wouldn’t understand what my kid’s going through.
Fortunately, I don’t have to worry about any of that - my kids are all drooling idiots with the physical coordination of a rhinocerous on PCP. MY GENES RULE!
Exactly!!!
They’re all geniouses at the toddler stage. But don’t worry, along about 17, she’ll suddenly turn into a lovely and wonderful young woman. Honestly, I don’t know where my kids came from, they must have switched the babies, because they knock spots off anything I have upstairs.