Timeline for Opposite of "verbose"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2019 at 6:39 | comment | added | Hashbrown |
depending on how the rest of your sentence is structured, sparse worked for me as an antonym
|
|
| Apr 4, 2015 at 19:30 | history | edited | tchrist♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 1, 2015 at 19:26 | history | protected | tchrist♦ | ||
| Apr 25, 2013 at 9:05 | comment | added | vi.su. | wouldn't it be better, if opposite is as simple as, 'verbish'? | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 9:28 | history | edited | RegDwigнt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Apr 24, 2013 at 9:27 | answer | added | Anshul | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 7:27 | answer | added | akshay | timeline score: -1 | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 16:39 | answer | added | lonesomeday | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 11:52 | answer | added | jk. | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 7:01 | answer | added | Stephan B | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 5:32 | comment | added | hunter2 | @EdwinAshworth probably has the best answer with 'overly brief'. Was going to mention 'terse' and 'curt', as others have, but neither necessarily means too few. Then again, verbose doen't necessarily mean too many; I would think of terse as being the opposite of verbose. | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 22:44 | comment | added | Kaz | One-word answers should be allowed, just for this question. | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 21:25 | answer | added | D.K. | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 21:08 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/324630476486750208 | ||
| Apr 17, 2013 at 21:04 | answer | added | LeFrenchWhoThinksHeSpeaksEngli | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 19:05 | vote | accept | hayd | ||
| Apr 17, 2013 at 18:48 | answer | added | p.s.w.g | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 18:43 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | @hayden: For laconic, concise to the point of seeming rude suggests 'using too few words'; as Bill says, curt has this connotation also. If you mean 'too few words' from a perspective of clarity or roundedness, such an article say might be termed overbrief, thin or flimsy. | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 18:42 | comment | added | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft | I would consider succinct the opposite, but it doesn't convey having too few words - it has just enough (which is much less than most people would use). | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 18:24 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | @hayden Certainly pauciloquent has “too few words” built right into it. Otherwise, just use multiple words. | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 18:01 | answer | added | Kristina Lopez | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 15:41 | comment | added | hayd | @EdwinAshworth True, but I don't think either suggest "too few"...? | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 15:38 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | You've shot yourself in the foot - giving one sense for laconic (and not the one mentioned first) from one dictionary. Here are other statements from dictionaries: concise to the point of seeming rude or mysterious // (of a person's speech) using few words; terse | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 15:31 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 17, 2013 at 17:22 | |||||
| Apr 17, 2013 at 15:20 | comment | added | user21497 | Antonyms of verbose. The best two for your question are terse and curt, although the latter had a decided negative connotation of rudeness. | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 15:19 | answer | added | tchrist♦ | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 15:18 | answer | added | Vladtn | timeline score: 46 | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 15:15 | history | asked | hayd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |