What the fuck is it called when you can understand a shit ton

Anomic aphasia

the slight irony in ops post is amusing

Recall is a different function of the brain than contextual comprehension.
You're not the only one who experiences this, I'll get hung up trying to remember a specific word and have to spend time trying to recall it through phonetic association.
Just another reason everyone who writes should own a good, physical thesaurus.
Some people say that writing down new words and their definitions into a continuous logbook helps, maybe try that?

A word doesn't get added to your active vocabulary until you've seen and used it in a context mutiple times. When you learn a new word, use it in a sentence and jot down the definition.
Also, like the other anon mentioned, you might want to invest in a good thesaurus if you're serious about writing.

File: 1437658813949-0.png (210KB, 871x900px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 871x900px

>>9459684
Your mind isn't archaic enough. You have to ground your vocabulary in etymology and classical definitions. That way you get access to other forms and modifiers that you weren't able to tap into before.
Note how in latinate languages the classical definitions of words that would otherwise be quite mundane can be emphasized by separating a compound word with a dash or by contrasting it with an opposite term, as in 'contra-distinction' or as in 'essential' contrasted with 'substantial,' or as in 'remote' modified to a verb: 'remotion.'

>>9461329
>implying etymological obsession isn't the ultimate modernisation of mind
>implying you could ever reach a historical period where people weren't already sperging about old languages

its called having a bare minimum grip on your vocabulary. Reference a dictionary anytime you come across a word that's ambiguous and start exposing yourself to works with a more robust diction.

>>9459684
no one tells u but wheh youre 30 plus your ability improves considerably. so if u nigger in your 20s now is the time to build the foundation

>>9461360
vocabulary doesn't metastasize out of thin air when you turn 30.

File: 1459209037931.jpg (434KB, 800x910px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 800x910px

>>9461339
I get what you mean, but I think you're wrong there. Because while I inform my definitions by looking to the past, I can still go on to invent new usage and new definitions, and these two attitudes don't conflict with one another, but augment each other.
So yeah I guess you could say people who are obsessed with the all this 'historical meaning' nonsense are in reality dis-integrating the very symbological framework that they think they are upholding by 'going back to the roots,' at the same time it's not necessary that all people who want to draw from the past share that attitude.
They're (the ones you criticize) saying something more like 'go back to the roots for the roots' sake' but I'm more of a 'go back to the root for the plant's sake' since while I realize that the root can't remain a root forever I also think that the root is integral to the forward growth of its attached herbal payload whatever that is, here language. Please excuse my analogy.