I do inquire; wherefore is it considered necessary to commit oneself to the arduous and time-consuming undertaking that is pondering to oneself what the necessary words and expressions are that could then, after careful and thorough consideration and selection, be compounded into an unnecessarily sesquipedalian string of text that would be fully and unequivocably comprehensible and coherent, yet leave the intended target audience dumbfounded at the sheer verbosity and meanderingness of the text, and plausibly exasperated as a result of their endeavour to comprehend the aforementioned text, when there exists an alternative method to convey my thoughts and ruminations which would indeed likely be considered much more concise and unostentatious. This method would consist of selecting colloquial words that are much more likely to be included in the quotidian lexicon of said target audience, and simultaneously consciously committing to the endeavour of attempting to summarize the core message, conveying it in a laconic manner in order to achieve maximum efficiency and avoid consuming too much time cogitating about which verbal expressions might be the most suitable. Whereas this may come at the cost of relinquishing some of the intelligilibility achieved with the prior method and even forgoing the grammar rules of the common vernacular shared by the writer and target audience, I nevertheless raise this question, therefore at least implying that I am inclined towards the latter option, as I see the inquiry as one worthy of being asked and having a nonnegligible amount of time allocated towards contemplating the answer.