Copies of the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary at the company’s headquarters in Springfield, Mass., on June 18, 2003. (Nathan Martin/AP)

I enjoy The Post, but I find that, many times, I need a dictionary while reading its columnists.

Over the past couple of months, The Post’s columnists have used the words “blinkered” [“A red flag on campus free speech,” George F. Will, May 20], “hermeneutic” and “stultifying” [“The GOP’s political renaissance,” Christopher Buskirk, April 18], “majoritarian” [“Our very constitutional divide,” Charles Lane, April 24], “filigree” and “calumny” [“A spreading decency deficit,” Ruth Marcus, April 27], “mendacity” [“Once a scam artist, always a scam artist,” Max Boot, May 3], “commentariat” [“When a Democratic concern becomes a nightmare,” Elizabeth Bruenig,” May 3], “obsequious” [“Macron embraces Trump — and elegantly knifes him in the back,” Anne Applebaum, April 26], “enmity” [“One part Reagan, one part Kerry,” Charles Lane, May 15], “venality” [“Trump’s most dangerous decision yet,” E.J. Dionne Jr., May 10], “obsequiousness” [“The fine art of governing by groveling,” George F. Will, May 10] and the French phrase “je ne sais quoi” [“The Tinder presidency,” Dana Milbank, April 15].

I realize that columnists have a broader vocabulary than most, and I’m not asking that they write at an eighth-grade level, but it would be helpful if they would stop using words directed to the general public that are a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Mike Stefanski, Castle Rock, Colo.