You are twisting my argument using sophistry though. My argument is I don't want to describe things in a literary style. You are now making the argument that word choice matters in a literary style and becasuse I objected to the addition of certain words, it proves your point. You are suggesting with that post that this concern is in fact a literary consideration of sorts. I will admit, I am still trying to find the hole in this argument. But I know there is a hole because it feels like sophistry to me (since it runs completely against my point). Whether the hole resides in your post or in one of mine, I am not sure yet. But rest assured there is a hole.
To me it is less that word choice matters, and more that not emulating a literary style matters. For my part the word selection only matters if it is part of an effort to bring us to something more literary or be part of a medium that just doesn't fit the natural back and forth of RPGs for me.
What I will say is, yes I want the GM to have a conversation with the players and I want the GM to speak in an everyday voice, not put on an act. Obviously I am not going to be a jerk to a GM who does things the other way. And I am not going to ruin anyone's fun if the GM at the table decides to describe things in a literary way.