Politics and the English Language

[Eddi]

Something I'd like to share:

In his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language George Orwell writes about how muddled and unclear language can be used to bamboozle and mentally oppress people, and make ideas unclear and therefore make people's understanding of things limited, which he says serves oppressors well.

He came up with five rules to help writers produce concise, clear, unpretentious, and honest prose:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which
you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon
word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything
barbarous.

I always try and go by these if I can remember to...

Question: Are there any other rules we could add to this list?

 

[Quintessence]

I can think of one:

(vii) These rules were made to be broken.

If I limited my communication to the aforementioned rules, it would be an inauthentic, plebeian bore. I'm a well-educated individual with a background in hard science. I'm gonna use science words. I'm also a creative type who enjoys employing language artfully. I'm gonna use metaphors. I've no interest in making my use of the English language mind-numbingly simple and dull, not just because it's insulting myself by being inauthentic, but it insults my listener by assuming they are too stupid to understand or ask questions for clarification. I'm sure that's not the intent behind the rules, but that's how it comes across to me.

I bemoan the simplifying of writing to middle-schooler level of affluence. I say, bring back the art of writing and speech!

 

[dianaiad]

I can think of one:

(vii) These rules were made to be broken.

If I limited my communication to the aforementioned rules, it would be an inauthentic, plebeian bore. I'm a well-educated individual with a background in hard science. I'm gonna use science words. I'm also a creative type who enjoys employing language artfully. I'm gonna use metaphors. I've no interest in making my use of the English language mind-numbingly simple and dull, not just because it's insulting myself by being inauthentic, but it insults my listener by assuming they are too stupid to understand or ask questions for clarification. I'm sure that's not the intent behind the rules, but that's how it comes across to me.

I bemoan the simplifying of writing to middle-schooler level of affluence. I say, bring back the art of writing and speech!

No problem. I too get overly wordy. A lot.

However, the rules just given are good ones for academic (especially scientific) papers, three page essays and most e-mails. They are especially good for politics, because if a reader CAN misinterpret what is written, she will, Eisegesis is a well-beloved and understood concept in religion, politics and lemon-squeezing literature. In politics, writers are really good at writing stuff they INTEND the reader to 'get wrong.'

As for me, I had no problem at all with your paragraph, and if I were to publish a book for you, I'd only edit it a wee bit.

But that's not politics, is it?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Something I'd like to share:

In his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language George Orwell writes about how muddled and unclear language can be used to bamboozle and mentally oppress people, and make ideas unclear and therefore make people's understanding of things limited, which he says serves oppressors well.

He came up with five rules to help writers produce concise, clear, unpretentious, and honest prose:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which
you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon
word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything
barbarous.

I always try and go by these if I can remember to...

Question: Are there any other rules we could add to this list?

conversely, doing to opposite of these rules is exactly what's called for in public relations, propaganda, and political speechmaking...as Orwell also pointed out in both fiction and essay...

 

[Revoltingest]

- Don't use words when unsure of the meaning.
- Be civil.
- If not civil, at least make it a marriage of clever & honest.
- Avoid repetition.
- Be civil.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon
word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

In my opinion, an issue with that is well intentioned journalist who try to put scientific things into plain, everyday English, but don't understand the science well enough so they misunderstand stuff intended for a more "in group audience," unintentionally misrepresent it, give to birth to stuff like the "god particle," which allows for further misinterpretations and misrepresentations are further and further from what was actually said.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

- Don't use words when unsure of the meaning.

The cromulent factorid with this is that a significant fraction--and by that I mean almost everyone, myself included--thinks they know the meanings of the words they use...but everyone else only knows some other meaning of those words...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

- Don't use words when unsure of the meaning.
- Be civil.
- If not civil, at least make it a marriage of clever & honest.
- Avoid repetition.
- Be civil.

Eschew obfuscation; obviate prolix conefferdums!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- Don't use words when unsure of the meaning.

What's next? Expecting people to read their own sources before they cite them and link to them here? Phhhffttt!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Something I'd like to share:

In his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language George Orwell writes about how muddled and unclear language can be used to bamboozle and mentally oppress people, and make ideas unclear and therefore make people's understanding of things limited, which he says serves oppressors well.

He came up with five rules to help writers produce concise, clear, unpretentious, and honest prose:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which
you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon
word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything
barbarous.

I always try and go by these if I can remember to...

Question: Are there any other rules we could add to this list?

I am paid by the word, so I always write the shortest words possible. - Bertrand Russell

Who I believe had quite similar views to Orwell (on writing).

 

[Estro Felino]

I want to propose some grammar changes, and some neologisms.

Senatrix = feminine form of senator


Unpleasable= not likely to please/content