(George Orwell, 1946) Politics and the English Language

site ^ | 1946 | George Orwell

[dennisw]

.

[shrinkermd]

Great Post Thank you. I liked this:"Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien r&eacutgime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung , are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g. , and etc. , there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language

[Maelstrom]

*grunt*

[RayChuang88]

Thank you for printing that essay!

I really hope that as many people read this essay as possible to use it as a devestating weapon against the poltical correctness fanciers.

[gaspar]

A wonderful essay. However, I carp (no not the fish, I am using a short word) at (with, toward?) point 3, above. It is said that in his poetry and plays Shakespeare used 90% of the words then used in the English language. Some large, some small, and many contrivances. Thus the absolute demand to "Never" use a large word when a small word will do, is a proletarian attack on style. And certainly despite Orwell's many attainments, he remained to the end a proletarian and not much of a stylist.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[cebadams]

For those who want an abridged version of the above:

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:

1. What am I trying to say?
2. What words will express it?
3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

And he will probably ask himself two more:

1. Could I put it more shortly?
2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never us a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable.

[redbaiter]

Required reading.

[nothingnew]

Excellent post, and I am unanimous on that.

FMCDH

[Carry_Okie]

One for you.

[thedugal]

Zeitgeist :)

[ccmay]

A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.

The best line in the article.

-ccm

[griffin]

bump

[Eastbound]

A+

[dennisw]

bumperoonie

[Publius6961]

there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language

I disagree.
For those seriously familiar with Spanish, French and German, there is a subtlety of meaning that translations or substitutions can never convey.

It is a shame that some can't enjoy that richness merely because most can't partake.
We call that reduction to the least common denominator.
I know that is most un-PC, but I don't care.

I plan to keep on using those words and phrases that are perfect for the occasion.

[jodorowsky]

THANK YOU!

I've been thinking about this essay a lot over the past couple of days and now here it is!

[jodorowsky]

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

I count the passive construction among the hammer and sickle as one of the great tools towards "social progress".

[jodorowsky]

Uncommon Knowledge did a show taking this essay as a starting point. Streaming RealVideo, and streaming Windows Media.

LOST FOR WORDS: Politics and the English Language

In 1946, George Orwell wrote a famous essay deploring the decline in the level of modern political discourse. Many would argue that in the following fifty years, the problem has only gotten worse. But why is this the case? Our politicians all have teams of professional speech writers and pollsters, working with focus group data and the latest research to figure out just what the public wants to hear. So why doesn't it work? Why does the political discourse of our modern politicians pale against those of our forefathers? Guest: Andrew Ferguson, Senior Editor, Weekly Standard.