This was interesting:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
From someone supplementing that link:
I think G.K. Chesterton also addressed this problem when he said:"It is customary to complain of the bustle and strenuousness
of our epoch. But in truth the chief mark of our epoch is
a profound laziness and fatigue; and the fact is that the real laziness
is the cause of the apparent bustle. Take one quite external case;
the streets are noisy with taxicabs and motorcars; but this is not due
to human activity but to human repose. There would be less bustle
if there were more activity, if people were simply walking about.
Our world would be more silent if it were more strenuous.
And this which is true of the apparent physical bustle is true also
of the apparent bustle of the intellect. Most of the machinery
of modern language is labour-saving machinery; and it saves mental labour
very much more than it ought. Scientific phrases are used like
scientific wheels and piston-rods to make swifter and smoother yet
the path of the comfortable. Long words go rattling by us like
long railway trains. We know they are carrying thousands who are
too tired or too indolent to walk and think for themselves.
It is a good exercise to try for once in a way to express
any opinion one holds in words of one syllable. If you say
"The social utility of the indeterminate sentence is recognized by all
criminologists as a part of our sociological evolution towards
a more humane and scientific view of punishment," you can go on
talking like that for hours with hardly a movement of the gray matter
inside your skull. But if you begin "I wish Jones to go to gaol
and Brown to say when Jones shall come out," you will discover,
with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think.
The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words
that are hard. There is much more metaphysical subtlety
in the word "damn" than in the word "degeneration.""
I'm not sure I agree with the OP, but once it was processed it got into this form:
It seems to me that the length of words matters not at all. What matters is getting as closely as reasonable to your intended meaning (including tone), and if it takes longer words or cumbersome expressions to convey that, so be it. On the other hand, Orwell certainly has spotted a problem - namely that many people seem to like using longer words not only when shorter ones would do, but when shorter ones would do better.
Which then led to this:
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html
But mostly, I'd go with It seems to me that what Orwell most objects to is the complication of language through the overuse of meaningless additions, not the correct and efficient use of obscure or technical words.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonk i'll take you up on it.
$50 says that you don't even understand what you just typed.
i am still unenlightened as to the existence of non malignant intelligent politicians in the first place.=== I don't know that there are any smart politicians who don't want to hurt the country.
Red NemesisDude.
This was interesting:http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
From someone supplementing that link:I'm not sure I agree with the OP, but once it was processed it got into this form:
Which then led to this:
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html
But mostly, I'd go with [b]It seems to me that what Orwell most objects to is the complication of language through the overuse of meaningless additions, not the correct and efficient use of obscure or technical words.
[/B]
Cool.
😐
But really, I bookmarked that page, and it's only the second time I've bookmarked anything on this computer. You are honored.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yea really, otherwise we're going to have a bunch of meaningless mental masturbation in the form of philosophy.
Well, there hasn't been some of that in a while now...
I agree with the word meaningless in the sense that it gets us nowhere, but it does have a meaning because it's given one by people (it's the entire point, or isn't it?) and when a bunch of people agree with something it has a meaning.
I think this could be an interesting discussion on capital punishment. It is obvious that the murders committed by the Ft. Hood shooter were premeditated, and that he wasn't expecting to come out alive. His crime is not only punishable by death, but it's virtually guaranteed. This is one of those rare cases where I think the punishment of him going to prison for the rest of his life is more severe than having him executed, since he appeared ready to go down swinging. What do some of you think? Put the guy in jail and let the brothers have their way with him.