Orwell on Language

[jeremyp]

Apologies if this has been posted before^* but I found it quite interesting that, if it had been published yesterday for the first time, it would still ring true.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/

^*By which I mean: I'm sorry if somebody else has already posted it.

[Gordon]

Thanks for posting that link, which I've never read before, and I've bookmarked it since it requires several readings.

First impressions, and as I said it probably requires several readings to digest, is that many of the examples he gives of poor use of language reminds me of some of the worst 'management speak' I used to encounter back in the day.

[Robbie]

It is very interesting; I too have encountered some horrible 'business-speak'.

I heard a new word this week:  situationalise.

[ekim]

To characterise a linguistic level L, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is, apparently, determined by the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

[Steve H]

To characterise a linguistic level L, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is, apparently, determined by the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

And in English...?

[jeremyp]

To characterise a linguistic level L, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is, apparently, determined by the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

Good example...

... I think

[Gordon]

To characterise a linguistic level L, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is, apparently, determined by the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

That's easy for you to say. 

[ekim]

And in English...?

I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is necessary to impose an interpretation on the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

[Steve H]

I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is necessary to impose an interpretation on the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

That's supposed to be easier to understand?

[ad_orientem]

Apologies if this has been posted before^* but I found it quite interesting that, if it had been published yesterday for the first time, it would still ring true.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/

^*By which I mean: I'm sorry if somebody else has already posted it.

Can't say I understood much of that article. I know the words but failed to understand the point. Maybe I'm stupid.

[ekim]

That's supposed to be easier to understand?

With this clarification, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition suffices to account for the traditional practice of grammarians.

OK, I'll level with you.  My replies were made up from a random selection of phrases under headings of Initiating phrases, Subject phrases, Verbal phrases and Terminating phrases.  It's called creating fog.  The end result is something that looks as if it could mean something, but means nothing.  e.g.

Suppose, for instance, that.....a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort.....is not quite equivalent to...... a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.

[Steve H]

With this clarification, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition suffices to account for the traditional practice of grammarians.

OK, I'll level with you.  My replies were made up from a random selection of phrases under headings of Initiating phrases, Subject phrases, Verbal phrases and Terminating phrases.  It's called creating fog.  The end result is something that looks as if it could mean something, but means nothing.  e.g.

Suppose, for instance, that.....a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort.....is not quite equivalent to...... a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.