It's Orwell, Baby, Orwell

[PatCarrington]

You just love arguing with me. And you know why? Because you want me to bitch slap you.

Admit it.

it isn't like i make a secret of that or anything.


.........and i see you've edited in a Dylan Thomas quote, to make the sting more thrilling..........

 

[Angeline]

it isn't like i make a secret of that or anything.


.........and i see you've edited in a Dylan Thomas quote, to make the sting more thrilling..........

Well it came to mind....

Anyway I'm passing out now--ee is putting on a tie (with a dress shirt, that is--don't make any inferences--you or monkey man, wherever he is).

 

[PatCarrington]

Well it came to mind....

Anyway I'm passing out now--ee is putting on a tie (with a dress shirt, that is--don't make any inferences--you or monkey man, wherever he is).

.....mum....

tath is being royal and doing the reviews for one of his women.

 

[Angeline]

.....mum....

tath is being royal and doing the reviews for one of his women.

what????

that bastard never offered to do reviews for me!

wait.

i don't do them anymore....


never mind

 

[Lauren Hynde]

So, is language being killed because people over-complicate it?

 

[Tathagata]

what????

that bastard never offered to do reviews for me!

wait.

i don't do them anymore....


never mind

if your name was Angesmut i'd have done them

 

[Angeline]

So, is language being killed because people over-complicate it?

Nah, that requires literacy.

 

[Angeline]

if your name was Angesmut i'd have done them

I've used the title "Word Slut" on occasion. Would that do it?

 

[flyguy69]

I don't think language is being killed. This debate flirts with the furor over Cultural Literacy a few years ago. What people know is really less important than their commitment to know more.

I believe the range of experiences made available to large numbers of people over the internet and cable television will make us as a society more able to communicate. The mere fact that my grandmother knew about the debate over "ebonics" in Oakland tells me her mind was broader than it might have been without mass media.

I am not saying that sloppy or "incorrect" language use is to be welcomed into the mainstream, but knowledge of it does not squeeze "correct" usage out of my brain. And there is no shortage of clear and interesting text today. If anything, the easy access to distribution afforded by the internet allows voices off of the mainstream into the public arena more easily than the days of a few large presses.

And I fail to see why reading a word should be regarded as superior to hearing a word. Personally, I prefer to read. Especially poetry-- poetry readings leave me cold because I want the text in my hands. But that is just me, and I certainly can't claim to be brighter for it. Reading a book is no more active than sitting in front of a television, and if I were to quiz two people that had either watched a PBS special on rebuilding Baghdad or read a copy of US magazine, I suspect the TV viewers would have learned more.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

OK. To be more to the point: is simplifying the language in order to comunicate on a larger scale than ever good or bad for the language, for literature, and for us all as a culture? I really have no clue about who is arguing for which theory, but I'm extremely interested in this question.

 

[Tathagata]

I've used the title "Word Slut" on occasion. Would that do it?

it just did it

 

[Tathagata]

I don't think language is being killed. This debate flirts with the furor over Cultural Literacy a few years ago. What people know is really less important than their commitment to know more.

I believe the range of experiences made available to large numbers of people over the internet and cable television will make us as a society more able to communicate. The mere fact that my grandmother knew about the debate over "ebonics" in Oakland tells me her mind was broader than it might have been without mass media.

I am not saying that sloppy or "incorrect" language use is to be welcomed into the mainstream, but knowledge of it does not squeeze "correct" usage out of my brain. And there is no shortage of clear and interesting text today. If anything, the easy access to distribution afforded by the internet allows voices off of the mainstream into the public arena more easily than the days of a few large presses.

And I fail to see why reading a word should be regarded as superior to hearing a word. Personally, I prefer to read. Especially poetry-- poetry readings leave me cold because I want the text in my hands. But that is just me, and I certainly can't claim to be brighter for it. Reading a book is no more active than sitting in front of a television, and if I were to quiz two people that had either watched a PBS special on rebuilding Baghdad or read a copy of US magazine, I suspect the TV viewers would have learned more.

with TV you are at the mercy of whats " on" ,if you will.
If you have an interest in rebuilding Baghdad you can go to a library or a bookstore and get 15 different perspectives on it.
you can read and reread at your own pace.

To me reading is a passion, you have to make an effort to read
You have to go away from the tv, to a quiet place and concentrate.
you have to be comfortable with yourself
with silence
Those two things indicate, to me, a level of...what? consciousness? that many people today don't have.
They need to be stimulated or entertained constantly.

as for language
My point is that though there is plenty of opportunity to access all kinds of profound and worthwhile text..
if you don't have a command of the language ie: a vocabulary that extends beyond slang, chat speak, or everyday usage, you aren't going to get through Moby Dick, or Dickens, or Poe
never mind Shakespeare
So what is happening is that we are getting " new" versions of said classics in " everyday" language which, though it may tell the story, takes away from the whole craft of it being written in a certain way.

what it boils down to is we are sacrificing art for mass consumption.

 

[The_Fool]

OK. To be more to the point: is simplifying the language in order to comunicate on a larger scale than ever good or bad for the language, for literature, and for us all as a culture? I really have no clue about who is arguing for which theory, but I'm extremely interested in this question.

...
as for language
My point is that though there is plenty of opportunity to access all kinds of profound and worthwhile text..
if you don't have a command of the language ie: a vocabulary that extends beyond slang, chat speak, or everyday usage, you aren't going to get through Moby Dick, or Dickens, or Poe
never mind Shakespeare
So what is happening is that we are getting " new" versions of said classics in " everyday" language which, though it may tell the story, takes away from the whole craft of it being written in a certain way.

what it boils down to is we are sacrificing art for mass consumption.

Lauren, there is no simple answer to your question. In affect, you have a compromise. You have placed a tool in the hands of the masses and have to cater to the least common denominator. Tath makes a wonderful point and I agree with him that the level of language offered by those works is lost upon many readers and writers. But in a way, I would say it is similar to photography. There are some photographers that are artists, but the rest of us just take snapshots. My vacation or family photos are never going to have the impact of a Gordon Parks. Not only that, but I wouldn’t have a clue of what I’m looking at most of the time.

There is an incredible joy to reading the offering of a gifted writer, which uses language in subtle and mesmerizing ways. But a letter between friends is not meant to mask higher meaning in symbolism or word play.

Another question, which offers the greater level of artistic endeavor, the painting or the photograph? In photography, which offers the most meaning, color or black and white?

My answer. I think it is wonderful that the level of literacy is rising. I think it’s sad that the level of vocabulary is dropping. I think it is inevitable that there are levels of writing that will only be understood in full by those that seek further study beyond what is typically offered.

 

[WickedEve]

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. [/b]

I like big words.

(The above post was written extemporaneously.)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Lauren, there is no simple answer to your question. In affect, you have a compromise. You have placed a tool in the hands of the masses and have to cater to the least common denominator.

You make good points (althought I may be in some disagreement with regard to levels of artistic endeavor )

The question I was hiding behind that question, was this, since our primary concern is poetry: if the main purpose of writing is to communicate, and if language is simplified to communicate to the larger number of people possible, to the least common denominator, what is the purpose of poetry? What separates poetry from a news report or a newspaper editorial?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. Never use a short word where a long one will do better.

 

[ishtat]

English Frontiers

OK. To be more to the point: is simplifying the language in order to comunicate on a larger scale than ever good or bad for the language, for literature, and for us all as a culture? I really have no clue about who is arguing for which theory, but I'm extremely interested in this question.

To some extent Lauren's point implies that language can be made to order. In the short term perhaps it can. I was brought up speaking a broad West England dialect but was educated to a more standard 'literary' English.

It seems to me that English and perhaps other languages tend to develop at the frontiers with other languages and cultures rather than within their core areas. In the recent history of English in Britain for example, provincial and especially the Celtic writers of Scotland, Wales and Ireland have had a completely disproportionate influence on literary English, possibly stemming from a greater self consciosness that this was not their original spoken tongue.

Spoken English developed with an extraordinary surge in America in the 19th century and that spoken development later emerged in American literature. America's English frontier was perhaps the culture of its migrants and it is interesting to note how many were migrants or the children of migrants. Even Saul Bellow spoke Yiddish as his first language. America does not at first sight however, have the same diversity of dialect and language that is found in Britain to drive further development (though Spanish could well emerge as an even more important element in the language)

Possibly the frontier of development of English has already moved on to places like India which not only has more English speakers than any other country but has a very high standard of written English (particularly in Newspapers).

In the longer term languages either adapt or die out, Aramaic and Latin were both languages of great Empires but only survived by diversifying into semi separate languages. Reverting to Lauren's quote I suggest that what we (an elite?) might define as good or bad for " culture" is not really relevant because it is the diversity of cultures at the edge that drive the development of language not the cultural conservatives at the centre.

 

[WickedEve]

3. Never use a short word where a long one will do better.

Thank you!

 

[The_Fool]

You make good points (althought I may be in some disagreement with regard to levels of artistic endeavor )

The question I was hiding behind that question, was this, since our primary concern is poetry: if the main purpose of writing is to communicate, and if language is simplified to communicate to the larger number of people possible, to the least common denominator, what is the purpose of poetry? What separates poetry from a news report or a newspaper editorial?

This may be oversimplifying, I'm going to keep thinking about it. Poems are to writing, what songs are to speaking. There are means of creating nuances of emotion that go above and beyond the normal. They crystalize thought, emotion, history, vision and presence into a succinct, yet musical message that convey similar general meanings to all simultaneouslyand individual meaning to each of us personally.

What the hell am I telling this to you for? You know that answer. I think anyone that has felt the drive to put word to paper in the form of a poem knows that it is about touching the reader's inner core. External meanings are easy, it's reaching the heart that's difficult.

 

[PatCarrington]

You make good points (althought I may be in some disagreement with regard to levels of artistic endeavor )

The question I was hiding behind that question, was this, since our primary concern is poetry: if the main purpose of writing is to communicate, and if language is simplified to communicate to the larger number of people possible, to the least common denominator, what is the purpose of poetry? What separates poetry from a news report or a newspaper editorial?

lauren - are you making the assumption that complexity automatically equates to quality? or that simplicity automatically equates to a lack thereof?

i think it was rybka who had this little communication in his sig lig, with Faulkner and Hemingway throwing barbs at each other:

Faulkner - I never read one of his books that required a dictionary.

Hemingway's answer - Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?

i have read them both. in my opinion, faulkner is not worthy of shining hemingway's shoes.

i have this hazy theory about writing. as a writer grows, the complexity of his/her language grows also. most writers, those without powerhouse ability, stop there. the ones who are glorious climb some sort of word mountain, and their writing moves toward simplicity again, though it is not the same as it was on the other side of the hill. now, they say more with simplicity than they, or others, can with complexity.

3. Never use a short word where a long one will do better.

that i agree with, of course.

but when big and small words are as good as one another in a situation, i think it is unwise to choose the larger.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

lauren - are you making the assumption that complexity automatically equates to quality? or that simplicity automatically equates to a lack thereof?

No, I'm throwing baits.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

but when big and small words are as good as one another in a situation

In poetry, are there really situations of one word being as good as another?

 

[PatCarrington]

I like big words.

(The above post was written extemporaneously.)

gotcha.

since you are now fluent in bovine....

.......get out your red cape, baby.

 

[twelveoone]

From Orwell's essay at the end of meaningless words section.

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

What uses a bigger vocabulary? What says what?

 

[PatCarrington]

In poetry, are there really situations of one word being as good as another?

not often.

usually, the smaller one is much better.