I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought
Yes!!! Use language to communicate and express complex feeling and emotions. Do not use it to make communication more difficult or to hide feelings, please!
[3] One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.
Haha, again why did we even start using the not un- structure? Absolutely pointless. Good way to keep us away from using it.
One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.
Haha, it saves us from writing the worst of the worst, even if we still write bad. I like it.
iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
This is the biggest one for me. I add too many extra words to many of my sentences for no reason. It is just a bad habit.
not un-
What is the point of this? "It is not unlikely..." vs "It is likely..." Really, why do we use this?
Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions
I would not say that language reflects existing social conditions but currently is heavily influenced by it. We take in short-form content so often that it is hard to sit down and read through this. It also makes it more difficult to sit down and write a longer paper. Having social influence doesn't mean it can't be done or can't be changed, but it absolutely has a big enough impact to make it more difficult to do so.
Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against.
Interesting, I didn't take note of this until he pointed it out. Is it because it is easier, or because he knows it is how we write currently, and feels it is the only way to reach us?
. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
"I meant what I said, and I said what I meant." -Horton Let's be more like Horton. We have freedom of speech for a reason! (Granted the example was pretty extreme, but still my point stands.)
political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.
Can you talk like a human please? Use descriptive words. You're a grown up, so you can talk like one. What is there to be scared of? This is your one shot at life as far as we know, I plead with you to not spend it speaking as if you are a robot. Where is the expression, the emotion, the soul? It is absent in the presence of your voice, but fear not; it is never too late to become human once again. Take your eyes off the teleprompter and look at mine. Then, using your own individual thoughts and feelings (or what's left of them) share your views with me. Undoubtedly, we will agree upon at least one thing, and once we connect over that, you will become human once again.
Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.
That is exactly how I would describe the words used in political writing. Just a giant mess of BLAH.
A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
These are good questions to keep in mind. We do the opposite today, trying to meet the word or page limit requirements for our papers. "Could I rephrase this to take up more space?" When we do that, the extra words often cloud up what we are trying to say. They only make the passage more confusing, just meaningless words strewn about. Often it can take away from the power the other words hold in that sentence. Of course, these extra words can also make the sentence ugly. If you are asking how to make your sentence take up more space, you are probably asking the wrong question.
The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image.
If reading the metaphor you put in your paper doesn't excite you from how perfectly it fits, trying searching for another one. Better yet, try coming up with your own, tailor-made for your paper.
he first contains 49 words but only 60 syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains 38 words of 90 syllables: 18 of its words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase (‘time and chance’) that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its 90 syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first.
Again, using these big words is not always effective. They provide less definition than the first sentence does, yet still manage to take up more space and syllables. It is boring and distasteful, we need to do better. I agree that we see the type of writing more often, which is not a good thing. Why would we step away from the things that bring our language to life?
Now analyse these two sentences a little more closely.
Ahh yikes. I hate seeing "analyse" being spelt this way. It hurts my brain. Damn British English.
This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing – no one capable of using phrases like ‘objective’ consideration of contemporary phenomena’ – would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way.
It is important to note that he is referring to the worst modern English writers. Let us hope that means he isn't referring to us...
The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations – race, battle, bread – dissolve into the vague phrase ‘success or failure in competitive activities’.
It's like taking all of the interesting details and squishing them into one big, boring word to define them all at once. The idea still gets communicated, but how effectively will one retain a reading of this sort? My guess is that one is more likely to recall a sentence that is using descriptive words, giving it meaning and personality; not many will recall the latter.
Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.
I feel this is especially true within politics. Many political figures use purposely vague and misleading sentences to get the public to construe something positively, when they really mean it in another way.
It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.
A definition is what gives a word meaning. What good is a word if we don't even know what it means? Either agree upon a meaning for the word, or don't use it again, as it still won't have a meaning.
Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly even expected to do so by the reader.
What makes him view these words as useless? I am going to college for animation and feel the words living, dead, and human are all great descriptors for how one's art can look. He makes a good point about it being an opinion of how the art looks, but all art is subjective. One person pours their views of the world into a visual piece, and people may interpret in many different words. I do think that you should include what makes the art seem alive or dead, not just use those words as sole descriptors. e.g. "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is it's ability to imitate living quality through it's _ and _. As I write this, I can understand how it could be seen as a meaningless word... interesting.
status quo,
Haha this expression will always remind me of High School Musical. Overall, I find it difficult to tell how the author feels about pretentious diction. At first the author makes it sound like a good thing that can add more to a sentence, but once foreign words get brought in, the author seems to have a negative view on the use of pretentious diction. Does it make a sentence too messy to be useful?
nstead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render.
This sounds like a good concept to add some extra depth into my writing. I will have to research it a little more because I don't feel I have a full grasp of the concept. I doubt it is the most effective choice in every instance, but can be used in certain situations to create more meaning and depth!
there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.
I am 100% guilty of using some of these, though many I have never heard of. I wonder what context "no axe to grind" is supposed to be used in? I am curious, though as mentioned a few lines later, don't want to use it without knowledge of it's meaning or twisting it out of its original meaning.
Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them.
These passages remind me of when I was a kid and used big words to sound smart, even though there were words that could describe or fit the sentence to sound better. It simply feels like they are trying too hard to sound smart and witty, which ends up giving off the opposite effect.
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.
This analogy really helped me understand what the author was saying. I love how this helps tie everything together and make sense of it all!
I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien (sic) to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.
I am supposed to be reading, but this feels more like I am solving a complex math equation. What is this?
Even when they are with friends, partners, children' everyone is ontheir own devices
This is something I have been trying to be better about. If I am bored while I am with a friend, I don't need to get out my phone. We can come up with an idea of something to do together instead. Go play sports, walk around, go on a drive, etc. There are so many better options than resorting to a phone, it is just what we have trained ourselves to do.
At home, we can "r*i. ,u"r.o spaces: tt-,. t it.rt"n, the dining room' we can make ourcars .,device-fiee zone
The dinner table is already a phone-free zone at my house, so already on the right track!
when people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a device
I do this an I hate it. It is such a bad habit to pull my phone out that I have to remind myself that it is okay to just sit alone without technology. I can look at the beauty around me instead and get comfortable with my own thoughts for a change...
Always-on/always-on-Vou a.rices provide three powerful fantasies: that wewill always be heard; that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be; and that weneverhavetobealone
As time and technology go on I have less people to listen to, and less people that will listen to me. The more often I have my phone near me, the more often I find I put my attention towards things that don't matter. When I have my phone on to not feel alone, I feel more isolated than ever. If I believe these fantasies, I will simultaneously be lying to myself and lowering my chances at actually have these things in the future.
Researchersaround the world are busy inventing sociable robots, designed to be companions to theelderly, to children, to all of us
It's crazy how far technology is going. I believe it is unhealthy. Instead of forming relationships with humans around us, we form them with our phones. Even romantic relationships are being explored through technology, when they can be created in reality. We are getting what we want instantly, and we don't have to put forth the effort through technology that we would have to through reality. God, please never let us invent a way to reproduce with technology. If that ever happens, the world is doomed.
It's hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect
I'd rather have 2 or 3 close friends that I know I can trust and be myself with than have 3,000 "friends" that I can "connect" with.
As we ramp up the volumeand.,,elocity of online ccnnect"icns, we start to expect faster &iiS'vveiS' To get these' w'e askone another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications' even on the mostimportant matters
When we do this, we will never get a fully correct answer. We have to dedicate more time to a subject if we want the full picture, especially if it is an important or complicated subject. Dumbing it down often gives us poorly summarized ideas that only scrape at the surface level of what is really important. It is simply too much information to dumb down; not everything can fit into short form content, which is why it is unfortunate we are consuming so much of it.
But no matter how valuable'they do not substitute for conversation
I have found this to be absolutely true. Texting does not make up for the conversations you would have in person. I feel the closest you can get to an in-person conversation over the phone is through facetime. You get the eye-contact, the body language, tone of voice, etc. Even then, you are still missing key elements, such as physical contact. Technology will never quite replicate what you can have in person.
Texting and e-mail and posting let us present the self we want to be' This means we canedit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh' the face' the body'Not too much, not too liule -- just right
Editing photos is like putting on makeup. A little bit, just enough to hide the worst of our imperfections, and one probably won't notice. The more we use though, the less imperfections others will see, so we use it all. Soon, I see a mask of perfection, and it can be beautiful. I always find myself asking though, to see what is underneath that mask. Rather than looking at perfection, I find myself craving the view of authenticity. There is a certain beauty to authenticity that no mask can replicate, a beauty that can be found in everyone only when we take off the mask. When one starts putting on a mask of perfection though, how could they ever view themselves in a positive light without it? Especially when society applauds at the view of the mask and looks the other way when faced with authenticity?
My students teli me about an iirportant new skill: it involves maintaining eyecontact with someone while you text ro*.o.r" else; it's hard, but it can be done
Is this not absolutely ridiculous? We are a creature that thrives on communication, and need it to survive. Put down your damn phone and have a real, meaningful connection with someone. The phone can wait, as there is nothing more important than living in the present.
WE live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating' And yet wehave sacrificed conversation for mere connection'
I hate it but it's true. People have connections, but what real, meaningful conversations do you have with others? Do you talk about things on a deeper level than how their day is? Does conversation feel repetitive with these people, and feel more like a routine than an engaging and unique experience? Though conversations like this certainly happened before technology and aren't necessarily bad, if they are the only conversations we ever have it could become problematic.
With the young lawyers intheii cockpits, the office is quiet, a quiet that does not ask to be broken
We are accepting what impact technology is having on us. Is this the future we want to have? Do we want to go into work and find no one to talk to or listen to except for the voice in our head? This is not the future I want for myself or others...
We have gottenused to ih. id"u of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party'
We have become loyal to our own party, together. We collectively chose to become a "tribe of one" as a whole. We are now a tribe of one, slaves to technology. We are now a tribe of one, incapable of communicating with one another, despite having all the means necessary to do so. We are now a tribe of one, believing that the more time we spend on our phones, the happier we will be. As a tribe of one, even with our near-identical actions in how we spend our time, we stand apart. As a tribe of one, I become polarized in my thoughts and beliefs. As a tribe of one, I only have one person to protect: myself. No one else matters anymore, and neither do their thoughts or ideas. The only way of thinking that is correct is my own; to hell with the ideas of others. Please, as a tribe of one, let us lose our humanity, let us be by ourselves, and let us lose our verbal communication skills. In one fell swoop, let us reverse all progress that we have made in society from a social aspect. Sounds perfect, right?