Quoi?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Is it reasonable to expect to not have to look up half the words of a new post in the dictionary? Should a poster try and use clarity/simplicity of thought and language in their posts, or is it the reader's responsibility to take what they can from apost, and if laziness precludes their full understanding, then so be it?

― Mark C, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i wonder if this article on the corporate takeover of english and how it's resulted in lots of polysyllabic, meaningless words being thrown around as part of 'mission statements' etc, is related to your question?

― maura, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Quoi not?

― Pete, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Didn't you do an Italian degree, Mark? I wouldn't have thought you'd have any problems comprehending anything said on this board.

― Trevor, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think it probably more likely related to cameron's Solipsis thread. Strangely, I have known what solipsism (is 'solipsis' a word?) means from a fairly young age - it seems to be one of those words that other people discover and go 'ooh - that's a good word'. But I had to look up 'phatic' - and that's a good word too. Apart from the inelegant, imprecise jargon that maura's article talks about, the only kind of obscure words word I resent having to look up are ones that novelists use that just turn out be a synonym of 'bald' or something. Most obscure words are actually quite useful.

Why do I find it so peculiar that Maura is reading the New Statesman?

― Nick, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes, phatic was the only one I didn't know if I concentrated properly. And it goes without saying that IL* people are an extremely bright bunch. Still, communication's difficult enough (in this kind of words-only medium even more so) - should I be happy that Cameron was being so exact or unhappy that it makes me feel thick?

― Mark C, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

(surprised?)

― maura, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't want to advocate the reduction of language, because I'd be scared of the consequences of the approach. I think that the language you use does not just reflect your take on reality, I think it shapes it. Even creates it.
But at the same time I don't like people using words as weapons to single out, isolate and separate people. I think everyone should try and say what they mean, however high the register.
It is a fascinating question. Perhaps the only question - how does language relate to the 'real'? I found that a lot of academics hid('obfuscated'??) their arguments in complicated language ('prolix linguistic legerdemain'?). What difference does it make?
Sorry Mark, not an answer, just another question...

― Will, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

anyway i think the two phenomena are in fact related, because each instance, the polysyllabic posts and the bizspeak, can be seen as using words to impress a certain persona, if you will—of course the words in the posts are substantially more concrete than the free-floating concepts of 'excellence' and 'employee-drivenness' but isn't there something being said in the way people express themselves?

― maura, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is the word "circumlocution" intentionally ironic?

― Trevor, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Not to mention sesquipedalian and pleonastic.

― Sam, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I may well be building a rod for my own back here, but don't ALL groups in society deliberately construct their own forms of language, be they academics, lawyers, rockists, whatever.

On one level, it serves to unite the members of that particular group, but it also serves to exclude others, thus cementing and enhancing the reputation of that group.

And following on from that, is it not apparent that an academic's status would be diminished if everyone actually understood them?

― Trevor, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But aren't most language-idioms meant to impress? The language of business is full of pretension and exists in an increasingly sealed- off environment, but doesn't the language of romantic love also do this?

― Tom, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i think aesthetics has a lot to do with it. i'm all for using long words if the result is eloquent, but if the argument disappears up its own rectum in a hiss of extended polysyllables then frankly i won't bother. see my usual rant about Judith Butler. brain the size of a planet - unfortunately, dictionary the size of one as well.

― katie, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i would disagree about the language of business existing in a sealed-off environment. if anything, business idioms have infected the rest of the culture at large, particularly in discussions of interpersonal relationships.

― maura, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

As a Training & Development Officer, I instruct people to use Plain Language. I use these as examples: "Why say 'An anatomical juxtaposition of two obicularis oris muscles in a state of contraction' when you can say 'kiss'?"

Or "objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels a conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to prove commensurate for innate capacity, but that a considerable element of unpredictability must invariably get taken into account!"

― Kodanshi, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Isn't there a parrot in a book ('The Broom of the System'?) Who can only talk in splitting-up cliches? A little language all of its own?

― Will, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes, I often incorporate references to Investment Savings Accounts and Sustainable Future Managed Funds into my pillow talk.

― Trevor, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

what maura's saying is totally OTM. the bee i have in my bonnet is this: that "romantic" or "artistic" language, which is supposed to be (on some level at least) heartfelt, is in these times of irony and underfunding for the arts, moving ever close towards a scientific and jargon-filled language in an attempt to gain credibility. and that hurts. didn't Brad Pitt recently refer to his marriage as a "merger"? i rest my case.

― katie, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

In which case Brad Pitt is merely echoing the right-on sentiments of the GANG OF FOUR ("a contract in our mutual interest") who were of course being (or thought they were being) realist about romance. Post- punk lives!

― Tom, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

now someone's gonna come up with a "marriage doesn't equal romance" thing, which was not what i was saying. i bet the Gang of Four's wives weren't happy with them! :)

― katie, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I helped my roommate decipher some totally jargonized architecture theory last night. In the process I reduced a page to four sentences, one for each two paragraphs. The paragraphs themselves merely repeated the same thoughts over and over using varied language. That = bad. Phatic = super useful word I'm glad I know. I think that academic funnyspeak comes from people who don't understand what they're getting at, keep trying to say it, then don't edit away the useless parts. Businessspeak comes from people who don't care what they're getting at.

― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

One time I tried to read my uncle's engineering thesis. I gave up after 'the.'

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i wuv jargonXoR: IMAP it R kewl no?¿

serious points: it is not to confuse OTHERS but ourselves; it is to AVOID potentially offensive or theoretically inkorrekt or canonically dated opinions (eg "the Bard = a Timeless Genius")

― mark s, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Just type like you talk.

― james, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

yeah but I talk like a smartypants prick, too. the only diff is that here i get to use british words that i'm barely certain the meaning of. heh. so i've got that goin on.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 14 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Just type like you talk??? Oh dear. In that case, I wouldn't write "How would you ensure that you actively apply equal Opportunities to your post?" but something more akin to: "Howard you unsure thatchoo octavely up lie Aqua Lopper Tuna Cheese two year post?"

― Kodanshi, Thursday, 15 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Within reason :)

― james, Thursday, 15 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.