This is an essay especially created to illustrate the, quite few, but evident, the flaws of the English language. Though easy to learn, versatile and beautiful, the political evolution and the political power shift, have created a certain stereotype, and people tend to write, some sort of, robotic sentences, using a lot of words to express a short, simple message. Humanity didn’t do this on its own, politics and snobbery played crucial roles in this development. Instead of using simplicity, we now try to overcomplicate things, making some texts harder to read, a bit boring and simply robust. Are the reasons purely of economical nature? It is a strong possibility, judging the frequent political changes in the United Kingdom, the need to create
…show more content…
Orwell was drawn heavily to this movement, and often included its ideas in his writing. In "Politics and the English Language," for example, Orwell clearly links decayed language with degenerate politics: "Modern English is full of bad habits. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration" (128). And in his summary, Orwell claims "If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy" (139).
The more serious charge is Orwell's shaky, perhaps naive theoretical underpinnings. Fundamentally, Orwell seems to view language as an object, something separate from ourselves.This view manifests itself throughout "Politics," in Orwell's unsound notions that language can be corrupted or engineered, and that a language controls thought and vice …show more content…
Mitt Romney in one of his transcripts states, "we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences." when he says "unmistakable consequences", he doesn't really state what kinds of consequences. This might be because he is referring to war or something violent, which he doesn't want to reveal to his audience because they might see it as an act of cruelty or brutality. So in order to keep their trust he hides some facts by using fuzzy
Orwell was drawn heavily to this movement, and often included its ideas in his writing. In "Politics and the English Language," for example, Orwell clearly links decayed language with degenerate politics: "Modern English is full of bad habits. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration" (128). And in his summary, Orwell claims "If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy" (139).
The more serious charge is Orwell's shaky, perhaps naive theoretical underpinnings. Fundamentally, Orwell seems to view language as an object, something separate from ourselves.This view manifests itself throughout "Politics," in Orwell's unsound notions that language can be corrupted or engineered, and that a language controls thought and vice …show more content…
Mitt Romney in one of his transcripts states, "we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences." when he says "unmistakable consequences", he doesn't really state what kinds of consequences. This might be because he is referring to war or something violent, which he doesn't want to reveal to his audience because they might see it as an act of cruelty or brutality. So in order to keep their trust he hides some facts by using fuzzy