Talk:Politics and the English Language

Jargon

I've moved this sentence to the discussion page:

"In his admonition against foreign terms and in favor of everyday English, Orwell breaks his own rule by using the French term 'jargon.'"

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says jargon comes from the late Middle English word iargon, which was adapted from the Old French jargoun. Jargon has been in use in English for around 300 years.

So it seems unlikely that Orwell was using the word with the thought that it was a foreign word, any more than people now think that, for example, envelope or hotel are foreign words.

If an authoritative source can be cited to show that Orwell intended the word to be taken as a foreign one, the sentence could be reinstated. Adrian Robson 08:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Orwell's rules have been reworded

It seems from looking at the history of this article that Orwell's rules have been rewritten. So it doesn't make sense to have a paragraph putting forward the argument that Orwell didn't stick to his own rules, based on text re-written by Wikipedia contributors instead of Orwell's original. So I've removed this paragraph:

"Then, by actually breaking all of these rules in the essay itself, Orwell attempts to jostle the reader out of mental sluggishness. For instance, the admonition against wordiness, "Always cut out a word if it is possible to do so," is itself wordy, and can be expressed more succinctly as "Cut out unneeded words." In his admonition against common and overused figures of speech, Orwell uses the common and overused figure of speech "figure of speech." Orwell's essay is replete with ironic rhetorical subtexts such as these."

If anyone knows what Orwell actually wrote, I'd suggest that it would be more authoritative to use that rather than the current text which has been modified from his original. Adrian Robson 08:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What a weird situation. (reminds me of Animal Farm) My edit just now changed all the re-wordings back to Orwell's originals. Take note and take care! Ashibaka tock 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes. I've made one further change to remove the word "voice" from the phrase "Never use the passive..." I'm fairly confident that this is likely to be right as all the internet sources I can find phrase it like this. However, I'm unable to find Orwell's original essay and all the sources are simply quoting from it with some variations. For example, one says: "...cut it out" instead of just "...always cut it out". So if anyone has an original copy of the essay, perhaps they could confirm here that the text is now correct. (Or, of course, change it if it's not!) Adrian Robson 09:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response?

Has there been any historical rebutal of Orwell's contention? Am I alone in not being completely convinced? I am not suggesting "original research" or any of that, but if something is out there, I think Orwell himself would approve of its presentation.

Not that I know of. Organisations like the Plain English Campaign seem to show that this attitude has caught on somewhat. The problem is still there, but nobody is defending it. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lingua Franca ran an article a few years ago contrasting Orwell's views on language with Theodor Adorno's. The latter believed that "clear" language only served to reinforce common sense, and was therefore just as poisonous as anything else that discourages critical thinking. I'll try to find the article. That said, I admire both writers, and really don't think they're talking about the same thing at all. Adorno certainly wouldn't have defended the kind of language Orwell criticizes.L Glidewell 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Found the article, http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9912/writing.html

also, I'm working on a major re-write of this, won't be ready for a couple weeks. 137.112.141.152 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

137.112.141.152 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Applicability

It is gruesome. I needed to read the "I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift..." part three times to understand it, while "Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel..." was clear to me immediately. insane.--ExplicitImplicity 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's sad for you. Part of his point, there, was that the older text is written in archaic diction, but its meaning is clear (even if it takes a couple reads). The "modern translation" is vague, and makes claims (e.g., "objective considerations") that would take a huge amount of evidence to even begin to support. The first is presented honestly as an interpretation of the world, where the second is falsely presented as an expert observation. L Glidewell 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That says something about the further decline of English that some people consider the latter selection to express clear and specific meaning. Also, you are missing the point about vivid imagry being a vital part of good prose; while the former section uses clear images to illustrate its point, the latter one adds many words to make a simple idea sound profound. 137.112.141.152 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations on being living proof that Orwell was right. Really tragic.89.243.137.109 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, three years after, I must say I had exactly the same impression as ExplicitImplicity: I had to revert to the "modern English of the worst sort" to understand what the hell King James' translation was talking about... Admittedly I am not the ideal "human guinea pig" for testing Orwell's point: my mother tongue is Italian, hence, in my case, all those latinate words in the "modern" version help understanding, rather than hampering it. Yet, this testifies that Orwell's linguistic views were definitely oversimplified, to say the least! 82.119.193.179 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The original makes claims that are strictly wrong--the race is not to the swift?--but are ignored because they're imagery; in fact it's so befuddled with imagery that it's hard to tell what the real claim is. The original also uses a phrase "under the sun" that was probably cliched when the Hebrew was written and adds nothing to the statement. It's a great example of how pretty phrasing obscures real meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote?

Don't get me wrong, we should have an article on this topic, but much of the current article consists of quotes that should probably be transwikied. JChap2007 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there is nothing in this article at present except a sort of re-telling of the points of the essay, so you may as well read the essay itself. I don't know what the solution is though. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the background to the essay (what inspired Orwell to write it) and its impact would be useful. His discussion of the "private definition" of words is frequently discussed, as are his rules and his rewriting of the verse from Ecclesiastes. JChap2007 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Full text link

Isn't the current link the most miserably formatted of the available HTML versions of this essay? I easily found better ones here (the best looking) and here (which would seem the most interested in being authoritative). MJ 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. --User:Krator (t c) 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New text link - Slightly reformatted version

I have come across a version of Orwell's essay that has been reformatted for easier online reading, although only mildly. Given the subject matter of the essay (ie clarity), I'd like to think Orwell might approve, even though it moves away from the print versions in terms of formatting. It seems to be an advertising free site etc., so would it be useful to add? It also prints well. (I'm new to Wikipedia, so not sure of what's acceptable.)

Article here: Politics and the English Language by George Orwell

Caesar0 11:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

No feedback from anyone, so added link to main article. I hope this is acceptable. Link is better than some of those already there.

Caesar0 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Orwell Arwards

I think something should be added about the Orwell and Doublespeak awards, given every year to both one piece of work or entity that follows orwell's rules, and one that breaks them. You can find more info by simply googling "orwell awards".

lalalapilly 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed blog as reference

Have removed the following:

Linguist Geoffrey Pullum has criticized the essay for "its insane and unfollowable insistence that good writing must avoid all phrases and word uses that are familiar." (Ref) Pullum, Geoffrey (August 31, 2008). "A load of old Orwellian cobblers from Fisk". Language Log. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=551. Retrieved December 28, 2008. 

Blogs are, at the time of writing, not accepted as references. --Technopat (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And why not? :) Skomorokh 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that editors' consensus should decide which blogs & forums are acceptable or not as references at Wikipedia. They are increasingly being used by the scientific community, for instance, as an interchange/exchange of knowledge among experts. However, this discussion page is not the place for proposing future consensus :) or my personal opinions... sigh! --Technopat (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy is pretty clear that experts self-publishing in their field are reliable; G Pullum is a Professor of linguistics and this is a linguistic article so it looks like you've fallen on the wrong side of consensus on this one. Not to worry, there are plenty of non-blog sources on the essay out there you can use to overwhelm our one blog! Skomorokh 00:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - replying on your talk page. --Technopat (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Being very bold...

With all due respect to the effort made by a recent editor to reduce "prolixity", the article - admittedly in need of serious cleanup - is now far harder to read and understand than it was before, whatever its faults then. I have therefore reverted these edits.

I realise that my "bold" revert might seem "aggressive" but the aim of an encyclopedic entry at Wikipedia is to explain things to the general public in easy-to-understand terms and I feel that the opposite has been occurring with this article. I would appreciate some constructive feedback on this, and if consensus is that I have put my foot in it, I apologise. --Technopat (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary section

The summary section simply parrots what Orwell was saying, whereas the rest of the article actually explains it. I believe that the redundant summary should be excised. BillMasen (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is why it is a summary! It needs to be there for people who want a summary of the essay rather than all the explanation Motmit (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But this is only a description of what he wrote. Either people want to know what he wrote first hand, or they want it explained to them in someone else's own words, not a cut down and less clear version of O's words.

I notice that Motmit wrote this summary. Is there anyone out there who feels it should stay, apart from the man himself? Does anyone else, like me, feel that this summary does not contribute to the article and would be of little use unless the reader had read Orwell's essay first?BillMasen (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pullum / Language Log

The harsh criticism of Orwell, cited to Geoff Pullum at various Language Log postings, has been removed over and over again for years(!), always on specious grounds. Wikipedia has never adopted a blanket ban on the use of blogs. The actual language from WP:SPS (and this is pretty stable over time IIRC) is:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Pullum clearly meets these criteria. Further, Pullum's criticism of Orwell on Language Log has been specifically cited four times by three different mainstream news outlets.[1]

Pullum's LL postings on Orwell are reliable sources and should be included. 205.211.141.50 (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)