Log in

No account? Create an account
Apr. 19th, 2011 @ 03:05 am Rules of Engagement in The Great Language War
About this Entry
Date:April 21st, 2011 11:59 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Yes, but what you have written is not direct and to the point. It is contrived, contains cliches, and even misspellings.

"The points raised here will endeavor to be concise." How about "My points will be concise" or "I will try to be concise." There is no need to take them up the mountain of endeavoring.

And "used in a specific arraignment" means that your words are going to court to hear the charges against them. The charges against this phrase include the misspelling of the word arrangement.

And I would completely argue with you that words are assigned specific meanings. Words are assigned multiple senses and definitions. If they were assigned specific meanings, the field of computational linguistics would be so much easier. But typically, if we are discussing philosophy, debate, or maybe even law, we try to define our words before we begin the discussion.

As you pointed out some words have become completely devoid of meaning. These words include "conservative," "socialist," and "clean energy" and probably many more. I have been guilty of a bad analogy involving slavery when I was a freshman in college. The whole internet is guilty of comparing things to Hitler. And David Brooks is guilty of sticking thoughts into the minds of deceased people in order to maximize his gay attraction to Donald Trump by writing, "First, I think Walt Whitman would appreciate his relentless energy and boyish cravings." And if that doesn't start a whole new branch of TrumpxWaltWhitman fan fiction, I don't know what will.