Terminalcoffee discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
27 views
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives > I pledge allegiance to linguistic obfuscation

Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

Grammar people, knock yourself out!


message 2: by Anthony (last edited Mar 31, 2010 08:10AM) (new)

Anthony Buckley (anthonydbuckley) | 145 comments Lack of clarity is not confined to the American Oath of Allegiance.

The great thing about rituals is that everybody joins in. The anthropologist Anthony Cohen once noted that the members of a church congregation generally had no single belief in common. (He went round the congregation and asked them, one by one.)

In fact, this principle became the basis for the Elizabethan settlement in the Church of England. You could believe what you like – this meant being anything from a Catholic to an Anabaptist – as long as you turned up and didn’t make a fuss. This principle hit hard times during the English Civil War, but it persists to this day. (Actually, it is in difficulties as I write - as somebody said, "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce"!)

It is therefore not a good idea to have too much clarity in one’s rituals. Clarity tends to exclude people. When people understand what is being said, they may feel they must opt out.


message 3: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments I think that's true for academic language, too. I have no idea why people think excessive formality sounds better. Stephen King addresses this well in On Writing, by the way...I'm paraphrasing, but he says something about how people tend to say "The meeting will take place at..." instead of "The meeting is at seven."


message 4: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) Maybe using older language and costume creates the illusion of permanence in a temporal existance.


message 5: by janine (new)

janine | 7709 comments i'm all for the use of normal words, no corporate-speak etc. i think when someone uses normal words and actually says what they want to say they're much more sympathetic and believable.


message 6: by Anthony (last edited Mar 31, 2010 12:16PM) (new)

Anthony Buckley (anthonydbuckley) | 145 comments Simplicity is best. But it's oh so difficult!


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

Larry wrote: "Maybe using older language and costume creates the illusion of permanence in a temporal existance."

I like your alternative temporality Larry!



message 8: by Heidi (new)

Heidi (heidihooo) | 10825 comments Fave lesson in writing - if it's not necessary, leave it out.


message 9: by Félix (new)

Félix (habitseven) We could just toss it all out and enjoy the silence.


message 10: by Anthony (last edited Apr 01, 2010 01:59AM) (new)

Anthony Buckley (anthonydbuckley) | 145 comments Heidi wrote: "Fave lesson in writing - if it's not necessary, leave it out."
Nearly everything I write is twice as long as it should be. I spend almost as much time throwing out words as I spend writing them in the first place. Larry's point (12) has much merit. Shhh!


message 11: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments i have seen some people say the pledge of allegiance (or national anthem)like they were repeating the times tables and i have seen others feel what they were saying whether or not they even understood all of the words. (rarely children though) i think the main reason for this is that some people such as immigrants, veterans, or people who have not had freedoms truly have something to compare life without them to.


back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.