present political chaos is connected with the decay of language

merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.

Never use a long word where a short one will do. iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active. v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails.

The defence of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply.

There is a long list of fly-blown metaphors which could similarly be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job;

This invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.

Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one’s elbow.

When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find – this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify – that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.

Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly even expected to do so by the reader.

It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentatory and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one’s meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.

Anglo-Saxon

Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biassed judgements.

These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry.

. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact.

But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves

As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed

The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not

which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.

It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes

the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism

Our civilization is decadent and our language – so the argument runs – must inevitably share in the general collapse

The robot seemed to be looking intoher eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. The woman was comforted

Most ofall, we need to remembei - in between texts and e-mails and Facebook posts -- to listento one another, even to the boring bits, because it is often in unedited moments' momentsin which we hesitate and stutter and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one another

And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves'

FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly.

we can make ourcars .,device-fiee zones.

when people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a device'

And why wouldl,,e want to talk about love andloss with a machine that has no experlence of ti-,e arc of human life? Have we so lostconfidence that we will be there for one another?

I have often heard the sentiment "No "J i: li.,]ing to me'" I believe this feeling helpsexplainwhyitissoappealingtohaveaFacebookpageoraTwitterfeed-eachprovides so many automatic listeners.

We can attend to tone and nuance.

Human relationships are rich; they're messy and dem-anding' We have learned the habitof cleaning them up with technology.

A senior partner at aBoston law firm describes a soene in his office. Young associates lay out their suite oftechnologier, fuptopr, iPods and multiple phones

Our colleagues want to go to that board meeting but pay attention only to what intereststhem.

WE live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating' And yet wehave sacrificed conversation for mere connection