There have been essays and books decrying the slow decay of the English language since the 18th century, with claims such as "Our language is degenerating very fast" (from 1785)...or "Every high school is in disrepair because its pupils are so ignorant of the merest rudiments [of English]" (1917)...etc. etc.

See: http://www.princeton.edu/~browning/decline.html

And now we have "there is no question but that educational standards have plummeted over the past few decades". Even though just a few decades ago, others were complaining of exactly the same thing.

One has to wonder how we can even comprehend anything written over 200 years ago.

In this opinion piece, the author points out the following:

“As overtly displayed at street level, the more incomprehensible the patois, the stronger the tribal bonds. Most groups do not wish to speak to each other anyway — except for the most basic transactions — so mutual unintelligibility is a perfectly rational move.”

It seems to me that the perceived value of incomprehensibility is far more overtly displayed at the “academic” level, rather than the “street” level: particularly in the case of the current opinion article.

Terms such as, “gimcrack courses”, “nugatory at worst”, “duumvirate of dogma and incompetence”, “raison d’etre”, and “the more incomprehensible the patois” are littered throughout this article. These terms are all able to be perfectly expressed through the utilisation of commonly used English words; however the author seems to prefer the use of these obscure terms that will ensure his article will be read by a rather small audience and comprehended by an even smaller one.

Perhaps the author comes from a “group” that does not wish to speak to other “groups”, as referred in his article, and so the use of this type of language performs the function of his group in maintaining the “mutual unintelligibility”?

I find it quietly amusing that the author speaks of the importance of “being able to express ourselves clearly”, and laments at the inability of people to be able to “think, speak, or write in plain terms”, whilst at the same time as discussing “post-modern orthodoxies bequeathed by the sixties” and “electronic geegaws”.

The point of this comment is not to criticise the content of the article, it is instead to raise the thought that perhaps it is not only “poorness” of language that has the potential to impact on one’s ability to clearly express themselves to other people; perhaps the gratuitous use of “rich” language can have the same negative impact.

Perhaps the author can find a nice midpoint between the “rich” and the “poor”. It will ensure that his message will reach a wider range of readers

Your nail is on the head. Well Done.

Apathy Breeds Contempt. Distained defiance, and unruliness.

Red-tape contributes to the disconnectiveness, alienation and disparaging scorn.

http://www.miacat.com
.

One of the best articles I've read on OLO. A clever synthesis of some deleterious traits in modern society. I wonder sometimes about the quality of articles online but that has restored my faith.

"Indeed, being unaware that one is talking gibberish can be a positive advantage in negotiating today's corporate rapids."

I like that one

Or in operation, the advantage of not being able [or so they claimed] to count past 1999 made $200 Billion for the Y2K freaks

also as a member of the Don Watson forum, it is no surprise to me there are about say 5 posts a month

in fact here is a topic where I say if you cant beat em then join em

http://z8.invisionfree.com/weaselwords/index.php?showtopic=290

it is my own disclaimer of a disclaimer [written in Patent Attorney language] re copyright