BAD LANGUAGE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 2, Issue 47, 17 May 1940, Page 12

BAD LANGUAGE

Words Like Bolsters And Phrases Like Feather-Beds

[ Abridgment of a BBC Talk by

A. P.

HERBERT

MP.

printed in the English " Listener’ |

in war time words-and men of words-don't matter. You remember Nelson’s signal: "England expects that every man will do his duty." Good! But suppose that the signal had been drafted by one of our fat-word-breeders in Whitehall, that signal would have run thus: "England anticipatesnobody can say ‘expects’ to-day-that with eregard to the current emergency, personnel will duly implement their obligations in accordance with the functions allocated to their respective age-groups." Well, would anyone have said then that words didn’t matter? No; it would have been said that the author of that verbose, vague and suety signal was not fit to lead his fellow-countrymen into battle. of us nowadays, I think, would say that Herr Hitler, I suppose, may fairly be described as a man of action. I hope, I’m sure, that in saying so much I shall not be thought guilty of annoying the enemy. But he’s far from despising the use of words. Here at home no one who was delighted in the power and precision of Mr. Winston Churchill's broadsides will say that words don’t matter; and it’s no accident that the same statesman who in speech has scored so many bull’s-eyes is fixed as well in the public mind as a rock in purpose and a dynamo in action. He has shown you that it is not always necessary to speak of big things in long, woolly words. Simplicity Means Something Some of us knew this before, but to others it has come as a shock of surprise. And that shows how low we have sunk in the world of words. You have learned in recent years to expect any speech or writing about public affairs to be bulging with words like bolsters and phrases like feather-beds-gross Latin words like "decontamination," phrases like "mutual bi-lateral non-aggression,’ and so on. So when Mr. Churchill concludes an address with that simple but electric passage, "Man the ships, till the fields, sweep the mines, guard the streets, kiss the girls," and so on, you sit up and say, "My hat, all this means something after all; moreover, this man understands us." Woolly Words And Woolly Minds The woolly word may reveal the woolly mind; the obscure or cloudy word may conceal the tricky purpose or the absence of a plan. I am told that outside a famous barracks in London this notice was recently displayed: "Tenders are invited for the disposal of manure accumulated in respect of military animals." "Manure accumulated in respect of military animals’ — in cther words, "manure" — and I could make it even shorter. Now, to condemn this sort of thing is not merely to be a fussy grammarian or pedantic scholar, to prefer effective and fitting language, or to disapprove of wasting public ink and paper. That notice betrays the character of the man who composed it. I can see the fellow, and I had better not say what I see. But we are entitled to suspect the character and competence of any department, any part, and any politician who stuffs the public mind with woolly, half-baked, flabby or slushy words, Why "Evacuation"? In this war, I think, the classic example is "evacuation," and all the hasty litter of mongrel expressions which have sprung round it-‘"evacuee," the "selfevacuating" person, "re-evacuation," and so on. Nothing can be done, perhaps, to kill "evacuation"

now, but unless we abuse its wretched parents with a will, they will gaily give birth to some similar monstrosity to-morrow. No doubt about it, this was a wanton and brutish crime against good sense and the King’s English, committed by the King’s Government. And there was not the least excuse. "Evacuate" means-and still means-‘to make empty," quite empty. "Evacuate" is what the doctor tries to do when he uses a stomach-pump. Now when the whole of a garrison retired from a fort and left it to the enemy, that was reasonably described as an "evacuation" -- though even then, "abandonment" would have been a better word. But you don’t say that you have "evacuated" a pint pot when you have drunk half a pint. At no time did the Government intend that London, Liverpool or Manchester should be "evacuated" — that is, "made empty." Too Many Latin Labels What I hate is to hear the simple workman or waterman in the pub compelled to speak of the intimate things in his life-the departure of his wife, the care of his children-in ugly, alien and unnatural terms, simply because some official in the Ministry of Sanitation enjoys the sownd of lengthy Latin words, or is tco lazy to select an English one. "Where’s Martha, Bill? She ain’t evacuated, surely?" "No, Bert; she’s a self-evacuating person, see!’ "Oh, ’opped it, did she? You're lucky; my old girl was Government evacuated, but she’s gone and de-evacuated ’erself." "That’s bad, Bert; what'll you do?" "Do? Why, de-re-evacuate ’er, of course." I do not like it. Nor do you. I am no enemy of the Latin tongue. I am humbly grateful that, in a small way, I had a chance to be a Latin scholar. I admire and love that language; I strongly advocate the study of_it. But there’s no good reason why every new thing should be given a long Latin label. If we want to speak of "rat catching,’ do not: let us say "deratisation" as our officials and seamen have to to-day in every harbour of the kingdom. When we mean no more than "cleansing," why say, and make the nation say, "decontamination’’? Distrust these long-legged Latin words. Too often at the other end there is an empty skull-or should I say, an "evacuated" skull? Distrust, too, this cloud of stinging words that end in "ist" and "ism’’"Fascist," "Bolshevist," "Imperialist." Ask those who use them what they mean. Great Things Can Be Said Simply But I should prefer, as I have said, to do without such alien labels in politics at all, Let uswhere we can-preserve and honour the fire, the force, the freshness of our tongue-with, of course, such reasonable contributions as we require from others. In that tongue, after all, great things can be said in few and slender words. How did King George the Fifth speak of the British Empire? "In these days," he said in 1935, "when fear and preparation for war are again astir in the world, let us be thankful that quiet government and peace prevail over so large a part of the earth’s surface, and that under our flag of freedom so many millions eat their daily bread, in far distant lands and climates, with none to make them afraid." Is that Imperialism? I cannot tell. Is it good English? Yes, simple and sturdy, proud but plain,