Thread: Newspeak

Has anyone noticed how language is changing these days? I listen to Radio 4 quite often and I seem to regularly hear the following.

Impossible -> not possible
unreal -> not real
unlikely -> not likely

There are many more examples. I suspect the schools are now cutting down on the vocabulary as Orwell predicted all those years ago. Also it is not just in interviews with the uneducated, but also the BBC presenters do it just as frequently.

It’s one of those things that seem to get under the radar, and people can unconsciously start to replicate this language butchering without realising it. I must confess that I sometimes find myself doing it as well, but a little thing inside my head reminds me that this Newspeak is intentional. We are all fairly familiar with the grosser (-> more gross) forms of language perversion such as the mistakes they made, e.g. ‘vertically challenged’, but now the language engineers are honing their art to the point where it is starting to take hold.

‘Not’ is just one prefix used to butcher the language, but there is also ‘more’ and ‘most’ as well, such as ‘more stupid’ as opposed to ‘stupider’ and ‘most stupid’ instead of ‘stupidest’. Not all words have a negative, but those negitives that exist are being erased from the English language. This is however just one notable abuse. Many other words are being erased, and the BBC is chopping it up so that standard words and phrases are used to describe a multitude of different situations, so it lacks finesse. With a reduced vocabulary the effect is that the mind thinks in grosser terms and lacks precision. It is often this precision that is helpful in detecting subtle scams. This is nothing other than the stupefying of the entire population, and they are already, on the whole, too stupid to notice it. I hope this forum doesn't succumb to this abuse. You do not want to sound like the BBC!

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

Has anyone noticed how language is changing these days? I listen to Radio 4 quite often and I seem to regularly hear the following.

Impossible -> not possible
unreal -> not real
unlikely -> not likely

Language continues to evolve. We need words for new things.
But I don't quite see what you are getting at.
"Not" and "possible" are words that have been in use for many years. And in combination. This in relation o the building of the Panama canal:

It is not possible to me to express the feeling of joy and admiration that I have experimented to the knowledge that Panama, the center of the Universe, is segregated by itself and freed by its own virtue. The act of independence of Panama is the monument most glorious that any American province can give. Everything there is addressed; justice, generosity, policy and national interest. Transmit, then, you to those meritorious Colombians the tribute of my enthusiasm by their pure patriotism and true actions...

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

‘Not’ is just one prefix used to butcher the language, but there is also ‘more’ and ‘most’

These are words, not prefixes.

Dickens has been in the news today. Rightly so in my opinion.
He was a craftsman with the language.

'Please, sir, I want some more.'

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Language continues to evolve. We need words for new things.
But I don't quite see what you are getting at.
"Not" and "possible" are words that have been in use for many years. And in combination. This in relation o the building of the Panama canal:




These are words, not prefixes.

Dickens has been in the news today. Rightly so in my opinion.
He was a craftsman with the language.

'Please, sir, I want some more.'

Yes of course language evolves. For example 'byte' is a fairly new word. New things occur and they need names. I'm not talking about new things here though. I'm talking about simple words that have been around for hundreds of years, because they are words that are rather universal.

This butchering though is not a result of natural evolution. It is being imposed on us by our centralist education and media system. It's easy to spot the difference. Evolution happens gradually over long periods of time as words go in and out of fashion. Words such as 'verily' and 'forlorn' (12th century) are in decline these days. I used to read a fair number of books written in the 18th and 19th century, and one thing I noticed was the language was so much richer then, especially when t comes to human expression. It continues to be simplified and it becomes mechanical almost. However there have been much more recent changes that I have noticed only very recently, like say in the last few years.

Another aspect of it is sentence structure. Many radio presenters these days leave out the word 'I' all the time, such as ‘Been down the pub’ vs. ‘I have been down to the pub’. The former is not a sentence and yet this illiterate talk is being pushed these days by radio presenters in a universal manner. I suspect this may have something to do with the character limit of Twitter and text messages, but that doesn’t explain my introductory examples, because the correct grammar is shorter.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

Yes of course language evolves. For example 'byte' is a fairly new word. New things occur and they need names. I'm not talking about new things here though. I'm talking about simple words that have been around for hundreds of years, because they are words that are rather universal.

This butchering though is not a result of natural evolution. It is being imposed on us by our centralist education and media system. It's easy to spot the difference. Evolution happens gradually over long periods of time as words go in and out of fashion. Words such as 'verily' and 'forlorn' (12th century) are in decline these days. I used to read a fair number of books written in the 18th and 19th century, and one thing I noticed was the language was so much richer then, especially when t comes to human expression. It continues to be simplified and it becomes mechanical almost. However there have been much more recent changes that I have noticed only very recently, like say in the last few years.

Another aspect of it is sentence structure. Many radio presenters these days leave out the word 'I' all the time, such as ‘Been down the pub’ vs. ‘I have been down to the pub’. The former is not a sentence and yet this illiterate talk is being pushed these days by radio presenters in a universal manner. I suspect this may have something to do with the character limit of Twitter and text messages, but that doesn’t explain my introductory examples, because the correct grammar is shorter.

You have yet to explain your aversion to not , more, and most.
They are perfectly good English language words and have been since before either you or I were born.

I have posted before that I am a pedantic old bar steward when it comes to correctly written English in my field.
Actually, it irks me some to see badly written English anywhere.

An example:
There is a convenience store that's just a few minutes walk from where we live.
The walk is in a residential area which is good.
But one garden gate has a notice that just doesn't sit well with me.

"Beware of the dog's"

EDL>Evil Demented Lowlife.

Nice to see the thread staying on topic.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

You have yet to explain your aversion to not , more, and most.
They are perfectly good English language words and have been since before either you or I were born.

I have posted before that I am a pedantic old bar steward when it comes to correctly written English in my field.
Actually, it irks me some to see badly written English anywhere.

An example:
There is a convenience store that's just a few minutes walk from where we live.
The walk is in a residential area which is good.
But one garden gate has a notice that just doesn't sit well with me.

"Beware of the dog's"

Yes they are good words, but recently I have become interested in linguistics and I'm starting to notice subtle manipulation. The language we use is also the language we think in. This is not simply a guess of mine, but recently scientists have used this to read our thoughts. You can reconstruct the sound of words out of electrical impulses in the brain. There was a demonstration of this a short while back.

Anyhow, that is the basis of my concern. If the language is modified on a mass basis then the way people think gets modified as well. Many on here for a long time have wondered why people are so stupid these days. For example, in voting intentions and serious stuff like that. People often assume the masses will respond logically, but this is clearly not the case, although I wish it were. Now we have a state broadcaster that is regulated so it cannot display political bias, and yet the temptation to do so must be huge amongst the BBC executives.

The BBC is an incredibly powerful media organisation. It broadcasts in 33 countries and is the largest broadcaster in the world. Few have really looked into the language it uses. This is what I'm doing here and what I have been investigating myself. It's not something I have copied from someone else, rather it is my own bit of digging. It is known that the BBC use certain politically correct words, but I believe the manipulation is far deeper than that. I have noticed standard phrases being used over and over again, as if they were told to say these things. It appears to go beyond what might be explained as groupthink. Here, I spotted this in the paper a short while after I started this thread.

BBC tells its staff: don’t call Qatada extremist - Telegraph

Words are obviously very important to the BBC. You might ask what is the difference between ‘radical’ and ‘extreme’. Well the BBC top brass thought it so important that they called a management meeting about it. Oh and one more to go with my previous examples that really gets on my nerves is 'not right'. Why can't it just be wrong!

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

Yes they are good words, but recently I have become interested in linguistics and I'm starting to notice subtle manipulation. The language we use is also the language we think in. This is not simply a guess of mine, but recently scientists have used this to read our thoughts. You can reconstruct the sound of words out of electrical impulses in the brain. There was a demonstration of this a short while back.

I'm not sure about your logic there. Your brain has a store of words that can be recalled each will have a particular brain activity associated with it. But can you extrapolate backwards from that to the idea that you think in a language? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think not. You can express your thoughts in words but do they start out that way? Again, I'm inclined to think not. And sometimes, maybe even most of the time, thoughts flash through your mind far more quickly than words could express them. Then there are times when you don't have a word to describe something - you might know what it is or does and looks like, just not what it's called.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

Oh and one more to go with my previous examples that really gets on my nerves is 'not right'. Why can't it just be wrong!

Or left?

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

Has anyone noticed how language is changing these days? I listen to Radio 4 quite often and I seem to regularly hear the following.

Impossible -> not possible
unreal -> not real
unlikely -> not likely

There are many more examples. I suspect the schools are now cutting down on the vocabulary as Orwell predicted all those years ago. Also it is not just in interviews with the uneducated, but also the BBC presenters do it just as frequently.

It’s one of those things that seem to get under the radar, and people can unconsciously start to replicate this language butchering without realising it. I must confess that I sometimes find myself doing it as well, but a little thing inside my head reminds me that this Newspeak is intentional. We are all fairly familiar with the grosser (-> more gross) forms of language perversion such as the mistakes they made, e.g. ‘vertically challenged’, but now the language engineers are honing their art to the point where it is starting to take hold.

‘Not’ is just one prefix used to butcher the language, but there is also ‘more’ and ‘most’ as well, such as ‘more stupid’ as opposed to ‘stupider’ and ‘most stupid’ instead of ‘stupidest’. Not all words have a negative, but those negitives that exist are being erased from the English language. This is however just one notable abuse. Many other words are being erased, and the BBC is chopping it up so that standard words and phrases are used to describe a multitude of different situations, so it lacks finesse. With a reduced vocabulary the effect is that the mind thinks in grosser terms and lacks precision. It is often this precision that is helpful in detecting subtle scams. This is nothing other than the stupefying of the entire population, and they are already, on the whole, too stupid to notice it. I hope this forum doesn't succumb to this abuse. You do not want to sound like the BBC!

What I find most annoying are people referring to their children as the “Kids” Kids are the young of goats.