When unnecessary words are used to decorate simple remarks, the statements can become too wordy and cause confusion. Sometimes adjectives are used to enhance ideas, but using them without careful attention can lead to contradictions in the meaning of a phrase. Foreign words may be used in an attempt to gain sophistication, but if the reader does not know the meaning, they can lead to more confusion.Orwell enjoyed writing was to bring to the surface how representatives take advantage of the language through manipulation.6 He wrote 1984 as a result of his disenchantment of ?the left,? the primary stop on the process including fascination with communism, expanding disbelief, and unavoidable deterioration.7 He chose fiction, such as 1984, because it was the only genre that he could make much money off of, and it allowed him to spread his views easily.8 In ? Jack Skellington let me pour you a tall glass of get over itPolitics and the English Language,? Orwell points out many of the issues with the English language of his time. Among the issues presented are the use of pompous diction, irrelevant metaphors, and ambiguous expressions. Other sources criticize the language because of the use of sexist language, redundancy, and corruption.
Buy it on Linkhay
Jack Skellington let me pour you a tall glass of get over it mug
Unnecessary abbreviations can also have the same effect. Often, metaphors that are irrelevant to the culture today are used. Sometimes the meanings of these metaphors can be figured out, but other times outdated words are used, and the meanings are unclear, causing the metaphors to be incorrectly used. It was April 2010. David Cameron and Gordon Brown were the political front-runners of Great Britain. However, that realization was irrelevant to what was about to happen. Jack Skellington let me pour you a tall glass of get over it Everyone was watching as the highly-anticipated, first televised debates in the United Kingdom began. The discourse ended after several hours, and a new candidate quickly emerged as the leader. His name was Nick Clegg. He led the Liberal Democrats, the smallest party. One might think about it over and over again and ask, “How did such a thing happen?”.
How to get it?
The answer, in itself, lies within the influence of the media, the power of language, and how its words are intertwined so masterfully that the effect becomes immeasurable. As Diane Setterfield once noted, “There is something about words. In expert hands, manipulated deftly, they take you prisoner. They wind themselves around your limbs like spider silk, and when you are so enthralled you cannot move, they pierce your skin, enter your blood, numb your thoughts. Inside you they work their magic.” The press established a perception for Clegg and made it known not only to all those in attendance, but to everyone who was watching across the nation. Based on his calm, collective demeanor and the way he was in control, Nick looked like the “host.” David and Gordon, on the other hand, appeared rattled and uncomfortable. They went from being the top two candidates to “guests,” in a matter of several hours.