Lost for Words: The Mangling and Manipulating of the English Language

I like this man, he is not an academic and he has a great ability see through the whaffle and nonsense to which we are all exposed on a daily basis in the media, and politics, I think many of us are so numb to the constant barrage off this meaningless guff, that we are actually influenced by it

How many times do you hear a phrase or a cliche and it just grates a little ?, you know it is irritating, but you just subliminally accept it .

Humphries identified so many areas where people that seek to influence us all, or persuade us that they are clever, pad out their dialogue with meaningless and unnnecessary words, often designed to avoid answering the question, making any commitment, or to exclude the ordinary mortal and con him/her into thinking that they posess some great insight.

I always thought Humphries was a good presenter/interviewer, now I understand that one of the things that gives him such a clear view and the ability to see all this is his lackofpretense and privilege ...
although many probably accuse Humphries of being a pedant, I thought this book was great, and I am much better for reading it

Subtitled `The Mangling and manipulating of the English Language', this book is an enjoyable rant from journalist and BBC presenter Humphrys; you can almost hear his voice as you read it. `Have something to say and say it as clearly as you can. That is the only secret to style,' said Matthew Arnold, the Victorian writer, and that's what this book is about.

Humphrys hates sloppy overblown cliché-ridden language when it's used by those who should know better - not least when it's broadcast by the BBC. He hates jargon. He hates trendies who spout that rules confine language when in fact rules actually liberate it. As George Orwell said, slovenly language `makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.'


But most of all Humphrys hates the way our language is being mangled and manipulated by people trying to sell us things or, far more worryingly, ideas.

There are so many instances to point up his concerns. We lose good words when we use them wrongly but we also lose them when they become devalued. How on earth a soccer player can be regarded as a `hero' is beyond me too. As Humphrys says, `You become a hero in football by doing something that carries no risk (except possibly jeopardising your vast salary) and for which you have been trained since you were old enough to lace up your own boots... Skilled footballers, yes. Heroes, no.'

He once heard a salad dressing described as `awesome' and adds, `I wonder what that makes the Victoria Falls in full flood or the Beethoven Quartets.'

None of us are without sin, but those who care do at least try to get it right. He's not above castigating himself, either. So, nobody's perfect!

Our language is showing signs of obesity. Tautology is ubiquitous and he offers some examples: future prospects, past history, future plans, safe havens and - believe it or not! - live survivors! You see signs along the road informing you of `delays due to an earlier accident'; all that should have said was, `delays due to an accident' - unless someone has mastered time-travel, of course...

Humphreys' concerns are mainly with the written word - that includes politicians' speeches, since they're written by a speech-writer or spin-doctor. Most broadcasters should have given what they're going to say some thought then written it down before reading it out. He mentions one exception, however - when John Arlott was speaking on a live broadcast he always worked out exactly how his sentence would end before he started it.

Now we come to manipulating the language - telling us black is white or covering something up with a euphemism. In the eighties when British Rail announced it was abolishing second class travel, renaming it standard class, Bernard Levin pointed out that they were doing no such thing. So long as there's a first class, whatever remains must be second. Then there are those job advertisements - such as, `Manual hygiene trainer'. The successful applicant for this one was to offer `hands-on' advice to health workers with `particular attention to cross-infection minimisation'. Put simply, `teach them to wash their hands...'

You won't be surprised to learn there are several sections in the book devoted to politicians. Humphreys actually likes them as a breed and considers many are hard-working and undervalued. But they all seem to fall into the trap of mangling and manipulating language - our language. They misuse our money, too - though they keep referring to it as `government funds'. The government invests money in certain enterprises, they say; the government can't, as it doesn't have its own money to invest; in fact, it has the tax-payer's money to invest.

Newspapers, inevitably, are not immune. Clichéd language is second nature to journalists, such as: feelings always run high; doubts are always nagging; grinds to a halt; people die tragically (as opposed to joyfully), and so on... Headlines are an art-form and they mangle English due to lack of space and usually to raise a smile too. Broadcasters can't use that argument, though; as Humphrys points out, it saves precisely one ninth of a second to use a one-syllable word instead of a three-syllable word and no programme measures time in fractions of seconds.


Worse still, however, are those misguided if well-intentioned people who would fit quite nicely in George Orwell's Thought Police from 1984. In the US a white man who ran a municipal agency was forced to resign after he had described his budget as `niggardly'. Humphrys says, `This is not only etymologically absurd, it is pernicious.' This thing couldn't happen in the UK? Just wait...

We should be demanding that people in power use clear simple English instead of the clichéd dumbed-down inflated and senseless drivel that so often passes for English today. We can all make a difference. Question what the writer or speaker means. Query the assumptions made. Humphreys gives us all pause for thought. Before thought too is controlled, of course.


I suspect this book won't be a runaway bestseller like Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves. But it certainly deserves a wide audience. It will amuse and annoy and, more importantly, it warns the unwary to be on guard against being manipulated by people who should know better.

What can I say?
I gave up reading after 180 pages of the same, repetitive, dull writing. There is nothing enlightening about the English language and use in this book, just page after page of pet hates and moaning. Nothing that gladdens the heart is found in this book.
Sadly one of the few books I've ever thrown away!

I was given this book, in its paperback edition, as a birthday gift. I'm normally a fiction reader and tend to veer away from anything that doesn't provide a bit of escapism from my normal life. This book, though, was a complete pleasure. It's a witty look at the dreadful iniquities being visited upon our language. If you want a book that instructs, illuminates, and causes you to laugh aloud (so embarrassing in public places), then I recommend you get a copy of "Lost for Words". Honestly, there were moments when I sounded like a hen laying a square egg - cackleworthy, indeed!

I enjoyed this book. Its author knows enough about our language to hold the reader's attention and make his points in a light-hearted, witty way.

Politicians, academics and celebrities' language is designed to achieve different things: from changing an opinion to forcing the case for war; from buying a useless product to offering support for twisted agendas.

They're all at it, the buggers.

The book points out some of the methods, and the culprits identified by the author are treated with gentlemanly restraint. Even Alistair Campbell gets off lightly, which bemused me. John Humphrys makes a crashing error, though.

He wrote that the flabby, convoluted language used by critics of modern art validates the art. No argument from me on that point, and he backed up his argument with examples. But Humphrys still refers to the garbage produced by Tracey Emin as "work". That is unforgivable. Describing her junk as "work" places it alongside long hours in the office or on the building site. Using that word validates her ludicrous offerings. He makes a sharp and lethal point with one sentence, and then destroys his clear thinking with only one word.

Work.

Using that word in that way appears to be an example of subtle - almost sub-concious -cap-doffing to people who have mistaken pretension for genius. It's only work if you would rather be doing something else.

Another small gripe is Humphrys' use of the semi-colon. He hardly bothers. Now that is okay. Semi-colons are a thing of choice. They do tend to loosen the belt of the prose, though. They let the writing breathe a bit.

I enjoyed reading this book. I felt that I had learned some things that were worth learning by reading it.

Much obliged to ya, guv.