Michael McCormick's RR of "Politics and the English Language"

At first it seemed that the writer himself was falling into the same vice as he was describing, the misuse of words. But as you read on you begin to understand his point. When you read the examples he provides it becomes quite clear how people were not only misusing words but were doing it to a point that all description of what they are talking about is lost.
This became most evident in his translation of the Ecclesiastes verse. The first translation was understandable and had a definite structure to the sentence. Including a conclusion to the sentence: “but time and chance happeneth to them all” (Orwell). If you read the then modern english version you just get lost in all the big words that end up disintegrating the meaning. For instance the conclusion of the sentence shows how big words, in my opinion, expressionism for the sake of being impressive, just muddies the water. Does this concluding remark hit home as well as the first translation: “but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account” (Orwell). To me it seems that being simple and to the point, with each word, rather than being long and big strikes a little deeper to the point.
I feel like the authors main point is to show how we in the use of the english language are lazy; as well as followers of the misuse of english words, because at the time it is a popular word to misuse. The quote “attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy” shows how people will use words that have gained popularity in use but the true meaning has an entirely different definition (Orwell).
Today though it seems that the same sort of misuse of words is still a problem. However I would say that using many of the words that we use today, which were not originally english words, have been so blended in that they cannot now be separated from every day use. For example the foreign word “cul de sac” will probably not stop being used (Orwell).
For the use of this argument in our paper I think that we should refrain from using such words as “gay” or “that was totally sick” as the true meaning would denote the exact opposite of what we are arguing. Unless of course the use of these words are in a direct quote from an interview or something.