there is a tendency in academia to say that any one thing is as good as another. to be frank, that is bunk. but it is bunk not for objectivist reasons (ie that “good” is an objective ideal), but rather for pragmatist and relativist reasons: “good” must always be defined in relation to other things. once you have decided what “good” must be measured against, then it just is not true that “certain words are [not] better or worse than others.”

if you want to describe the colour of a stop sign, the word “red” is *better* than “blue.” better because you mean something by “colour of a stop sign” and “red” and by saying “the colour of a stop sign is red” you are making a statement that you expect others to understand, and understand to be true. You can write “the stop sign is blue” and mean “red,” but that is no good, in the sense that no one will understand what you mean. And if what you “mean” is the “colour is red,” and your purpose is to transmit that information, then it is bad/worse to say: “the stop sign is the colour of the fruit of the plant Fragaria virginiana.” Because only a very few people know what Fragaria virginiana is.

It’s not that those jargony words should never be used in the universe, they should just never be used by people who “puff up their speech to sound like those speakers their society thinks is best.”

As part of society, I am saying: “I think that the best speaking is not puffed up. If you puff up your language, I will think less of your language.”

… in other words, there is a measurable quality/quantity called clarity of writing. you can take a text and get 1,000 people to read it, and measure a) what the writer wanted to say b) what the readers understood. If a) and b) correspond well, then the writing is clear. If they don’t, it isn’t.

The kicker, of course, is that complex ideas & writing are at a certain point irreducible. But the objective of a writer (of non-fiction … Lewis Carrol is a different beast) ought to be: to say exactly what she means in the most clear, and briefest way possible.

In the above sentence I said: “Today the weather was mild, and I had soup for lunch,” but I bet you didn’t know that, and I’ll bet no one else would know it. I was using jargony words that no one else understands.

some jargon is sometimes useful if it takes a complex idea or string of words/ideas and reflects that complexity in short-hand. But jargon, by definition, is understood only by those in the know. So if you are writing for a general public, then jargon is exclusionary, and should be avoided. Especially when it is unnecessary, and another word is just as good. “Open Source” is a jargon word, but there are no other words for it.

One of the major themes of 1984 was exactly about manipulating language to obscure thought – which is what jargony, unclear writing does. it obscures the thought. The bigger point was that by encouraging certain types of unclear language, actual ideas could be manipulated (think “collateral dammage” instead of “dead civilians”).

as for: “Who has any right to tell people what is an effective way to communicate?” the answer is: “the people at whom the communication is directed.”

So in my case, I am saying, as a reader of things, if you want me to read your stuff, please make it clear.

ps, what does “portmanteau” mean?

as always, best thing is to read orwell’s essay:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

esp the 6 points:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I thought it was great. Nice job.