Am I the only one who finds The List of Words to Avoid rather depressing? I mean I get what they are trying to do: minimise the number of letters. Yet, language is also about variety and not being really, really dull. Perhaps also about not treating your readers like idiots? Most of those slightly longer words look like perfectly legitimate alternatives in that regard.
It would be depressing if they were suggesting this style of language for literature, but they are absolutely not suggesting that. They are suggesting it for bureaucratic situations, like a utility company sending a bill or a goverrment body issuing notes about how to fill in a driving licence application form. A utility bill is never going to be a thrill to read, so if using simpler language means that some recipients understand they're exempt from a charge when they wouldn't have realised otherwise, or are simply able to read it a bit faster, then that's a clear win.
Frankly, it's more important to maximise the number of people that understand government advice than it is to maximise your enjoyment of application forms.
The advice is not even necessarily for situations that are partway between factual and pleasure, like a blog post or your example of a news article (or a HN comment!). In those cases it could still be helpful to bear the advice in mind, but without taking it too seriously.
Les Cowboys Fringants display the full colours of Canadian french in their songs, but they're creating art.
The government needs to tell people of all backgrounds that they must do something or face serious consequences. They are not creating art, but communicating important information to busy, confused people.
It's not about banning new words, killing off long words or promoting completely perfect grammar. Nor is it about letting grammar slip.
A good complement to this article is Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," which talks about how people might use long, complex words (like those in the Words to Avoid list) to seem more important. That's the other side of the "variety" coin. The reality is that a skilled writer can walk that fine line, but most people are better off keeping their word choice simple and direct.
"It is not bout killing off long words" rings rather hollow when it is followed by a list of longer words to replace with shorter ones. It is not the fault of the innocent words that someone may have misused them to feel important.
But let us go deeper and ask: how did importance become associated with longer words? Was it perhaps because important and educated people used them, since they carried more precise and specific meanings?
I agree. The beauty of reading and writing English is the massive array of words we have that can mean the same thing. It's also one of the reasons I like reading the Economist for my news, they typically write with a diction that is above 6th grade level.
