Well Fish, I doubt the mechanic could have gotten very far in his training if he had been taught that you put the oil in that little thingy over there and then, yep, everything will be hunky dory. And how well would the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution have been written if the writers ascribed to your notion of simplicity? What about the Nuremberg Trials? Yeah, I can see it clearly now, You guys are all big bad men, and youre really in trouble. And thank you very much, but Id really rather not have a doctor whose training consisted only of the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone, the . Okay, just kidding, I know this is not your meaning.

Seriously though, to a certain degree your point is well taken communication does often break down due to its participants not realizing the beauty of simplicity, but you seem to be hung up on the idea that theres no room for higher thought in the use of language or the realm of language teaching and training. But then, I may simply be missing your point. Id be happy for you to clear that up for me if you can do so without being churlish. However, the examples of the doctor, lawyer and mechanic that you used are pretty good, but I would look at in a different light; they are simply reiterating what they have often learned by rote. And therein lays the problem. Creative thinking is often left by the wayside and, as illustrated by your examples, so is the necessity of knowing your audience.

It is my belief that creative thought can be taken higher by the use of language. If you want to stay with the comparison to mathematics, we can do that. I cant imagine that those scientists and/or mathematicians that have given so much to the world in terms of advancing our knowledge of physics and the workings of the universe could have done so had they stuck with basic mathematics. Really, they had to reach for complexity before they could find what for them is simplicity and beauty. And. in support of your argument, I really admire scientists who have cultivated the ability to communicate that complexity, well, simply and beautifully. Carl Sagan, bless his departed soul, was one of those.

Your well written post could not have been well written had you not been capable of creative thought Fish. You would not have been capable of such creative thought had you not used language to get you there. In a way I admire you for what you are hoping we will all reach for in communication, which I think is the beauty of simplicity mentioned above. But one does not get there by operating with a limited vocabulary. First, wouldnt you agree, one must have a large lexical base from which they can choose? Later, one can use discernment to find what works best in any given situation. I find that many of your posts evidence that discernment, but for some reason, as I've mentioned before, your writing often shows that you thrive on confrontation and that negates there value. When you can do so, I imagine that your writing will be more widely appreciated. (By the way, to ferret out something is a phrasal verb that means to find something or to seek the truth of something - I wasn't using ferret as a noun.) But Im not entirely innocent either. Im aware that my posts often ramble on and on as I play with the language. But see, thats fun for me. Its mental exercise as I drink my morning coffee. And Ill admit to a certain degree of a tongue in cheek attitude that often goes unnoticed due to my inability to make it clear that that is what Im doing. Even still, why does it seem to affect you negatively? I try to avoid being accusative. I dont deliberately attack anyone or single anyone out for a tongue thrashing (well, maybe recruiters sometimes). And as I play with the language I try to find the bottom line. Does that hurt you in some way? If so, wouldnt it be easier just to avoid reading my posts?

In a way though I feel thankful that you have chosen to make this an issue; for one thing, it shows that you are a thinking person capable of independent thought. I applaud you for that and I wish there were more like you in this world. It isnt necessary for me to agree with you to have appreciation for you. This discussion started as a result of my opening up myself to your attack by asserting that what is seemingly mundane can become so much more than that. Your post which closes with citing Emily Dickinsons poem is proof of that. You picked up the ball and you ran with it. Secondly though, I am reminded of a certain ambiguity. That ambiguity has to do with Buddhist doctrine and I wont bore you or anyone else with it here, but suffice it to say that I can return to a certain degree of bemusement over said ambiguity. And being bemused actually gives me pleasure. So, thanks for that.

But back to the issue at hand; basically I think were operating under different premises. Yours, if I understand you correctly, is that the purpose of language is communication. Moreover, you feel that clarity of speech and writing is achieved through simplicity. I dont disagree with either of those points. (Wouldnt it be nice if our world leaders could achieve that kind of clarity instead of inserting their feet in their mouths so often?) Where we seem to differ is that I feel that language has the additional advantage of actually creating thought vs. being a mechanism by which we can express our thoughts. My feeling that the very complexity and subtlety of the English language opens many doors for us is a feeling shared by many. I cant imagine that the scientific community, the law community and etc. would agree with your implication that the purpose of language is only to communicate, but I can imagine them agreeing with you that there is a need to achieve clarity. How that clarity is achieved or arrived at is apparently where we are in disagreement.