There are some things on here that I agree with, and others that I’m not entirely sure on. I agree that language is corrupt, that when speaking or writing, we tend to use words and phrases that make it fairly difficult to understand what we’re actually trying to portray. You can turn a single sentence, and tear it apart several different ways to get a meaning that is entirely different from the one before.
But I feel like that is the beauty of language.
When writing, I feel like it makes for more interesting reads when you can look at a phrase and ponder on it, trying to find all the different meanings that the author may have been trying to convey with it. Fitzgerald and Shakespeare, although writing completely different things, using completely different styles, I feel like they wouldn’t be as well known as they do now because what they wrote made complete sense to anyone that read it.
That being said, I do believe that, at times, writing can get out of hand. If someone asks you a straight question, give them a straight answer, without the use of all the literary fluff that some tend to add. This applies also to writing novels or books. I find this to be a problem, especially in textbooks. As a college student, I feel like I spend quite a bit of time trying to determine what the passages in my textbook are saying or asking for. The six rules by Orwell listed above could help a great deal with that.
Either way, I’d say language, whether written or spoken, is made to be played with. Word-smithing can create some amazing things, but the one thing we need to do better on is finding out in which setting playing with language is appropriate, and when it isn’t