this is really funny. i was just scrolling through economist.com's Style Guide, which is given to all the journalists at the Economist. one of the rules is never to use jargon when you can substitute with a simpler word, and an example was "gubernatorial". i just saw it on MSN.com's Top Headlines: "Jakarta votes in first direct gubernatorial elections". Heehee.

okay maybe it wasn't that funny. but i'm currently trying to avoid long-windedness in my writing and speech. unfortunately it is something i find hard to get rid of, and consequently i suffer. i read about George Orwell's six rules of writing, here they are, theyre pretty useful:

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

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

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

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

i don't really understand the last one though. what constitutes barbarism? if it's something like being racist or ageist etc, isn't that relative? what is considered barbaric today might not have been in the past. some certainly might become less of a taboo in today's more liberal world. but of course, publications live in the short run - what is breaking news today is old tomorrow, and so, journalists write in whatever style is acceptable at the time.

right. my eyes are behaving like walter's habitually do. goodnight, before i forget.