Simple Words, please

(Hindustan Times, 18 October 1983)

Some people are fond of using long-winded words and sentences when simple, straightforward ones could do, and are available in plenty. A friend of mine was an addict to this. If we asked him for the time, he would reply: "85 minutes to 4.35", and get us to figure out the time as 3.20. No wonder, he was nicknamed 'roundabout' Laxman.

Take a few words from the field of medicine and see how long unpronounceable they are. Pneumonoultramicros - copiscillicovolcanoconiasis, dyrrolidinomethyltetracycle, methoxymethylenedioxyamphetamine and dicarbethoxydihydrocollidine. Honestly, when I finish prouncing or spelling them (which is quicker), I heave a sigh of relief as though I have made it to the open from a suffocating mine. I have often wondered why a small representative word cannot be used to convey these long words. 'Mono' (a fruit-tree spray), for example, is used to convey its full form monoethanolamine-dinitrocyclohexylphenolate.

Long words apart, there are instances when a simple word can replace a high-sound one. Why cannot the doctors call it 'head-ache' instead of referring it to as 'cephalgia'? Isn't 'heart attack' better understood than 'myocardial infraction'? 'Xerostomia' is confusing but not when you say 'dry mouth'. Why say 'pyrosis' and not 'heart burn'? (I am referring, by the way to the medical one. Not the one caused when thy neighbour gets a VCR or a car ahead of you, or when the promotion is bagged by somebody other than you). I think it is time these expressions are deymystified for they neither accelerate nor facilitate communication, but only create panic and anxiety.

Frankly, I have still not been able to come to terms with some of the stock-market definitions: bulls, bears, lambs, etc. Surely some direct expressions must be available to replace these metaphoric ones. I only know that the word 'liquid' is applied to 'investors'. That too I came to know by asking someone a foolish question: "What liquid have you in mind?"

Even in day to day communication, one is bombarded with complex words. They may not exactly be complex, but why use them where there is no dearth of simple, short words? Instead of saying 'contraindicated' why not say 'not advisable' or 'should not be given'? Why use 'causative factor' when 'cause' conveys the same meaning? Why 'administer' when 'give' can serve? In place of 'the fact that he had not succeeded', say simply 'his failure'. Why not replace the phrase 'in spite of the fact that' with one word 'though'? Of course, I am not on a puritan trip suggesting primary-school English, but certainly I am no advocate of high sounding words which keep the reader to remain on the alert and guessing.

Remember the story of the two who were stranded in two distant parts of a God-forsaken island? After a few days, when they were frantically looking round for some to pick them up, they spotted a helicopter. One wrote on a placard: "I am left behind here in a shipwreck: I have not had food for days: I shall be most grateful if you could kindly rescue me", and displayed it to attract the pilot's attention. The other wrote in big, bold letters just HELP. The pilot understood his message and rescued him promptly.

In sharp contrast to these circuitous expressions, certain abbreviations have begun to be used liberally these days. RIP, for Rest in Peace, KIM for Keep in Mind, WPB for Waste Paper Basket, RIF, for Reduction in Force, SWT, for Sheer Waste of Time, NVP for Not very Particular. Don't you feel they provide a refreshing change? Perhaps, in these days of fast life, we should plead for such simple and short versions in preference to circumlocution.