-1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

My War Against Bureaucratese

Talk at Kendal at Ithaca, July 21, 1998

I’m introducing myself this evening because Joan Bechofer, who was to have introduced

me, claims she has another, unshirkable, obligation. My own suspicion is that she may have

decided to follow the advice of the popular song, “If you can’t say anything real nice, it’s better

not to talk at all, that’s my advice.” For those of you who don’t know, that comes from “Please

Don’t Talk About Me when I’m Gone.” The rest of the introduction I think will come from

what is, in any event, a dismayingly egocentric talk. So I’m just going to plunge into the subject

matter.

Within a month of my assuming the chairmanship of the Civil Aeronautics Board—

that was 21 years ago—I sent a memorandum to all the members of my staff on the subject

of the style of Board Orders and Chairman’s Letters. I’m going to take the liberty of reading

just parts of it: “One of my peculiarities, which I must beg of you to indulge if I am to retain

my sanity, is an abhorrence of the artificial and hyper-legal language that is sometimes

known as ‘bureaucratese’ or gobbledygook. May I ask you please, therefore [I’m skipping]

to try very hard to write Board Orders and, even more so, drafts of letters for my signature,
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

in straightforward, quasi-conversational humane prose, as though you were talking or

communicating with real people.”

I suggested a test. “Try reading some of the language you write aloud, and ask yourself

how your friends would be likely to react. And then decide, on the basis of their reaction,

that you still want them as friends.” And then I offered a number of examples, and I’ll give

you only a few: “Every time you—.” You understand, I was reading drafts of Orders by

lawyers, and while I must protest that some of my best friends are lawyers, some of the worst

perpetrators of gobbledygook are, of course lawyers. “Every time you’re tempted to use ‘herein’

or ‘hereinabout’ or ‘hereinunder’ or, similarly, ‘therein,’ thereinabove’ or ‘thereinunder,” and

the corresponding variants, try ‘here’ or ‘there’ or ‘above’ or ‘below,’ and see if it doesn’t make

just as much sense.” One of my lawyers approached me the next day and said, “You didn’t say

anything about ‘supra’ and ‘infra.’ I responded, “Rome was not destroyed in a day.”

“The passive voice is wildly overused in government writing. Typically its purpose is to

conceal information. One is less likely to be jailed if one says, ‘He was hit by a stone,’ than if he

says, ‘I hit him with a stone.’ The active voice is far more forthright, direct, humane.”

“This one I recognize is a matter of taste. Some people believe in maintaining standards
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

in language, and others do not. But unless you feel strongly, would you please try to remember

that ‘data’ has for more than two thousand years been plural, and is still regarded by most literate

people as plural. . . . And that—this one goes back even longer—the singular is ‘criterion’

and the plural is ‘criteria.’ Also that, for at least from the seventeenth through most of the

twentieth century, ‘presently’ meant ‘soon’ or ‘immediately,’ not ‘now.’ The use of ‘presently’

to mean ‘now’ is another pomposity. If you mean ‘now,’ why don’t you say ‘now’? Or, if

necessary, ‘currently’?”

Next one. “Could you try to make the introduction of your letters somewhat

less pompous? Like, ‘This is in reference to you letter dated May 24th 1993 regarding’

or ‘concerning’ or ‘in regard to’ or ‘with reference to.’ It doesn’t sound as though it’s coming

from a human being. Why not, for example, ‘The practice of which you complain in your letter

of May 12th is one that’s troubled me for a long time.’ Or, even better, ‘I’ve looked into the

question you raised in your letter of May 12th, and I’m happy to be able to report—.’”

“Why use ‘regarding’ or ‘concerning’ or ‘with regard to’ when the simple word ‘about’

would do just as well? Unless you’re trying to impress somebody. But are you sure you want

to impress anybody who would be impressed by such circumlocutions? There’s a similar

 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

pompous tendency”—which, by the way, is running riot these days—“to use ‘prior to’ when

you mean ‘before.’” Nobody ever says “before” anymore. It’s got to be “prior to” because that

sounds so much more impressive. There are times when “prior to” makes sense, “when what

comes before is a condition of what follows, as in a prior condition.”

Now, “I know ‘requesting’ is considered more genteel than ‘asking.’ But ‘asking’ is

more forthright. Which one do you want to be?”

“One of my pet peeves is the rampant misuse of ‘hopefully.’ The word is an adverb, and

makes sense only as it modifies a verb. It means ‘with hope.’ It’s possible to walk hopefully

into a room, if you’re going into the room with the hope of finding something, or not finding

something there. It is not intelligent to say, ‘Hopefully, the criminal will make his identity

known.’ Because he’s not going to make it known ‘hopefully.’ He won’t do it with hope in his

heart. And he’s the subject of the verb, ‘make.’”

“My last imposition on you today is the excessive use of ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate,’

when what you really mean is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal,’ or ‘proper’ or ‘improper,’ or ‘desirable’

or ‘undesirable,’ or ‘fitting’ or ‘not fitting,’ or, simply, ‘this is what I want (or do not want) to

do.’ Before I came to the Civil Aeronautics Board I was Chairman of the New York Public
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

Service Commission, and one of the very sincere, valued members of the staff that had the job of

writing our draft opinions, which I had always to rewrite, wrote that the Commission didn’t want

to do something because ‘we do not deem it appropriate.’ At the risk of embarrassing him—but

very kindly—I said, ‘Do you have a child?’ “Yes.” “Why don’t you call your kid into the room

some day and say, “I don’t want you to do something because I don’t deem it appropriate. If that

kid doesn’t laugh you out of the room—who wants kids like that?” He never did it again.

The memo had an electric effect. The Washington Post published it in full, “as a public

service.” It also commented on it in an editorial, entitled “The Sayings of Chairman Kahn.”

That’s when there was a lot of talk about The Sayings of Chairman Mao. Third, I got a public

proposal of marriage from a columnist in the Boston Globe. She said, “Alfred Kahn, I love

you. I know you’re in your late fifties and are married, but let’s run away together.” I was

nominated for the Presidency by a newspaper in Kansas and for the Nobel Prize by a newspaper

in Singapore. I was appointed shortly after to the Usage Panel of The American Heritage

Dictionary, a position that I have continued to hold ever since. My war on bureaucratese was

a major feature of my first, full-hour appearance on the McNeal-Lehrer Report—for which, I

was informed, the demand for copies was greater than for any previous program—featuring
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

especially my admonition to the CAB staff: “If you can’t explain what you’re doing in plain

English, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

Finally, I received a communication from a man—a real hero, named Jim Boren. He

was either the brother or the cousin of David Boren, at the time a senator from Oklahoma. He’s

the head of an organization, which he founded, The International Association of Professional

Bureaucrats. Their motto is, “When in doubt, mumble.” They hand out pencils with erasers at

both ends. In his letter, he said he wanted to come to my office and present me, in the presence

of reporters, with a Rejection Scroll, a copy of which I have, which begins: “Whereas, the

Honorable Alfred E. Kahn, Chairman of the CAB, has persistently insisted that the lawyers of

the CAB write in simple language, and whereas it is universally noted that all lawyers write

with non-directive fuzziness, but lawyers who double as bureaucrats write with the clarity of

Chaucer, the profundity of the Federal Register, and the gravity of the Congressional Record,

therefore, in sad recognition of Chairman Kahn’s subversive campaign against the protective

language of bureaucracy, the Board of Directors of INATPROBU—the International Association

of Professional Bureaucrats—hereby award Alfred E. Kahn the INATPROBU Rejection Scroll,

and proclaims him ineligible to receive the Order of the Bird and other INATPROBU awards
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

which are presented only to those steadfastly applying the principles of dynamic inactivism,

subject, however, to adjustive reconsideration, on the basis of future performance in the spirit of

constructive apathy and/or cordial arrogance. Given under the seal this tenth day of February

1978.” It is or has been on a wall at my office.

One other occasion on which it was easy for me to talk about this hobby of mine was

when I was invited to give the Keynote speech at a conference sponsored by a very lively

organization, Women Communicators in Government. The topic of their session was Public

Affairs Communication. I began by declining apologetically to discuss the subject. It was

a matter of principle with me, I said, never to “communicate” with people. So how could I

in principle talk about people communicating with other people? If you don’t do it yourself,

is it moral to recommend it to others? I would, however, I said, be glad to talk to them.

Communicating, I explained, is only one degree better than “interfacing” with people. And

giving or accepting “inputs” from them—let alone give them an opportunity to input. [That

talk earned me an editorial in the Washington Star on the occasion of my leaving the White

House, “Farewell to a Jargon Hunter.” I’m so proud of it, I attach a copy to this transcript of my

talk.]
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

Shortly before that I gave a speech on environmental policy in Washington, and at the

end somebody asked me, “How does your position differ from that of Secretary Schlesinger?”

(Jim Schlesinger, a friend of mine—to whom we had offered a position in the Cornell Economics

Department, when I was Chairman—who was then Secretary of Energy). And I said, “Well,

the main difference is that Secretary Schlesinger uses ‘input’ as a verb.” Whenever I hear

people talk about input, it conjures up the image of a German golfer standing on the green

and “inputting” the ball: the verb, I presume, is “hereingeput.”

Oh yes, there’s another thing communicators do, especially in government. They

engage in “outreach.” I had though of putting a motto put up on the wall of my office at the

CAB (but never did—along with one I claimed publicly to have had to look at when I had to

fulfill some ridiculous regulatory responsibility: “Is This What My Mother Brought me up to

Do?”): “Outreach makes me upchuck.” Sometimes the demands of pomposity and dynamism

converge—as in using “input” as a verb, “specifics” for “details” and constantly “implementing”

things and “addressing issues.”

And, of course, no brisk government servant would want to be a member of a committee

or a commission. Oh no. It has to be a “task force.” Which conjures up the image of Admiral
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

Nimitz sailing into Midway with his task force ready to destroy the enemy. Time and again I’ve

received the advice, “Why don’t you organize a task force?” I’ve responded, “Only over your

dead body.”

A couple of years ago I received a postcard: “I would like more information on how the

Executive Air Guide case impactfully helps to reach the corporate decision maker.” That’s really

dynamite.

Although my original memo to the CAB staff began as what I thought was simply an

aesthetic reaction or revulsion to what I was being forced to read or what was pretending to go

out in my name, it soon became clear to me that it sprang also from a conception of the proper

role of government. By my standards the function of a government employee is to be helpful

to people—to real people—rather than condescend to them, or inflate one’s own stature or

importance. In short, the one thing a government employee should avoid is being or looking

like a pompous ass. One of the nicest things that happened to me occurred only two weeks ago:

somebody came up to me on an airplane and said, “You’re Alfred Kahn, aren’t you? I followed

everything you did in Washington. You were never a pompous ass.”

The subject matter of my original memo at the CAB grew into a kind of avocation.
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

While still at the Board I began more or less systematically to compile and to try to analyze

the different kinds of derelictions, the various sources or explanations of this tendency to

reverse peristalsis. I soon realized that the phenomenon was much more complicated than

mere bureaucratese. I ended up with a forty-page closely typed set of examples, organized by

categories. Upon my return to Ithaca, I continued to supplement the list, beginning by reading,

or reading, or rereading, the classic book by the two Cornell people, Strunk and E.B. White, The

Elements of Style—from whom I get some of the best examples that would belong in the first

category, identified in my memo—defects of “Logic and Grammar.”

Language and grammar can be beautiful if used with precision. Language can make fine

distinctions. It can convey complex ideas. It can describe subtle relationships. But if abused,

it can do just the opposite. Let me first give you a couple of examples of the first category of

these lapses in grammar and logic—which are the same thing—dangling phrases and clauses,

and drifting adjectives. Here are three examples from Strunk and White: “Being in a dilapidated

condition, I was able to sell the house very easily.” “Wondering irresolutely what to do next, the

clock struck twelve.” “As a mother of five, with another on the way, my ironing board is always

up.” And this one I got from a birdwatcher, who happens to be a relative: “Using binoculars, the
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

birds fill the viewing area and their heads and mouths are right before my eyes.” The image of

these birds using binoculars is an intriguing one. “Based on” is frequently similarly misplaced

or abused, hung out there somewhere in limbo. It’s a favorite usage of lawyers and technical

witnesses: “Based on this background, we had decided—.” I like the image of “we” based on

a background—whatever that means. “Based on the foregoing, action will be deferred.” Use

of the passive voice makes that one even more constipated. How about: “On the basis of these

considerations, we will do such-and-such?”

Another rampant abuse of logic that you can find everyday if only you’re sensitive to it is

the misplacing of “only.” Decades ago there was a movie with Silvia Sydney and John Garfield,

called “You Only Live Once.” Surely it’s not only living that one does once. You have your

first romance only once. Try to put the “only” next to the word to which it applies. You live

only once. That makes sense. Here’s one from a Board draft, which of course did not get out

to the public because I saw it first: “The Board [that’s the CAB] can only amend a certificate

after a hearing.” They were clearly not saying what they meant. And, indeed, what they said

was wrong. The Board can do a lot of things to a certificate, after a hearing. It isn’t that it

can only amend it. It can grant it. It can rescind it. It can burn it. What they clearly meant
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

was, “The Board can amend a certificate only after a hearing.” One of my successors as Dean

of the College of Arts and Sciences, who shall be nameless, was quoted (misquoted, I am sure)

as having spoken deprecatingly about Cornell graduates who have “only studied accounting.”

Well, what would he have them do with accounting besides study it, while in school? Consume

it? Play frisbee with it? Obviously what he meant, and deprecated, was that they were studying

only accounting. Here’s one from a TV news report: “The plot was only discovered when

police stopped a suspicious-looking driver.” It wasn’t only discovered; it was presumably also

frustrated. Obviously what they meant was that the plot was discovered only when the police—.

Move your “onlies”; you’ll enjoy it.

My lawyers loved to use “nor” when they meant “or,” so that they were constantly

committing double negatives: “The application doesn’t disclose X, nor Y.” There was a

cartoon in the New Yorker, of a woman with a coat and her bags packed, walking out of a

room. She turns to her husband and says, “I’m leaving you.” He says, “I could care less.” She

says, “Exactly. That’s why I’m leaving you. Your slovenly rhetoric.” Obviously what he meant

was, “I couldn’t care less.”

Then there are malapropisms. Some of our lawyers insisted on using “mitigate” when
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

they meant “militate.” When something militates against something else, it tends to operate

against it or to counteract it. When it mitigates something else, it makes it less severe or harsh.

Closely related is the blurring of useful distinctions. “Diction” is or used to be

a very useful word. Today, or for the last thirty years, it has been used as synonymous

with “enunciation.” But if “diction” is the same as “enunciation,” who needs diction? And what

are we going to use for the word “diction,” which means “choice of words”? Example: In The

Pirates of Penzance, the Major General says, “I’m telling a terrible story/But it doesn’t diminish

my glory/For they would have taken my daughters/Over the billowy waters/If I hadn’t in elegant

diction/Engaged in an elegant fiction/Which is not in the same category as telling a terrible,

terrible story.” I recall happily a radio announcer, David Ross, who did indeed enunciate

elegantly, receiving an award for “diction”: the conferrers of the award should have received the

order of the bird for the same reason!

People use “fortuitously” when they mean “fortunately.” But we have the

word “fortunately,” so why waste “fortuitously” on that? And besides, what are we going to

use then when we mean “fortuitously”? You could say “serendipitously,” but “serendipitously”

often includes the idea of being not only fortuitous (notice my elegant locating of “only”)
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

but also desirable or fortunate. So, the use of “fortuitous” to convey its intended and unique

meaning has now been destroyed; whom can I sue for that loss?

One that you surely have been irritated by is “disinterested.” A marvelous word.

It means “impartial because of having no stake in the outcome.” Surely nine out of ten

TV announcers or newspaper reporters use it as meaning “uninterested.” But we’ve

got “uninterested”; why substitute “disinterested,” and then what are we going to use

for “disinterested” when we need it?

Now I get to the heart of my advertised subject: “Officialese, bureaucratese, pomposity,”

all intended to inflate the importance, the up-to-datedness and the dynamism of the speaker. If I

never see the word “implement” again I will die happy. I’ve seen it used in contexts when you

would have instead said to your wife, or your spouse equivalent, or child—unless you have some

kind of relationship with them that I don’t even want to hear about—“begin.” The Board was

going to “implement air service,” by which the scribe evidently meant “initiate” or “authorize”

it. “The Mexicans should be permitted to implement air service.” How about “offer”?

or “provide”? “The Mexican government should have an opportunity for implementation of the

rights it obtained in our treaty.” How about “make use of”? or “take advantage of”?
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

Another word that I hope I never see again—almost never—is “address.” Some

of you would apparently have all the people in the world do nothing but “address”

things—especially “address issues.” Everything is an “issue.” How about “handle,” “deal

with,” “confront,” “treat,” “analyze,” “discuss,” “answer,” “consider,” “rule

on,” “solve,” “dispel” or merely “respond to”? “He did not address our concerns.” (Wait. I’ll

get to “concerns” in just a minute.) The ex-deputy administrator of EPA’s superfund once said

that the superfund, “addresses the cutting edge of the toxics program.” Boy, that really conjures

up an image—which could also, of course, go under the heading of “mixed metaphor.” How do

you address a cutting edge? It sounds as though it might be painful. I myself have vowed that

I’m going to confine my addressing to envelopes, audiences and golf balls.

“Finalize.” I hate the practice of converting adjectives or nouns into verbs, but I’m

gradually surrendering, as I am also on “contact,” because I really can’t think of another single

word as apt; or “prioritize,” which is even more pompous. But I do draw the line at “impact,”

which is usually used incorrectly even as a noun, because it clearly implies or should imply a

percussive or dynamic effect, a forceful contact. Back to “finalize.” How about “make final,”

or simply “adopt,” or “confirm”? It’ll make you think you sound less important, but people will
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

like you better. How many times have I seen “pursuant to” when you could just say “under”?

Or “subsequent to” when you mean “after”? Or “prior to” when you mean “before”?

There are other such pomposities, such as adding a syllable to give additional weight

or importance. Nobody talks uses “methods” anymore, it’s always “methodology.” Come to

think of it, nobody who is anybody or wants to be anybody “uses” anything; it’s always “utilize.”

Nobody has “motives” anymore, it’s always “motivations.”

One of the all-time greatest perpetrators of most of these sinful practices was

Alexander Haig, former Secretary of State in the Reagan administration. Jim Boren, head

of that International Association of Professional Bureaucrats, sent me a wonderful issue of

his publication, Mumbletypeg, the Voice of the Bureaucrat, with the headline “To Haigify:

To Formulate and/or Explain Foreign Policy in Terms that No One Can Understand.”

“Haigification,” he says, “is similar to fuzzification and profundification. But its distinction as a

new Washington verb form lies in its specific application to the discussion of foreign policy. The

first major contribution to the language of the Potomac by the Reagan administration.” Here

are a few Haigifications: “Now, as you parcel it out in the context of individuals or separatist

movements or independence movements, of course the problem is substantially different and

 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

the restraints, and the ability to apply retaliatory action, is sometimes not only constrained but

uncertain, and so I caveat it this way.” Would you like me to read that again? On your own

time. “But be that as it may, they today are involved in conscious policy, in programs, if you

will, which foster, support and expand this activity, which is hemorrhaging in many respects

throughout the world today. Finally, when I said, I think, to somebody last night, that was

consciously ambiguous, that statement, consciously ambiguous in the sense that any terrorist

government or terrorist movement that is contemplating such action I think knows clearly what

we are speaking of.” And here’s a Haigification that I collected myself: He once called for

reducing the debate on foreign policy “down to a lower level of fixation.”

I had a memorandum from a member of my staff in the White House, “Note to Fred from

Ron. Subject: Something I’ll bet you didn’t know. ‘Nutshell’ is a verb. I’d just come out of a

meeting at which a White House staffer asked me, ‘How do we “nutshell” this substance-wise?’”

How do we nutshell this substance-wise?

As these examples demonstrate, often the motive is not so much to inflate the importance

of the speaker, but it’s just to be dynamic—as in using “impact” even as a noun, let alone as a

verb. Or merely fashionable. We have a new word: “proactive,” instead of “active.” Perhaps
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

as distinguished from “anti-active” or “pro-passive”? And also, now, I keep coming across

people using “incent” as a verb: “We want to incent them to do something.” I wouldn’t be

caught dead using “incent” in any context! Verb, noun, preposition, anything else. “Let’s

engage in a dialogue.” Oh my God, everybody engages in dialogues! And uses “dialogue” as

a verb. Well, what ever happened to the distinction between “conversation” or “discussion,”

and formal, typically written, “dialogue,” as in a drama? Or even “debate”? The trouble with

getting into debate is that then we get into the ubiquitous use of “issue.” You can’t get through

a day without something being called—everything’s an “issue”! A week or two ago I heard on

the radio, “We need a party that will fight for issues like affordable health care.” I’m willing to

fight for “goals”—bur for issues?

In my long memo, I identified a category of “mirror-image crimes.” For example,

one side of the mirror would be what I call “over-specification”: in flat violation of the

general rule that it’s rude to point, lawyers tend to point all the time. And even pointing and

emphasizing their pointing when it’s entirely unnecessary. They use “that” when “the” would

be sufficient. Or “those” or “such” “where no such forceful indication is required. “That part

of the legislative history that looks toward the future.” How about “The part of legislative
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

history that looks toward the future”? “The second category covers those situations in which—.”

Try deleting “those”—“The second category covers situations in which”—and ask whether

the reader won’t fully understand what you’re talking about. “By our designation”—this is a

quote—“of certain city pairs as co-terminals, we intend to permit the carriage of local traffic

between those city pairs.” Just substitute “them” for “those city pairs.” “A distinction might

be drawn”—this is another quote—“between those situations in which [something] and those

situations in which [something else].” Just leave out “those.” That practice is very closely

related to a disease of lawyers, “pronounophobia.” Lawyers cannot bear to use a pronoun, even

when the antecedent is absolutely clear. I will have orders given to me that list “TWA” at the

beginning of every paragraph—seven, eight, nine times—rather than “the airline” or “the carrier”

or “it” or “they.” “It is ordered (1) that a certificate be issued. (2) Said certificate shall be—.”

“The certificate shall be” is perfectly sufficient. Here’s one: “The parties are entitled to know

the Board’s decision on said motion.” My comment: aw, come off it! That’s, as I say, related to

lawyers’ nauseating repetition of nouns, when a pronoun would do.

The other side of that mirror, the crime of excessive specification, excessive pointing,

is what I call “false gentility.” Having just given you some examples of violations of the rule
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

that it’s rude to point, I want now to give you some examples of cases in which people go to

great lengths to avoid pointing, when pointing is exactly what’s called for. The most rampant

example is the constant use of the verb “indicate.” Nobody ever says anything anymore; they

merely “indicate.” Obliquely. Presumably with their eyes averted. Every time you’re tempted

to use the word “indicate,” except in cases in which the mere oblique indication or suggestion

is what you want to describe, try “say,” or “state,” or “assert,” or “claim,” or “aver,” or

even “asseverate.” And take some satisfaction in being bold and direct. It reminds me of Ring

Lardner’s classic statement, “‘Shut up!’ he explained.” The modern equivalent would be, “‘Shut

up!’ he indicated.”

Other examples of false gentility: “We would also stress.” Why not just, “We also

stress”? Be bold. (I was going to say, “Be a man!” but consider the obliquy to which that would

subject me!) Others are “request” when you mean “ask.” Or “utilize” when you mean “use.” Or

“thank you for your correspondence,” when you mean, “thank you for your letter.” And how

many times do people say, “I share your concern,” (even when obviously they do not!): it makes

me want to swear loudly and make obscene gestures.

That brings me back to the passive voice, which people often use in an attempt to be
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

genteel: where it seems impolite just to say something straight, it’s better to say it backwards.

Of course, as I have already pointed out, the other reason is to avoid responsibility or to conceal

information. The use of the passive is for this reason ideally suited to a faceless bureaucrat

who wants to remain faceless: “it was decided,” avoids saying “I decided—and what are you

going to do about it?” “Appropriate” and “inappropriate” serve the same purpose: As purported

explanations, they avoid adding any information to the mere fact of the decision that they purport

to explain, as well as sounding more genteel. Consider the less genteel but more informative

alternatives: “We rejected your application because we didn’t like it,” or “because we think it’s

lewd,” or “illegal,” or because “we don’t like it—or you.” Or “we decided it was inappropriate”

when we want to say, “we just don’t want to.”

Here’s one last one that I took from an Order of the Board: “The cost of a separate

certificate proceeding at this time prior to the result of this experiment would be premature

and delay the implementation of services which are in the public interest. In this regard, the

overall costs to Pam American from such a proceeding could turn out to be disproportionate

to the profits the carrier will actually achieve through the provision of this service. Therefore,

to require the carrier to undergo a certification proceeding in order to perform the services
 -1-

Notes for talk at

A.E. Kahn - 17 - Kendal at Ithaca 7/21/98

Notes for talk

contemplated would be an undue burden on the carrier since such action would have the practical

effect of precluding the proposed operation.” Here’s what I suggested: “Try ‘before’ instead

of ‘prior to,’ ‘introduction’ instead of ‘implementation,’ substitute ‘that’ for ‘which,’ delete ‘in

this regard’ and ‘overall,’ change ‘from’ to ‘of,’ change ‘the first carrier’ to ‘it,’ change ‘achieve’

to ‘earn,’ change ‘through the provision of this service’ to ‘by providing this service,’ change the

second ‘the carrier’ to ‘it,’ delete ‘contemplated,’ change the next ‘the carrier’ to ‘Pan American’

and change ‘such action’ to ‘it’ for starters,” I said.

Concluded my long memo: “I would be distressed if you took these remarks personally.

Please instead realize that the game of expressing yourself clearly and straightforwardly, and

even more, of identifying pomposities and irrationalities in others, can be a great deal of fun.

If you can’t explain what you’re doing in plain English, you’re probably doing something

wrong. [Forgive that repetition.] And accept my assurances finally that it will pay dividends.

People who read what you write will quickly observe if they’re hearing from a stuffed shirt or

a breathing human, and will respond with open delight if it’s the latter, and that is intensely

satisfying. Believe me.”