A Manually Actuated Excavation Device

Let’s call a spade a manually actuated excavation device. Why? Well, I can think of at least four reasons.

First, “spade” sounds like “spayed”, which is what we say of a lady dog who has lost her bits. Indirectly, it’s a sex word, and we never actually say sex words, we always use euphemisms. But more importantly, calling a spade a manually actuated excavation device just makes us sound so much smarter, so much more professional, so much cooler. And then of course, one can sell a manually actuated excavation device for three or four times what you can get for a mere spade. Finally, euphemistic or tortured language can provide the thickets in which you can hide all manner of ugly things and not have to give the buyer his money back if the dang thing breaks on the first use.

Our language is cluttered with euphemisms, indirect and deflective ways of otherwise stating the obvious in simple Anglo-Saxon. When one utters one of those centuries old words referring to bodily functions or sex bits, everyone knows exactly what they mean, but you can’t put them in print or say them on the radio. At least not in English – French Canadians are much more frank in this regard (except for church words).

Bureaucrats are not above speaking euphemistically or circuitously if doing so makes them seem more clever or important. Lawyers are occasionally guilty of this, although to be fair there are occasions where a great flurry of words is actually necessary.

Patent drafters, for instance, must leave nothing to the imagination or allow any ambiguity in their description of the item or process for which they’re asking a government monopoly. You can be sure that the “other guy’s” patent lawyers are looking for chinks in the armour, some slight gap or imprecision allowing them to create a widget which really looks and behaves like your widget, but “curves outwardly upwardly” ever so slightly differently. Those who draft legislation likewise are obsessive and finicky about “just right” words and expressions.

“Bafflegab” and “legalese” are actually not the native or preferred languages of lawyers, although most lawyers are fluent. Pharmaceutical, software, mortgage, and insurance companies are especially fond of it. This language is just the opposite of the complex precision of patents or legislation, in which the object is to avoid ambiguity or obscurity. In the case of bafflegab, conversely, the exact object is to obfuscate and set up the reader for “gotchas” on critical points. Most “fine print” falls into this category.

When discussing the twelve pages of fine print in mortgage documents, most clients simply accepted my explanation “This stuff is entirely for the bank’s benefit, and none of it is for yours. Just keep your head down, make your payments, and make this go away as soon as you can. The bank’s lawyers wrote all this stuff thinking of how to make sure that no matter what happened, the bank would come out just fine.”

So there you have it. A temporally and spatially limited exposition, discussion, and explanation of the role of euphemistic, oblique, and obfuscatory linguistic mechanisms, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, and whether expressed orally or in writing, or electronically, or in some or all of these, for the benefit of the reader, the listener, or the observer, as the case may be (herein referred to as “the reader’). Hope you enjoyed it.