James G. Gibb wrote:

>Jargon often does not convey clarity. (Snip) The writer should not
>assume that all readers, even fellow professionals, define those words
>and phrases in the same way.

I agree, but would say that it is the misuse of jargon, rather than its
usage per se that is the problem here. Actually, I wasn't writing in
defence of jargon, but of articulacy.

> The word 'utilize,' offered in my previous posting, is an excellent example.
Why use a multisyllabic
>word to convey the same meaning that a single syllable word, 'use,' conveys?

At the risk of labouring a rather boring point, I still cannot understand
your objection to the verb 'to utilise'. The adoption of a scatter-gun
approach, proscribing the use of certain words just because they have
been misused in some contexts, is akin to banning staircases because some
people get drunk, fall down them and break their necks. A concern for
economy does not have, or need, to lead to an Orwellian like, 'one
syllable, good - more than one syllable, bad' attitude. Reducing our
vocabularies is neither a means to greater economy or better writing.
Language, even academic language, does not need to be monotone and
boring, it should be colourful and interesting. Other than that, I agree
on almost everything. Alright, apologies to everyone, I promise to leave
this alone from now on.

Cheers

Alan