Talk:Newspeak

Misassumption

Somewhere the article says that the assumption underlying newspeak is that if something can't be said it can't be thought. Surely this itself is a misassumption, because surely the point of newspeak is to narrow the range of communcation, therefore the range of communicated thought, therefore nearly all thought.

Reducing the vocab is like lowering the resolution of an image.

Inkstersco (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Racism and political correctness

I am amazed that examples spreading racist terminology were not only left up for a year, but that when they were finally changed to terms that did not target any group by identity, but rather a point of view by choice, someone actually changed the page back! TWICE! Is it really that important to maintain a racist presentation of a political topic? -- surfergirl

---

The following paragraph (removed from the main article) needs NPOVing:

Another example is the attempt to rewrite the definition of the word "anti-Semitism". This word was coined in the late 1800s by a German author to refer specifically to the hatred of Jewish people; this terminology was intended to suggest that the hatred of Jews had a scientific basis. Since then this word has always meant hatred of Jews, and Jewish people alone. But in recent years anti-Semites themselves have begun to claim that this word actually means "hatred towards those who speak Semitic languages", which includes Arabs. Therefore, in this Newspeak, by definition no Arab can possibly be an anti-Semite. Against this pro-Israeli history writing rests the fact that Palestinians used this argument already in the early 20th century, when the word itself was new. Hence, the position of the pro-Israel camp is fundamentally flawed.

Samuraise

If an American can (as Joseph McCarthy claimed) be un-American, why can't a semite be anti-semitic?

--Ann Omnibus

---

Given the controvery over the term "anti-Semitism" (especially as it has been used by non-semites to mean anti-arab which makes the arguement fall apart) maybe we should switch to a less controversial example. Possibly the word fundamentalism ? --Imran 00:17 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

There is really no legitimate argument as to the *meaning* of the word in its general useage. In 1800's Germany, Jews were the only Semities that were generally around. The word is taken by most of the English speaking population to mean *exactly* the same thing as "anti-Jewish", (though anti-Jewish does not really exist as word in general use) Attempting to redefine Anti-Senitism to mean something different is an attempt to obfuscate communication, and has no business in a wikipedia article. Fairly ironic that this is borught out in a talk about Newspeak.

--FrostPaladin 11:57 March 26, 2007

---

Jack Lynch,

I accept the change you made to "politically correct language, on the other hand, is said to have the goal of freeing individuals," etc. That seems fair enough to me. However, by the same standard, I see nothing wrong with the word "arguably" in the sentence, "Either way, there is arguably a resemblance between political correctness and Newspeak", etc; I have, therefore, put it back. R Lowry 20:10, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there argument on this? do you disagree that there is a resemblance? I see the two (P.C./Newspeak) as synonyms, part of a multitude of evidence of Orwell predicting the future. I suppose if you (or somebody) really doesn't see the connection... but can you explain why not? - JackLynch 20:17, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Either way I guess the "arguably" doesn't take away much. But I am still curious if there is such an argument? JackLynch 20:18, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

The last few paragraphs should be moved to an article on Political correctness in general. I agree that "differently abled" is annoying, but that is a POV. (stand-up comedians have had a field day on it -- "dead" is now "differently alive", etc) It's wrong to state that "different" implies "different but equal". "differently able" can mean "less able": the point is that is doesn't automatically mean that. -- Tarquin

Aren't "politically correct" terms an example of newspeak? For example, having to say "terminally inconvenienced" for "dead"? -- Gregory Pietsch

---

I have difficulty understanding the relevance of the following passsage of text:

Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word/phrase that is politically incorrect (e.g. "civilian casualties") or offensive (e.g. "murder") with a politically correct or inoffensive one (e.g. "collateral damage").

In what sense is 'murder' an offensive term? And is 'collateral damage' really an example of politically correct terminology? An earlier version of this article contained the following text, which I think is far more informative:

Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word that is politically incorrect (e.g., "negro" or "black") or offensive (e.g., "nigger") with a politically correct or inoffensive one ("e.g., African-American").

This text was denounced as 'racist' and removed (see top of this Talk page) a little while ago, and eventually replaced with the 'collateral damage' example. I can understand why people might be hesitant to include an example containing racist terminology; surely, though, it is precisely the purpose of the example to demonstrate the contrast between a genuinely offensive term and its p.c. alternative. And, surely, in order to do that, the offensive term has to be included. R Lowry 22:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You'll have no argument for me. I think the current phrase is foolish and uninformative as well. Maybe you can find something more "PC" so that the wikithoughtpolice don't have to scold you, or make a revert war out of this ;) Jack 00:20, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fun

I wonder how Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch would be like in newspeak..."this parrot is dead! and it's dead! dead! more dead!" :) -- Dreamyshade

Maybe it would be more like "This parrot has unlife! Unlife! Doubleplus unlife!"

Or: "This is an unparrot! Doubleplusunparrot!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CompuChip (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I can so picture that.

---

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.140.161.239 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 

In Babylon Five, a term similar to this is used in the last episode of the fifth season [[User::wlievens|wlievens]] /

The episode is The Deconstruction of Falling Stars. It is the 22 episode of season 4. It is the last episode of season 4. The terms in Babylon 5 are:

GoodTruth:

The truth according to the party.

RealTruth:

The truth one sees when one looks around oneself — one should not speak RealTruth allowed unless one wishes to visit a JoyCamp and become vaporized.

Orwell never wrote RealTruth nor GoodTruth, Joseph Michael Straczynski did, but the terminology is clearly parallel to NewSpeak. Powerseeking characters in Babylon 5, like the real fascistic chickenhawks who call themselves neocons tend to use newspeaklike language.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 2005-07-05 23:38:17 (UTC)

So should the Babylon 5 examples be included in the article as examples of language similar to Newspeak? Beobach972 14:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons are fun & interesting, but I think the farther we get from Orwell's actual Newspeak, the less useful this article will become. In fact, I'm inclined to propose that this article deal strictly with Orwell's Newspeak, with links to possible parallels and "real world examples", which are all subjective.--Son of Somebody 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

"== Real-Life Examples of Newspeak ==

A comparison to Newspeak can be seen in political rhetoric, where two opposing sides string together phrases so empty of meaning that they may be compared to the taunts young children toss back and forth. The arguments of either side ultimately reduce to "I'm good; he's bad."

Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word/phrase that is politically incorrect (e.g. "civilian casualties") or offensive (e.g. "murder") with a politically correct or inoffensive one (e.g. "collateral damage"). Some maintain, in opposition to this practice, that to make certain words or phrases 'unspeakable' is tantamount to restricting what ideas may be held (thoughtcrime). Others believe that expunging terms that have fallen out of favour or become insulting will make people less likely to hold outdated or offensive views.

Either way, there is arguably a resemblance between political correctness and Newspeak, although some will feel that they differ in their intentions: in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak is instituted to enhance the power of the state over the individual; politically correct language, on the other hand, is said to have the goal of freeing individuals from limitations imposed by preconceptions due to the use of certain terms. It is this attempt to change thought through changing (or eliminating) words that earns political correctness the perceived connection to Newspeak."

This IMO, is a mess. NPOV does not mean doubting every possible step along the way. Either Lowry and I need to come to some far better agreement, or preferably some others should become involved. JackLynch 02:09, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am leaving this version here, and putting my version in the article. Don't take it the wrong way, it is of course open to further edits, but I want my suggestion to have its chance. JackLynch 02:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Chinese

If, in China, unauthorized publishing of dictionaries is prohibited, there is, or should, be people who make their own dictionaries and distribute them electronically or something. Or non-Chinese should make a Chinese dictionary. Can we get some examples of just HOW Chinese words have been redefined? -- Zoe

In mainland Chinese, over the past century many words have been redefined or co-opted in government media, and unauthorised publishing of dictionaries (see: dictionary) is prohibited.

I removed this. First of all, although the Chinese government does engage in doublespeak it's really hard to argue that it does this more than any other government. Second, the sentence about the unauthorised publishing of dictionaries is false as a trip any Shanghai bookstore can demonstrate. -- User:Roadrunner

It's also a little hard to distribute electronic dictionaries when you have the "Great Firewall of China" to deal with.~~Paul

Agglutinative languages

Regarding the paragraph starting "Orwell reveals a certain ignorance"... I can't speak for all agglutinative languages, but I speak a fair amount of Japanese and I think I can safely say that Japanese does not regard words with opposite meanings like "good" and "bad" as redundant, and they are in broad use as in English. In other words, although the word for not good ("yokunai") does resemble "ungood", Japanese still has a separate word for bad ("warui") and the meanings of both differ. The wording of the paragraph gives quite the opposite impression. -- Myxomatosis

I disagree with this as well. Also, if I had to pick one culture with a powerful controlling language that imposes strict cultural norms especially in the realm of respect to superiors, I would pick Japan. This paragraph to my mind disproves exactly what it set out to prove (probably in the name of political correctness, with its focus on ethnocentrism, and the irony should by now be evident). --Rgd

Japanese language cannot and does not strict impose cultural norms and I would use "yokunai" as a perfect example. Myxomatosis pointed out that "yokunai" would resemble "ungood" (more properly, "good-not") and means "not good". However, by pronouncing it almost as "yoku-nai", it would mean "good" to those under 30. A simple sentence "Sore ha yokunai."("That's yokunai.") can be interpreted as both "That's not good" and "That's good" depending on who says to whom in what situation and whether there is someone present in the conversation. So I can agree to a senior "superior" who made bad criticism with "Sore ha yoku-nai." when there is bunch of 20-something listening. I just ridiculed him without him being able to accuse me of doing so and everybody but him would know what I'm saying. This is completely opposite of what "Newspeak" is for. You are mistaking grammatical structure and formal style with restriction. -- Revth 08:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Para. beginnning "The real life pitfall of the Newspeak is, of course, that there are real-life agglutinative languages which act exactly as Orwell suggests, and the various suffixes, prefixes and derivatives allow almost endless possibilities for neologizising..." is awkward, purely speculative & unsubstantiated, and does not differentiate the core definition of agglutinative langs. (morphology) from Newspeak's syntactical construction. Should be removed if no one wishes to correct. KenThomas 06:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The word PC as Newspeak

"Politically correct" can be seen as a phrase in conservative newspeak meant to allude to orwellian nightmares. To me, labelling a group of people as "niggers" also appears as politically charged.

I argue that no neutral language seems to exist; all languages looks shaped by (and if sapir-whorf is correct, shapes) their culture and the intentions of their speakers. Sometimes intentionally ("collateral damage", "politically correct", "womyn") and sometimes unintentionally ("nigger").

I consider "charging the opposite view with allegations of newspeak" as a form of newspeak itself.

• I agree with this user and would also like to state that some words or phrases connotation give off the wrong idea of the meaning of those words or phrases (i.e. ethnic cleansing, connotation of the phrases makes to sound like it is a good thing, when it is obviously not).

Davin Bacon 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Politically Correct" is far too loaded, in my mind, to be used extensively in that secion. Instead of "Politically Correct Euphamisms," I propose changing it to something like "Political Euphamisms," and mentioning "political correctness" as just one example some cite of such euphamisms. For one thing, the term itself is generally used to charicature liberals; "collateral damage" is not an example of the term PC as is most commonly used. It bears mentioning, but not to such an extent. MRig 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Other

Looking through the past versions of Newspeak gives me the impression that the article hasn't evolved but rather deteriorated since the original entry. If anybody cares to keep the "Real-life examples" then serious thought should be given to exploit this in a separate article. Another option would be to create a new separate article just for Orwell's Newspeak. -- mic

---

I don't disagree that a resemblance between PC and Newspeak can be coherently argued; what I disliked was the blunt statement, "there is a resemblance", as though this were something that had been definitively proved. It can be argued equally coherently that the differences between PC and Newspeak are significant enough to make them, really, two different things. It's important to include both viewpoints in Wikipedia, without being seen to favour one or the other.

On a similar note: I think that your new sentence, "Of course it is this very attempt to change thought thru changing (or eliminating) words that earns political correctness the connection to Newspeak," is fine, but it could really do with the qualifying term "perceived" before the word "connection". Just my opinion. R Lowry 20:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This again brings up the same question. I don't see how it can be coherently argued that there is no connection. They are different things, but I don't believe that anybody can logically and coherently show them to be unconnected or signifigantly disimilar. Words like "arguably" and "percieved" are only ment to be used when there is some legitamate debate or difference of opinion. Otherwise this is going to be the existential wiki, rather than an encyclopedia ;) JackLynch 21:00, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this case. :-) The case against there being a PC / Newspeak connection is made quite well in the article itself, with the point about them having (arguably) different - almost opposite - intentions: Newspeak, to empower the state at the expense of individuals; PC, to empower marginalised individuals by freeing them from negative stereotyping. From that viewpoint, PC and Newspeak are not really related at all. R Lowry 21:18, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Apparently I see it very differently, but since you seem so confident that someone could argue (in my opinion such an argument is Doublethink ;) that they are different in some signifigant way, I agree w the suggested edits. I will say tho that Newspeak was certainly ment to have been portrayed as "empowering" to those it reprogrammed, much as PC is today. Also, for those who are interested, there is reasearch available showing how P.C. rewordings like "special" and "differently abled" have now become slurs of prejuidice themselves, and many in the field feel it is impossible to create a term for the retarded, disabled, or otherwise imperfect which does not evolve a negative connontation JackLynch 21:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the above, I consider PC to be restricting. God forbid I trod on anyone’s toes. More to the point, is not the fact that we take so easily and willingly to a restraint on word choice a perfect example of the conditioning Newspeak was created for. Newspeak itself was created in the storyline under the pretence of freeing the people and giving them the ability to be concise rather then confuse others with needless words. PC does that as well, and while I’m not advocating that some one go out and start calling every one rude and improper slang names, I am advocating that PC restricts the power and beauty that is the English Language. Jack Lynch does bring a perfectly valid point that some words in PC, have already developed negative connotations, but i would like to bring up words that are anti-PC but have entered the American Lexicon with usage contrary to their original intentions. i.e. the Word "gay" is used by many of young age to imply dislike for something, but those same people do not necessarily harbor ill will toward the homosexual community. The term "nigger/nigga" has become an acceptable greeting/title among the black community I wouldn’t be surprised if the title "Mr." was replaced with it in said communities. Speaking of the black community, what about the term "African-America" which is no longer in use, because it was brought to the attention of the masses and the proponents of PC that not all Blacks are African in genetic heritage. PC is Newspeak, and if one sat and thought about it long enough they would realize that PC the term it self is Newspeak. I agree with Jack Lynch’s edit and second any re-edits he proposes on this particular article.---Iorek Brynson

The Nazi/Gestapo example is a bit odd, since that kind of contraction is very common in Germany. - Bz2 16:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Query Newspeak link in Newspeak article. Malquote? Doubleplusungood ifso. --[Not signed, no date stamp]

"[A]im was to make subversive thought" -> "aim was to make all alternative thought". Cf. duckspeak, Pynchon, and Fromm.
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible".[ Principles of Newspeak ] "The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language". [ Newspeak, from an afterword by Erich Fromm in 2003 U.S. edition. (Content of the foreword by Thomas Pynchon as well as the afterword is frequently plagiarized, as an engine search for key phrases demonstrates.) ]

"Newspeak words", whether merge into the main article: yes, more intuitive also. Could still hyperlink.

"See also", + link to article on source since Newspeak discussed there also.

Bug: ref="multiple, 2003 ed." command or ref="2003" command per Multiple uses DNF. Kludge: "ref" command used instead, generates duplicate in "Notes and References" section.
References manually generated as a backup. Format per MoS.

Pynchon and Fromm referenced are frequently plagiarized elsewhere on the Web. {{Citation needed}} in article at relevant text.
Link Totalitarian Language: Orwell's Newspeak and Its Nazi and Communist Antecedents not found so moved here until created.

"External Links" -> "Further Reading", per MoS Further reading/external links.
"Retrieved [date]", since on-line reference links break (per Embedded links) Original wording retained as could. Might be shortened.

--GoDot 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

E-prime

E-prime has been viewed by some as a "simplified, Newspeak-like English"; I disagree with this and I've found it useful. I also find it more difficult to use than regular english. Use it as a tool, experiment with it; don't view it as law or as something enforced by a tyrannical government. I don't considerit a form of newspeak at all. -- unsigned

Sexcrime vs crimesex

This article links to sexcrime which doesn't exist, but crimesex does. Which is correct? Graue 11:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

sexcrime. I'll move it right now.--Acebrock 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

artificial-speak

Finishing reading the article, I was reminded of l33t-speek, but really more so just "teen-speak". Try to talk to someone which is really "into" that, and you get nothing out from them, just "brb lol afk back thx asl", but then, did teens ever speak about big things (I know this can sound condescenting, but...)?

• Being eighteen myself, I can say that some teens (I hope I'm among them) sometimes speak of more important things. But they do usually seem, to me, maddeningly superficial. However, I get the impression that the adult world isn't much better. Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so. MRig 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But then we have the adult version: just talking about the weather, and one of my favorite (anon) quotes:
"my biggest fear is that one day we will meet eachother on the street and have an artificial conversation".
One could say "artificial" is PC/new-speak because you say what you think is "right", what will not offend anyone, and also it will always spark discussion. You think, you have to say something to this person, when you meet them, you have to say something nice, something light. In this way, emotions are removed from language, from communicating, and if you never talk strongly about things "oooh (celebrity) is so sexy on (tv show) and did you see his fight with (other celebrity)" you could never try to change the world. Well, except to give yourself more money/power...

But then also in relation which might not seem logically so:
"We are so vain that we care for the opinion of those we don't care for"
- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach (Adjust your speech, your character, your everything, to "how you think" you're supposed to act. Ok. Nevermind)
--Seas 21:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats an excellent point, I don't suppose you've read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451? ~~Paul

Yes, teenagers often speak about "big things." Do adults? --Zagsa 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

l33t?

I don't understand how l33t can be considered a form of Newspeak. I can't see any significant similarity in the way l33t and Newspeak "substitute words and phrases" as the article says. Could someone please give examples of some l33t words/phrases which are Newspeak-like, and explain to me why the relationship between l33t and Newspeak is significant? --Jibjibjib 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• In think "leet" should be removed, as it has nothing to do with newspeak.

• • I also support this proposition. Davin Bacon 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • In fact, "leet" could be viewed as an opposite to Newspeak. The purpose of leet (like any jargon) is to get specific thoughts across effectively while the purpose of Newspeak is exactly to prevent this. --CompuChip 14:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Agreed. "leet" could be a code, or jargon, or even a version of English with a richer more subtle vocabulary (words like 'n00b', 'dupe', etc carry much more information than it woudl take a full sentence of English to convey --FrostPaladin

Abbreviations, l33t, SMS and such

I don't think it's appropriate to label every new form of jargon, sociolect or dialect as newspeak. Isn't the term usually applied to forms of jargon and neologism that have some sort of political motivation, and come with some sort of taboo on not using them?

I removed the section on SMS "TXT SPK" as the connection to Newspeak is tenuous at best. If someone wishes this section to be included in the article please include some kind of explaination. 213.168.230.149 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dicdefs

Most of the newspeak "word" articles consist of a paragraph or at two of rather redundant text and links to other newspeak word-articles. Most of these cannot properly be expanded, since they are hardly used outside of 1984 and are basically definitions. These should be merged in. Doublethink (and thoughtcrime) merits its own article since it has, ironically, entered the standard English vocabulary and is an important concept known beyond its literary context. The Ingsoc article is also substantial enough that it can probably stand on its own. Possibly prolefeed and unperson as well, if they are improved. The rest should be merged and redirected. I have already redirected the doubleplusungood article since that was the prior consensus and the redirect was replaced by a terrible writeup. NTK 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldspeak DOES NOT EQUAL Newspeak

Oldspeak is traditional english, or Standard English if you will. Newspeak is the corrupted language of Nineteen-eighty Four. Newspeak is the real deliberation of making up, or deleting new words, that are irrelevant, and that may cause thoughtcrime. I think they should be two different articles. The articles are exactly the same, there is no point to that. Oldspak is the languauge I am using now, Newspeak is all government, corporate, and military language, not the ORDINARY person. Thanks, and please try to change the articles instead of making them one and the SAME. They are two totally different concepts. Oldspeak, Standard English is traditional, and proper. Newspeak is simplified, unconventional, and not Standard English - besides, it has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER in the real world. 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)~User:Xinyu

Why don't you split off an Oldspeak article instead of moving the current one, seeing as the current one is actually about Newspeak? enochlau (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note Talk:Oldspeak for past actions. enochlau (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the commments pro's and people. I'll make an article called, "Oldspeak" Sounds good? Please reply soon. 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)~User:Xinyu

No. Just because Oldspeak and Newspeak are not the same doesn't mean they don't go in the same article. Oldspeak is not a very common term and was invented by Orwell only because he needed something to contrast with Newspeak. BTW, I've nominated your page for deletion. Oldspeak (Traditional English)--M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, just because Newspeak and Oldspeak are contrasts of each other does not mean that they should be treated like the same thing. They're not the same thing, although both are, by definition newspeak words for new terms in the English language. I personally think, know, and believe that Oldspeak just means Traditional English. The Standard English of today - those used by the media, government, military, and multinations are Newspeak. Therefore, they are two different concepts, Notice, I am not using Newspeak here - like confusing terms, colloquials, and slang. --Lord X 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

ps. Thanks for letting me know why you are doing the things you are doing. We could at least help each other you know, and not cause too much issues around here.

Agreed that Oldspeak should NOT have it's own article. The simple acid test? Oldspeak has no meaning as a word outside the context of Newspeak.--FrostPaladin 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyril Kornbluth and Newspeak

This section seems unnecessary, about half the paragraph explains that the book doesn't contain Newspeak, the other half is tortured reasoning about why some of it could be interpreted to have the same effect as Newspeak.

And then, of course, there is the whole missing spoilers warning, if I understadn wikiprotocol correctly.

And the abbreviations used in the Kornbluth story are very directly based on those actually used in telegraphic communication at the time, due to the policy of charging on a per-word basis. Kornbluth in fact worked as a wire-service rewrite man, and was celarly imitatign the dispatches he saw on a daily basis. DES ^(talk) 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is so obviously irrelevant for the reasons above that I've removed it. It seems to have been added by Adam Keller but he doesn't interact on his talk page (or here it seems) so I haven't told him. 88.111.85.129 05:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong article name and redirects

Right folks, what's the big idea of having Newspeak language redirect to Newspeak, which in turn redirects to Oldspeak (Standard English), its total opposite, which in turn is actually an article about Newspeak (check the first bold word)? Fix it! 82.139.85.118 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the ungoodness. Thanks for pointing that out. enochlau (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Swedish

For example, the Swedish Military jargon substitutes "unpeace" (Swedish: ofred) for "war", and "ungood" (Swedish: obra) for "bad".

These is only partially true.

"Obra" is pure post-1970s slang. It was not used when I served in the Swedish army in 1979 and no news paper editor today would let it slip into his paper unless as a direct quote.

"Ofred" is not military jargong, but a word only found today in high literary language. It sounds archaic and would hardly ever be found in the colloquial speech of the XXIst century. 193.15.73.3 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Both "Obra" och "Ofred" are still frequently used in the swedish army. Slipzen 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, and so is a great number of other Swedish words. But the article claims that these words are specific military jargon, while implying that this is an example of this brand of antonym construction is a natural occurence in "strongly hierarchical groups", which isn't the case. "Ofred", as noted, is an old construction that is found in Swedish texts as far back as 1535 [1]. "Obra" is slang, and as far as it can be sourced, it's taken from the Swedish translation of... 1984 [2].

This section is just not accurate. Gör om, gör rätt! :) Amphis (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unable to express...

Is there a single-word English term that means "unable to express a thought or an idea due to the restrictions of the language in which it is to be explained?" Apart from, of course, the word Newspeak. Knaw 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. microchip08 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The term Sapir–Whorf dilemma is about the closest I can think of -- the idea that removing words for a thing prevents that thing from being easily spoken or thought of is surely an examle of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and indeed 1984 is so cited in that article. DES ^(talk) 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

spelling checkers

Should spelling checkers be added in here as an example of it in real life? eg I used to spell really well, but now I have MS word my grasp of spelling has deteriorated. I find the same with grammer. Auto correct does the same. i am now almost unable to spell entreprenuer, always getting the e & u around the wrong way. I dont think its unreasonable that people in the near future will be dependent on machines to use their own languages correctly 222.155.79.66 04:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No. That is nothing to do with the subject of the article.Keithmahoney 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Newspeak Wikitionary Proposal

Please help at [[3]] to create a Wikitionary for Newspeak/Oldspeak. You can also read the proposal on Meta-Wiki. Please help!

Admins, if this is contary to WP:CANVAS, please delete, but remember that it is just a guideline.

microchip08 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

the two paragraphs about the failings of newspeak really have no place here without an outside citation. they read exactly as if someone decided to stick a condensed version of a term paper into the article. the criticism is fine, though there are several comments above which present a good case for it being incorrect, but it needs to have a traceable origin. i move to remove these sections altogether and put out a request for newspeak criticism.209.169.48.66 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

as I mentioned above, two sections read as straight original research. i'm moving them here if anyone wants to resuscitate parts of them.209.169.48.66 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The real life pitfall of the Newspeak is, of course, that there are real-life agglutinative languages which act exactly as Orwell suggests, and the various suffixes, prefixes and derivatives allow almost endless possibilities for neologizising. Instead of shackling the thought, Newspeak actually just enhances the possibilities of expression of its speakers. Certain languages, such as Finnish, Japanese or Hungarian, work almost perfectly on the Newspeak principles — they have very sparse basic vocabularies, but almost all the expressions are derived from the stem words by various prefixes and suffixes.

But again the real-life pitfall of the agglutinative languages looms here: agglutinative languages, like Finnish language, offer almost endless possibilities to neologize an expression or a word by using just basic vocabulary and the various prefixes and suffixes. A concept which is not assumed to exist is easy to conceive by using a word root and derivative prefixes or suffixes. The concept of "freedom" (Finnish vapaus) would be easy to conceive by using expression omaehtoepäestoisuus ("own-condition-un-hinder-ity") where the only word roots needed would be "ehto" (condition) and "esto" (hinder), and the word still would be perfectly understandable Finnish, albeit clumsy. In Newspeak this would be avoided by removing, for example, the word own (and possible hinder) from the language, since in a world where no personal possession or even private thought is possible, there would be no need for a word like own. Similarly, Oldspeak words may be stripped of certain meanings while retaining others, such that though it would be possible to say the weather is good, the phrase the Party is ungood would be meaningless. Even so, it is unlikely that such complete control would be technically possible; even if the expression "the Party is ungood" does not normally make sense, groups of rebels could slightly alter their language to make it make sense. Even if the word "own" is removed, then a word could be formulated that meant "condition-of-person-not-hindered-by-other-people". "Uprising" could be represented by "people-making-attack-on-Party". To fully remove this possibility would be impossible; as long as the words "Party", "people" and "attack" exist, they could be made to say "People-attack-party". To remove thoughtcrime, practically all words would have to be eliminated. In any case, languages evolve over time and would undermine attempts to maintain control. People today often invent their own words and terms for things and events that do not extend to the main community. Also, thought cannot necessarily be controlled by words; even today, not all thoughts can be written down or described. Qualia would also serve as an obstacle. (A further possible complication would be that if someone did commit thoughtcrime, then it would be impossible for authorities to work out what it was they did).

Yes, all very true. Of course, Orwell did intend to write something of a satire in 1984, and so inherent weaknesses in the viability of Newspeak aren't really relevant, even if they are interesting. 88.111.194.96 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the sentence

Similarly, Oldspeak words may be stripped of certain meanings while retaining others, such that though it would be possible to say the weather is good, the phrase the Party is ungood would be meaningless.

as I recall that something along those lines was explicitly in the book (probably in the appendix). Now this is removed, together with a large junk of original research. Also, the sentence

Note that all of these words would be obsolete and should be removed in the "final" version of Newspeak, except for "doubleplusungood" in certain contexts, such as as illustrated in the preceding paragraph.

in the next paragraph, does not make very much sense anymore. I'd like to put the above sentence back into the article, as I think it's also an important point that, apart from removing words entirely, it is also possible to remove just meanings of words (like ethically good) while still retaining ("innocent", as in good weather or good quality) others. But since I don't have the book, perhaps someone could check whether words of this kind are indeed there somewhere probably in the appendix. --CompuChip 13:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

focus of this article

"Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four." - So, how come that there are only a handful of examples of Newspeak from the novel, but whole passages on alledged "newspeak" in todays real world? Although I would personally agree that there may be some phenomena in todays world that can be thought of as to resemble Orwells Newspeak, I would think that this is higly dependent on your POV, and that this article is quite out of focus. -- 790 06:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to feel reponsible for the section Real-life examples of Newspeak. If no sources for the strong claims linking Orwell's novel to real-world phenomena are given, I will delete it by September 1. -- 790 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the history page, and it didn't seem like a deletion was made on September 1. I read throught the article, and I agree that it is the best example of WP:SYNTH I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Personaly I believe it should be deleted from "real life" down, especially since Pc, and Abbriviations can be seen as the oposite of Newspeak (PC. is developing new words in order to create new oppertunities of communication, when prior communication around those lines was impossable)(just one alternitive definaition). I will continue with the deletion if no one has any objections.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the passage now [4]. As it is a rather long passage, I'd like to give an additional explanation of my action. This article is about a fictional phenomenon in a novel. To relate this fiction to real-world penomena may not be alltogether senseless, but to be encyclopedically acceptable, such allegations have to be (a) sourced according to WP:REF and WP:NOR and (b) expressed in a way that does not obfuscate the fact that the novel and the real world are different things, and relations between them are subject to political, social, artistic and other points of view (WP:NPOV). Both requirements were not fullfilled within several months, hence the deletion. -- 790 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

'A' and 'B' vocabulary?

Could someone explain what "A vocabulary" and "B vocabulary" are? Several articles on Wikipedia mention them in reference to Newspeak, but the Newspeak article doesn't mention them at all. 70.20.149.174 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget C vocab. I'd be glad to write a section on this soon. --Slartibartfast1992 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian

Ingsoc appears to be direct reference to Soviet era Russian language, which has hundreds of words constructed from first syllables: kolkhoz, glavlit, sovnarkom, politruk, chlenkor etc. Like kolkhoz comes from kollektivnoje hozjaistvo (collective economy). I did not edit the article as I have no proof that Orwell actually knew anything about Russian. Warbola (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)