THE TYRANNY OF PHRASE

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 210, 6 September 1927, Page 6

THE TYRANNY OF PHRASE

"Xo thoughtful jHTSOn.* , f-i\\ • a writer in the "Nineteenth Century" for AiiMi*t. "will deny that one of the greatest evils of the present day is tho tyranny of catchwords ainl phrase*."* The writer has given an excellent example by using the phrase "no thoughtful person."' The article which appeared recently on this pa;;e on the late Mr. J. St. Loe Strach'ey headed " Kviry Right - Thinking Man" showed how the editor of the " Spectator " used this phrase in a manner which often irritated his readers. When lie wished to vary it he fell back on the phrase " no sensible person would think" or "no sane |«erson would deny." Macaulay used " every schoolboy knows " until his schoolboy became as famous for miscellaneous information as Macaulay himself. " Progressive " has become a catchword that is now applied to all new movements whether they are really progressive or in reality reactionary. All politicians know the value of catchwords, or, as they are often called, " slogans." In Great Britain this value was not fully realised until the famous slogan " three acres and a cow" showed how powerful these catchwords can be. " Punch " had a pathetic picture of a sporting reporter wondering how he could improve on his favourite phrase " the number of horses that faced the starter wan one less than a baker's dozen." It is very hard for a busy writer to avoid the use of phrases which seem to come almost unbidden. Nor do writers always realise how easily the habit is formed of using certain expressions more frequently than the subject demands. Psychology has given rise to what almost amounts to a new vocabulary, and everybody now talks about a " complex." Many newspapers have their own catch-phrases, and nearly every public speaker has his favourite expression. It is said that a good trade slogan should consist of either three or live words, probably because there is supposed to be luck in odd numbers. In many advertisements we get the word "super," which has been further developed into "extra-super." But the worst of such magnifications of the superlative is that you cannot go beyond a certain point,,and when you have got to " extra-su]>er " you have to fall back on simplicity again, or else think of sonic new extravagance of phrase. It certainly savours of tho quaint that so many writers who have protested against the tyranny of catch-phrases should themselves have been compelled to fall back on such phrases in order to emphasise their point. — W.M.