At least (try to) make sure it makes sense

Disclaimer: This is merely an exercise to improve my knowledge and gain a better understanding of dudes and dudettes, the English language and what Louis Armstrong was on (about) when he wrote, sang and maybe hummed "What a wonderful world".

To lower the bar it might be a good idea to strike or revise unnecessary and complex terms. Smaller publications and shorter lectures. Academia purposely upholds its elitarian status by making use of overly complex terminology and definitions. Often its purpose is to make up for a lack of profound understanding or actual proof. Hegel (for instance) used more than a fair share of expensive words. Because language has become so polluted and multilayered, it becomes increasedly difficult to find out what the exact intend of an author was if we take literary genres like sarcasm, satire and bold lies into account. Yes. Boldly Lying is also a literary genre (see: Pinocchio or Pinochetio).

Simple

Starting point: not taking into account specific circumstances, courtesy, personality, extra purpose,...

Need for communication. Average adult person. Simple needs

Example of a circumstance where communication is not required: You are thirsty: the solution is within reach, you don't ask. You just perform the actions needed to solve the problem.

  1. Bratt's tummy could do with a slice of chewed corn bread, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able to locate that specific object.
    • No communication: Jenny points at the location and off goes Bratt doing his thang.
    • Most basic: Bratt goes like: "Bread." > Jenny is - according to common conventions - way too nice and hands the bread to Bratt.
    • Slightly more elaborate: Bratt: "me/want/need/have/give/hand bread(?)". At this point more questions gradually start to arise: Would someone intentionally change the intonation at this point? Would Bratt go for "me", "want", "need", "have", "give" or "hand"? Already it's getting pretty crowded at this point. I would think most people would not even bother elaborating.
    • Slightly even more elaborate: Bratt: "Can you give/hand bread(?)". Additional questions: If there is nobody but Bratt and Jenny in the near vicinity, why would Bratt explicitely address his question to Jenny by throwing in an extra "you"?

      We might want to pause for a second and ask ourselves if we need to elaborate and replace the (often fake) courtesy with a nice smile and the shift in intonation. I do think so. All it takes is getting used to it. A smile isn't a language specific expression. What difference does it make to say please if everyone is saying it? It doesn't make any sense. By forcing children to say "please" and "thank you", you are in fact introducing them to the concept fake.

But of course, for the average adult it would be very much easier to pull off as opposed to a very young child.

  1. Young Bratt's tummy aches, but luckily he already picked up a few words phonetically. Good boy! How could we go about this? Skipping to the verbal stuff right away:
    • Most basic: Young Bratt: "/bed/" (phonetically). The context enables the parents to figure out what he is trying to convey. Since young kids don't feel the need to be patient they will probably repeat that several times anyway. Would you reprimand the little Bratt if he goes berserk having to wait for 3 minutes and 38 seconds before you actually provide him with the goods or would you be able to understand the ability to be patient is in fact probably not built in natural behaviour magically injected during conception?
    • Slightly more elaborate: Bratt: "me/want/need/have/give/hand bread(?)". At this point more questions gradually start to arise: Would a child intentionally change the intonation at this point? Would Bratt go for "me", "want", "need", "have", "give" or "hand"? Possibly the child could take pride in being able to word it in a way similar the adult does.

The bottom line would be that in order to make progress we should not waste any more time speaking about what both the transmittor and the recipient already know. More time to solve real new problems.

Language: Semantical and orthograpshic issues

To lower the bar it might be a good idea to strike or revise unnecessary and/or complex terms. Smaller publications and shorter lectures. Academia purposely upholds its elitarian status by making use of overly complex terminology and definitions. Often its purpose is to make up for a lack of profound understanding or actual proof. Hegel (for instance) used more than a fair share of expensive words. Because language has become so polluted and multilayered, it becomes increasedly difficult to find out what the exact intend of an author was if we take literary genres like sarcasm, satire and bold lies into account. Yes. Boldly Lying is also a literary genre (see: Pinocchio or Pinochetio).

Ambiguity (strictly in terms of semantics)
Ambiguity ("sounds like this")
Difficult to write words (such as difficult for instance)
Irregularities
Other issues
Funky Lingo at the Academia

Although in some strange and funny way some could find so much (sometimes hidden) treasures inside publications,

Sometimes it is better to be slightly more elaborate using simpler wording while trying to combine ideas. Finding a better balance.

Some sexay examples: