Here's a site that looks pretty interesting -- and it's from Oz, of all places !

http://www.weaselwords.com.au

(warning to il Plutarchi: unlike this one, the message board there is monitored)

Thanks, ASp - some good fun. I do tend to agree with one post though, to the effect that weasel words are distinctly different to mere obfuscatory jargon. However, the jargon junkies do need publicly pissing on, so more power to this site!

Thanks for the link -- nice site

Well, intent has a lot to do with whether one is using a weasel word or not. I probably overuse the word 'strategy' professionally, but it is a very useful word that I don't intend to place upon the back of a weasel. However, I'm sure I could lift sentences from letters I've written to parents that would sound well-weaseled, but not intentionally so. Ah, me. Language am a demanding taskmaster, amn't she?

intent has a lot to do with whether one is using a weasel word or not

Exactly. Plain old obfuscatory governmentese (e.g.) is just to maintain some level superiority or, at worst, to avoid responsiblity; weasel words are used to disguise guilt. It's a matter of degree.

Ah, me. Language am a demanding taskmaster, amn't she?


Pardon my audacity, Wordwind, for correcting an English teacher,
but it is not standard to use the female gender when referring to "language".
Especially in a sentence where the predicate is "am a demanding taskmaster".

"Taskmaster" is obviously masculine and as such it must be in agreement with its referent - "language".
Don't you agree?

On the same hand the word "weasel" takes a feminine form.
All the weasels that I've have ever known, but two, have been women.
But I won't bother to ask if you agree.

All the weasels that I've have ever known, but two, have been women.

I guess it depends on what the definition of is is.

from Oz of all places?

hmmmmmm

hmmmmmm

Oops! Slip of the tongue there...

(Howdy, LL!)

I originally posted this on the Weasle Word web site, but it seems apropos to this thread as well:

I think perhaps the whole ‘cult of the euphemism’, so to speak, is a logical off-shoot of the pervasive practice, in western societies, to intentionally obfuscate the truth. Commercials are full of such obfuscations, visually, verbally, and textually. The language used by politicians is another example. It’s no wonder that corporate minions jump into the game with their euphemistic white-noise. Like Plato’s ‘Philosopher King’, anyone in political or corporate ‘power’ think that they, and whoever is holding their leash, are superior to everyone below them and can therefore freely obfuscate the truth and lie to achieve whatever corporate, and more often personal, goals they may have.

Corporate-babble also establishes a kind of code that is used by those who feel they are part of an inner-circle to create an air of exclusivity. It is also used by those who want to be part of the inner-circle of which they perceive others to be a member. Team players speak the babble.

What I have yet to understand is how someone can look another person squarely in the eye and obviously obfuscate the truth and lie, and fully expect the other person to believe them, as if the other person owes it to them to believe whatever they say, however obvious an obfuscation or lie it may be.

Sadly, there are far too many people willing to believe whatever is thrown their way, which, in turn, begins to give the obfuscations and lies a certain validity. The more people there are who believe in an obfuscation and lie, the more such things look like the truth, and the less they are questioned. Forty million gullible people can’t be wrong.

“No other pain reliever is proven to be more effective.”