Question

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists. –"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell In this passage, how does Orwell support his rebuttal of a counterclaim? by providing examples of how journalists have failed to change the English language by describing hypothetical situations in which English might be changed in the future by giving specific examples of how people have made small changes to English by using quotations from journalists with expertise in the study of languages.

Answer 1

Answer:

essions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore