What we have read constitutes an essay insert in which the narrator makes a digression on the evolution of the labor movement.
It means to uselessly complicate the life of oneself and the reader, and not even have a little ear: “What we have read is an essay insert”; and “digresses”, does not “digress”: this is anti-language!
Now it seems to me that this craving for cultured substitution has also hit the poor adverb ‘more’; more and more often we find written sentences like “There are more complex problems” or “We need a more open policy”: but in both cases there is no reason to prefer the new “more” than the old “more”, which goes very well.
Common to most of the people who write, and the more frequently the writer is insecure, the tendency is to use a phrase composed of a generic verb followed by an abstract noun that specifies its meaning instead of the appropriate verb.
In European novels it is possible to have a meeting … In the afternoon, we dedicated ourselves to studying the lesson …
No one today, writing, uses archaic forms or poeticisms such as ‘speme’, or ‘alma’, or ‘me rimembra It would make you laugh. In fact, such forms are used in books or movies or on TV when the reader or viewer wants to smile. Bread and tulips, the character played by Bruno Ganz, who is Icelandic and learned English and reading Ariosto, and speaks like a printed book.
But not a few, especially among the veterans of the classical high school (some just to show that they did the classical high school), they think that writing elegant means writing using words as unusual as those on which Meneghello quipped. They may not write ‘appo le siepi’ or ‘me remembers’, but write ‘likewise’ instead of ‘also’, ‘well’ instead of ‘therefore’, ‘when’ instead of ‘when’. It seems to me that a propensity of this kind is found above all among jurists, and this is not surprising: the archaic lexicon gives solemnity to the expression, and often to those who deal with something as important as the Law, some solemnity pleases, or better: those who deal with the Law have had to spend years reading very solemn codes, manuals and treatises, written in a very formalized and abstract language, full of archaic formulas taken by Roman law, and often the taste for the chosen language he absorbed it from the environment as a dialectal accent is absorbed. But it seems to me that even the formalized language of the jurists would do well to approach the standard Italian, shaking off some of the dust that has accumulated over the centuries.
So far we have dealt mainly with vocabulary, bad words. But the worst damage is known to occur when bad words come together.
It’s just a taste. We will return to these shortly about these syntaxes. For now, returning to the metaphor of writing as a dress, we can conclude this way: dress well, with care and decorum, but do not flaunt the party dress as the campagnoli who once went to the city once did. Those of the city looked at them and laughed. “It doesn’t matter that the dress is up – the saying goes – as long as it’s clean”.