A plea for clarity in speech

THE EDITOR, Madam:

There’s a peculiar sort of linguistic arrogance floating around these days, a verbal accessory donned by those who fancy themselves intellectual aristocrats. I’m talking about the insidious misuse of “would have,” that slippery phrase wielded with the dexterity of a fencing foil – but often leaving the rest of us bleeding from sheer confusion.

Take, for instance, the following gem: “Sullivan would have communicated this to his superior.” Did he? Didn’t he? Is this a hypothesis, an unfulfilled expectation, or some kind of Schrödinger’s briefing that exists in a quantum state of both having happened and not?

“Would have,” in the hands of a competent communicator, has its place in the language – a tool for imagining alternate realities, expressing regret, or describing conditional situations. But these days, it’s been appropriated by the academically inclined, the insufferably sophisticated, and those who just can’t resist the chance to sound clever. It’s a linguistic smokescreen, designed to obscure whether anything meaningful ever actually occurred.

The tragedy here isn’t just confusion – it’s deliberate obfuscation. A simple “Sullivan communicated this to his superior” would have sufficed, wouldn’t it? Or, if he failed in his duties, we could opt for: “Sullivan did not communicate this to his superior.” But no! “Would have” swoops in, muddying the waters, leaving listeners to decipher a puzzle no one asked to solve. Did Sullivan follow through, or are we indulging in a speculative exercise about his supposed intent? Heaven forbid the speaker just tell us.

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

To be fair, the allure of “would have” is understandable. It cushions us from the messiness of concrete reality. Saying “Sullivan failed to report this” risks bluntness; it exposes a truth with the sharp edges intact. “Would have” is smoother, more genteel, wrapped in the gauzy fabric of plausible deniability. It’s the linguistic equivalent of a shoulder shrug and a half-smile – Oh, he would have done it, surely... except for reasons unknown to man or beast. How considerate, how refined.

But for all its faux sophistication, this usage is a betrayal of what language is supposed to do: communicate. We don’t gather words to impress; we arrange them to inform. If your choice of phrasing leaves your audience squinting in mental anguish, unsure if they’ve just heard a fact, a guess, or an imaginary scenario, you’re failing at the most basic function of speech.

Let’s reclaim clarity. Let’s demand that “would have” be used sparingly, reserved for its rightful place in expressing regretful might-have-beens or noble intentions thwarted by fate. Let’s insist that Sullivan either communicated or didn’t, and let’s say so plainly. Because when the message is clear, everyone wins – except, perhaps, for those who enjoy posturing in the murky shadows of ambiguity.

To all the verbal elites out there: drop the “would have” when it isn’t necessary. You would have done us all a favour, but I’m asking you now – just do it. No qualifiers needed.

RICHARD DOWNER