---

From: goehring@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Why all the jargon?
Message-ID: <GOEHRING.91Aug12090423@feserve.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 12 Aug 91 14:04:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: feserve.GOEHRING.91Aug12090423
References: <551@uucs1.UUCP> <RBNSTEIN.91Jul28212527@bucsf.bu.edu> <563@uucs1.UUCP>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Distribution: alt.religion.scientology
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 40
In-reply-to: gaf@uucs1.UUCP's message of 1 Aug 91 00:43:00 GMT

In article <563@uucs1.UUCP>, gaf@uucs1.UUCP (gaf) writes:

>The original poster used the word "argot" instead of the already >existing and well understood word "jargon". I'm not picking on that >person at all, I just use that as an example of how Scientology has >needlessly invented a word to replace one which is already well >established in the language.

ar.got \'a:r-g*t, -(.)go-\ n [F] 1: a special vocabulary and idiom used by a particular underworld group esp. as a means of private communication 2: the language of a particular social group or class

jar.gon \'ja:r-g*n, -.ga:n\ \.ja:r-g*-'nis-tik\ n [ME, fr. MF] 1a: confused unintelligible language 1b: a strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect 1c: a hybrid language or dialect simplified in vocabulary and grammar and used for communication between peoples of different speech 2: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group 3: obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words - jar.gon.is.tic aj

both terms seem to apply (although some might argue that scientology is or is not an "underworld group"), and neither was developed by scientology.

>From the televised corporate presentations I've seen, there are lots of >other examples. I could barely understand what was being said >sometimes, and had to really work to figure it out from the context of >the speech. The jargon was so thick and deliberate I started wondering >if it was a way of speaking to the "in" crowd in code, so that outsiders >like me wouldn't know what they were saying.

i strongly suspect that the development of the complex terminology is intended at least partially to confuse and bewilder the uninitiated; it tends to cloud their judgement (gee, he knows all these really neat terms, he *must* know what he's talking about). -- Rho has made a few mistakes in her postings regarding to this subject. The first one is actually trying to reply. The accepted method is to ignore his [Bruce Woodcock's] posts in hope that they will go away. -- Dirque, in rec.games.mud

---
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank