If words are to have meaning, then the care in using them must be protected. It is, of course, the conditional which must be accepted as true, in order for the contingency to be acted upon. In a society where populism prevails, and in accepting a false sense of what “democracy” and “equality” have come to mean, the suffering consequences of a nation’s language becomes destroyed in subtle tones of disengagement. Words lose their efficacy by multiple methods: overuse; misuse; refusal to allow for an expected impact to occur; or non-use by neglect and disregard.
Are there negative consequences for the loss of linguistic efficacy? Or, perhaps such concerns are merely esoteric turmoils relegated to the intellectual temper tantrums reserved in ivory towers, and not of any significance or relevance to the greater population at large? The English of Shakespeare is certainly not the mother tongue of modernity, and the volume of utterances fail to replace the lack of cogency in today’s discourse.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who intend to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the care in the selection and positing of words is important, despite the loss of such status and stature of their force and effect in general. To prepare an effective Federal OPM Disability Retirement application — one which is both persuasive, as well as “true” — requires the careful crafting of a cogent compilation of multiple narratives, appealing to logic, factual coherence, and force of comprehension. It must defy that which we see in today’s society — of the loss of linguistic efficacy.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire