Officialdom is particularly fond of using several words where one or two would do.(Why?) Here's a fine example from history. Can you match it?

The eminent British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was to give some lectures in America. He chose the title " Words and Facts". The organiser of these lectures didn't approve of such a title and suggested it be changed to " The Correlation Between Verbal and Phenomenological Data".

Students do this in essays to meet the word requirements teachers often place for the essay.

lol Fred...a few years ago I reconnected with a high school friend...apparently she wanted to impress me in her e-mail...she used several large and obscure words... that while they were used properly... they just seemed out of place in an e-mail to an old pal...after several e-mails she reverted back to using internet speak...words that drive me buts like b4 and U R..lol

Government Verbosity

Pythagorean theorem: 24 words.

The Lord's prayer: 66 words.

Archimedes' Principle: 67 words.

The 10 Commandments: 179 words.

The Gettysburg address: 286 words.

The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words.

U.S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.

Why use a long word, when a diminuative one would suffice?

Matthew Parris, of The Times has found a pleasing example.The boss of cut-price store chain, speaking on the radio, took great care not to describe his typical customer with a word like 'pauper'. He described his 'typical customer' as 'operating within a challenged budgetary framework'.Parris suggests that,next time we mean 'Haven't you got anything cheaper?', we should remember the new line for an age of recession and say 'I'm operating within a challenged budgetary framework'

Thinking of cabbages [above], as we all ought to,here's an example of legalese:

"In the nuts (unground) (other than ground nuts) Order the expression nuts shall have reference to such nuts, other than ground nuts, as would, but for this amending Order, not qualify as nuts (unground) (other than ground nuts) by reason of their being nuts (unground)"

This, in truth, was written by a Judge of Scottish Court of Session.He submitted it, as a serious example of real legislation, to the editors of The Guinness Book of Records, who published it in good faith as the 'least comprehensible law'. The learned judge's comic effort is, it must be said, so close to the style and content of actual Orders that the mistake is understandable (even if the 'Order' is not).

The opposite extreme is represented by a real Act of Parliament.Its operating section has but 27 words. Here it is:

The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918

s.1 A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from being elected to or sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament.
s.2 This Act may be cited as the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918

It is notable that an Act which changed our constitution forever is brief but anything emerging from our Revenue and Customs concerning Value Added Tax on anything is verbose