Lost for Words: The Mangling and Manipulating of the English Language

by John Humphrys

From tired old clichés to meaningless jargon, dangling participles to sentences without verbs, the English language is under attack from many quarters.

Politicians dupe us with deliberately evasive language. Professors fear the consequences of correcting their students' mangled sentences. Bureaucrats bore us into submission.

Language is about communicating. All this does the opposite. And it is all so ugly. English is a beautiful language that should give us pleasure, not pain.

John Humphrys has fun at the expense of language abusers, and also raises serious issues about people in power who use words to manipulate us. Language should be simple, clear and honest. Where it is not, we need to ask why - and do something about it.

Genres: Nonfiction, Language, Writing, Linguistics, Reference, Biography

334 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Desmond John Humphrys is a Welsh author, journalist and presenter of radio and television, who has won many national broadcasting awards. From 1981 to 1987 he was the main presenter for the Nine O'Clock News, the flagship BBC news television programme, and since 1987 he has been a presenter on the award-winning BBC Radio 4 programme, Today. He is also currently the host of the popular BBC Two television quiz show Mastermind.

John Humphrys has written several books, including Lost for Words, in which he criticizes what he sees as the widespread misuse of the English language, plus 'Devil's Advocate', 'Beyond Words', 'The Great Food Gamble' and 'In God We Doubt: Confessions Of A Failed Atheist'. Humphrys is an agnostic, but has a curiosity to test his agnosticism and challenge established religions to see if they can restore his childhood belief in God. In 2006, he presented a BBC Radio 4 programme, titled "Humphrys in Search of God" where he spoke to leading British authorities on Christianity, Judaism and Islam to try and restore his faith.

Humphrys is a columnist for the Daily Mail.

Reviews

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 4 out of 5]

When reviewing a literary tome, it repays attention to keep one's linguistic focus firmly fixed on the internal complexities of authorial imagination, rather than getting unnecessarily waylaid by the frivolous externalities of narrational foibles, so as to avoid humongous errors of judgement in appreciating the essential beauty of undiluted creative thought.

Err... folks. Did you understand what I said above? I am asking you because I have no idea! But does it not sound grand? Does it not sound as though I am making a profound statement about book reviewing? And - most importantly - even if you were sure that I was talking absolute poppycock, how many of you would have the courage to call me out?

John Humphrys, presenter of the "Today" show on BBC, does only that during the length of this book - expose the hollowness of English as it is employed today by many people; especially journalists, management gurus and (of course!) politicians.

His book is about sloppy usage in general - how we have come to embrace vagueness and linguistic obesity in place of the simple and the direct. After spending the initial chapters on this phenomenon - which I found, to my horror, has affected my writing to some extent, too - he wades into the miscreants responsible for purposeful obfuscation.

This book was written in 2004. So it has to be content with George W. Bush, Tony Blair etc. as examples. Now with the likes of Donald Trump and Narendra Modi running the show, it is no longer obfuscation or the use of euphemisms, but outright lies being peddled as truths. We are fast on our way to the world of Alice's Humpty Dumpty!

Quotes I liked:

Respecting the difference between words is not about being pedantic or pompous or even perfectionist. It just means we can express ourselves more clearly. And surely that matters when we write or when scripts are read across the airwaves. A 'result' is not the same as a 'win'. 'To anticipate' is not the same as 'to expect'- just as 'to prevaricate' is not the same as to 'procrastinate' and 'to presume' is not the same as 'to assume'. 'Disinterested' means something different from 'uninterested' and that's that: it always has and it always should because it is not easy to find another word that means quite the same.

---

Some of the obesity of our language comes from our habit of sprinkling prepositions where they should not be. We attach them to verbs that are self-sufficient. We 'test out', 'raise up', 'descend down', 'revert back', separate out', 'free up', 'enter in', 'divide up', 'exit out' and 'feed into'. it is not only estate agents who insist that a house 'comprises of' three bedrooms and a through lounge/diner. We write 'all of' when we need no more than 'all' and we even double up prepositions to be on the safe side. Things are 'opposite to' (which compounds the felony), 'up against', 'off of' and 'up until'.

---

With few exceptions, leading politicians around the world believe in capitalism. Gordon Brown is, of course, one of them. But when did you last hear them use the word in an approving sense? They don't do it. As the great economist J. K. Galbraith notes, it has been replaced everywhere by the phrase 'the market system'. Capitalism, it seems, is seen as a 'weak brand'. Galbraith regards this sort of thing as 'innocent fraud'.

---

Journalists being briefed by a diplomat often feel they inhabit a parallel universe - especially when it is about talks that have just taken place between our man and a foreign leader. If the two got on so well that they agreed on every single issue and ended up sending the civil servants out of the room while they enjoyed a passionate embrace on the office sofa, the discussions will be characterised (a favourite word in diplomat-speak) as 'constructive' and possibly 'fruitful'. If they agreed on absolutely nothing, clearly detested each other and spent the entire meeting swapping insults, the exchange will be described as 'useful'. If the foreign leader ends the meeting declaring war on Britain, journalists will be told the talks were 'frank'. The strongest word in briefer's lexicon is 'unfortunate'. Obviously, that is reserved for dealings with the French.

A caveat: the author's political views may come across as mildly conservative and sometimes ludicrous (for example, when he says Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD] does not exist). Ignore them and read the book only for his views on language.

[sam . · Rating 1 out of 5]

God, I wish this guy was (as the book title says) ‘Lost for Words’. In fact, he has a surplus of words, used to bring us… his cranky-old-man thoughts and a long rumination on the English language’s continued existence. The unfortunate thing is, he would probably take one look at me and go, “Ha! Of course, I knew you would call me a cranky and grumpy old man. I’m always one step ahead of you!” With the same smug, frog-resembling expression as he has on the book cover. God, he’s so smug it drives me fucking insane. He continues in his attempt to be One Step Ahead of All of Us in the Usage of the English Language by issuing a disclaimer in the ‘Health Warning’ of the prologue that in this book he will ruin the English Language, deliberately or perhaps accidentally. And, like, I know he is, like, sitting somewhere cozily in his nice-job-on-the-Today-show (which I’ve never watched)-chair and letting out a demented, like, ‘Heh. Heh,’ sound as he watches us furious readers scramble through in search of grammatical errors that were not made on purpose. Just something to hold over this smug bastard’s head, you know what I’m saying?
(God, John Humphrys—because even his surname has to be, annoyingly, spelled without the ‘e’ in it—better not read this.)
In this book (it seemed to me) he cast himself as some Ultimate Arbiter of Language (except he didn’t, actually, I just got that energy) before going ‘Oh, but you can correct my minor grammatical errors, too. In fact, please do!’ With every word, it seemed, my hatred of this guy grew more and more. By the end of the book (actually, before it had even ended) I found myself slamming it down onto the nearest hard surface (a duvet), utterly angered by how horrible and slimy his presence seemed to be. I simply couldn’t bear seeing his face any longer. It was an awful experience. If I have to hear another complaint about split infinitives from this book, I honestly think I might just start using it as a punching-bag. Except then it would probably hurt, because a book is solid and not actually full of soft-ish sand, and then the joke would be on me. Again.
I think my anger can mostly be explained away by the fact that Humphrys never really bothers to self-criticise aside from a few joking ‘I’m such a cranky old man’ winky-faces to the audience, like he already knows you hate him and your hatred just makes him even stronger. I delight in the image of him crying out in agony at my awful text-message spelling, and I think, like, this book might have made a sadist out of me, for I am now, like, attempting to speak in the most convoluted teenage-girl manner just to ruin English and piss him off. And of course, again, who is the butt of the joke? Not Mr. Humphrys, that’s for sure.
Naturally, this book wasn’t all and completely bad. There were valid points raised about how English is being corrupted (not just by teenage girls—by corporate-speak and advertising). Which, I think, after the entire disasters of ‘We’re producing more varieties of cheese than the French!’ (A quote from Britain’s probable next PM, Liz Truss, if you’re wondering) and the marketing-speak of ‘Level[ling] Up,’ and a special mention to the debacle of the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ slogan back in, what, 2021—I could go on—is perhaps more pertinent than ever. However, while we’re on the topic of British politics, there was no reason I had to go through all the political views this cranky old man holds towards the end. We don’t need to know, OK?
So, after all that huffing and puffing in rage, I will end on some simple, plain and utterly understandable English (since that is the variation of English he most prioritises): John Humphrys, if I see you on the street randomly, I will be punching you in the face, you [bleep]. For this book alone, you’ve earned it. And I don’t care about your creaky knees, either!
Yes, I know… threatening people isn’t very politically correct, either. It’s okay; Mr. Humphrys is more than welcome to threaten to punch me in the face, as well. We can have a boxing match. It’s fine. Just don’t sue me for threats of violence against another human being (a senior citizen to boot, oof…); there’s equality in punching people here!
Finally, I will end on a (perhaps semi-ironic, I don’t really know) quote from the British newspaper The Daily Mail: ‘I commend Citizen Humphrys.’
Indeed. Cue applause. Insert winky face here. ;)

[Wendell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read _Lost for Words_ because I agree with the basic argument: English is an endangered language or, perhaps better said, the connection between the English language and the expression of actual thought and genuine meaning is disappearing as rapidly as the rain forest.

Unfortunately, Humphrys argues with clarity only about half the time. For the rest of the book, he's expressing right-wing views (one is amazed at how many times he manages to work in his opinion that abortion is murder, which a person might be forgiven for considering irrelevant to the topic) or simply being a snob.

Are we really going to argue, for example, that the difference between British and American pronunciation is a question of correct vs. incorrect usage? Humphrys does: If, when you intend the noun "romance," you accent the first syllable rather than the second, you're a cretin as far as he's concerned. In fact, a decent slice of Humphry's book is dedicated to bashing American English, which is perhaps low-cost fun for the entire family if you're a Brit, but for anyone else it's a comedy routine, not an argument.

His chapter on journalists and journalism - the professional category to which he belongs -- is particularly murky, and Humphrys all but gives himself a side stitch in disapproving of journalistic "mangling" of English while, at the same time, not criticizing his profession too astringently. His "Gosh, I do the exact same thing" commentary ultimately becomes repetitive and annoying: If Humphrys is guilty of the identical linguistic crimes and misdemeanors, and if everyone commits solecisms from time to time, and if people should thus be forgiven for the errors he finds so grievous, what is the point of the book?

Humphrys provides a reasonable analysis of general categories of malefactors (politicians and advertisers, to name two) and his overall point - that we are all too frequently hypnotized into believing that language has conveyed meaning when it has not - is well taken. It is in the specifics where he stumbles, and no more so than when he fails to address the most frequent rejoinder tossed at those who are alert to the necrosis that afflicts English: language changes. Surely there is a counter-argument to be made here (the difference between the evolution of language, for example, which tends to be relatively slow, and the cleaving of language from meaning, a phenomenon that tends to be rooted in mass culture and which is no less fleeting). Humphrys is smart enough to have made it, but he doesn't seem to want (and he'll have to forgive me the cliché) to climb out onto that particular limb.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

For an English teacher, this is our bread and butter.

One of the hardest things about teaching students English as a foreign language is the fact that the language is ever-changing. I try to tell my students that what is nailed down in the textbook is not "real" English. It's a useful variant of English that will help them get by until they can figure out what the real thing is, or at least which version of the real thing they want to end up speaking. What surprises them the most is when I tell them that even though I want them to pay attention to the rules of grammar, syntax, vocabulary and the like, they're going to run into native speakers who flaunt their ignorance of such things.

That's where people like John Humphrys and I converge. He has been working for the BBC for many years now, and has been watching English all that time. While not quite the rule-loving pedant that so many people imagine, he is worried about some of the ways that English has not only naturally degraded over the years (he notes the emerging acceptance of "could of" and "would of" in this) but also the deliberate use of language to obfuscate and confuse.

Language changes. Often it's simple evolution from generation to generation, and that can't be helped. But the more insidious change is deliberate. It's saying that people are not hungry, but have "low food security." It's hospitals referring to the people they treat as "clients" instead of "patience," and the spouting of empty, meaningless phrases in place of real thought. It is this kind of evolution that needs watching, and it is this kind of English that should prompt furious letters to the editor. Rather than sound off because the newspaper used a meaningless tautology like "future progress," it would be better to press our leaders to talk to us, rather than at us, to debate their points, rather than sell them. As though peace were a late-model Chevrolet that they were trying to get off the lot.

If you love your language, you'll enjoy this book...

[Xin Zhang · Rating 2 out of 5]

The core message of the book is delivered in the first few chapters and being over delivered in the the rest of the book. I think it works as a series on a weekly magazine than a book. The repetitive nature and the politicalness of the content makes the observations on the language less digestible. In fact, this is not a book about language as the cover suggests but a book on politics, and not even on political language. I understand everyone has their own view and is entitled to their own view on matters of politics but pass his own opinion as objective truth told in a self-righteous way -- this is manipulation of language, the exact kind the author wrote this book to advocate against. A clear example is his view on abortion.

[Anne Flood · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book immensely. The sections on grammar, however, do expect the reader to be extremely familiar with English grammar, as example sentences with poor grammar are provided, but not necessarily any explanation of why the sentence is deemed ‘incorrect’. However, (oops....broken rule there!) for anyone with a love of English, or with an interest on the way language can be used to manipulate readers and listeners, it should be a good read. Oh....and I liked the layout, too - as it means that it is book that you can dip in and out of easily.

[Meg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Please stop spewing your political views, John. I wanted a book about the English language, not a treatise on abortion; feminism and the 'horrors' of New Labour.

Some good points are made, but the book largely consists of smug little digs about how "young people do not understand proper grammar. Back in my day....". Also, for the love of Shakespeare, stop namedropping - you've been a journalist for a long time, therefore you've interviewed many well-known people: we get it.

[Elisabeth Bibbings · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the meaningless cliche to the split infinitive, Humphrys tackles the misuse of English by sales staff and politicians alike to persuade us and also to hide the facts.

I shall be more careful about my use of words in future.

[Victoria · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really amusing book about the abuse of the English language. It is the perfect read for a pedant like me (I often have to stop myself correcting the signs in shops!)

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book jacket claims: "You will have fun with this book."

I did. I read the whole thing in a British accent in my head. I highly recommend that.

[Zoe Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

I took some good lessons away.
I enjoyed this book at first, but by about halfway, I started getting a bit fed up. It's essentially one long rant about how people misuse the English language. I love studying English, and I like to see English being used correctly, but some of the stuff in here is just way too picky and negative. This much rigidity in English isn't good for creative writing at all. I feel the book was drawn out far longer than it needed to be, and I would have liked to have seen a more concise layout of instruction rather than endlessly slating other people's writing.

[Margaret Wakeling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well written but too long. Humphreys early life was extremely interesting as was the telling of his early days in journalism. I am a regular listener of the Today programme and I found the background stories fascinating but eventually I tired and found myself skim reading anxious to get to the end of it all. Humphreys writes well, he’s a journalist after all, but I found his attitude towards his interviewees annoying and somewhat arrogant.

[Anna · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Humphrys makes some excellent points about intentional and unintentional language misuse and manipulation. Words have power - he makes that very clear. I enjoyed the examples he provided, though, at times, I was looking for the explanation that wasn't provided. It was a slog to read most of the time, the section about politics especially. It was never something I actively wanted to read, which is why it took me 2 years to even start it and another 2 to actually read it.

[Angela Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Poor use of the English language is something to rant about especially when adulterated to cause confusion by professionals. John Humphries manages to control his annoyance and offers some tips on dealing with those who try to belittle those on lower wages (himself excepted)

[Ruthie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Whist there some interesting parts, this came across as a sneering, condescending account of how other people's use of grammar weren't up to his. Insufferable man.
Taking it to the charity shop.
(June 2025)

[Shafiyah Abdul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Danger: Politicians Speaking, well, you can listen to them but don't simply believe everything they say.

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

Abandoned on page 53 of 334. Felt like I was being shouted at and I couldn’t work out what the author’s opinion was. One moment we must be exact in grammar, the next it’s fine that language changes.

[Alan · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Humphreys is a grumpy old man who can't accept things change and doesn't believe anyone should do it differently to him

[Liz · Rating 2 out of 5]

While at times I agreed with the sentiments, I found the chapter organisation tiresome and my overall impression of Humphrys was reinforced by the style; he is rather smug.

[Derek · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting thoughts but largely disappointingly dull. And not particularly witty either.

[Anna Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

Two words: white man.

[Angela Gostling · Rating 4 out of 5]

A most enjoyable read about the state of the English language.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seems to have just one point, endlessly repeated, that people don’t use English as precisely as what he does, init. Mildly entertaining at first but goes on too long.

[Michelle Spaul · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Humphrys tackles two of the world's bugbears about the use of words in everyday life. To start he shares stories of mangled English, poor grammar and the loss of meaning that results from both. He both laments the loss of subtly that results from the changing meaning of words and recognises that the language has to change. Rather than make the case for a body to 'protect' our language, he calls for better education.
Then he moves on to the way that people manipulate our language to say nothing with as many grand sounding words as possible. If you have heard Humphrys interview a politician you will be familiar with the style and the source of his frustrations.
While the second part of the book was more akin to a personal, albeit shared and well expressed, rant, it had me thinking and I have taken extra pains to avoid 'bullshit' in my business writing since finishing the book. I am sure John would ask for no more.

[Raj · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book about language. Subtitled "the mangling and manipulation of the english language", Humphreys is more interested in manipulation than mangling, although he has a a decent grump at the latter as well. It's when he starts discussing the (mis)use of language by business, politicians and journalists that you really feel his passion coming through. A very informative read that helped open my eyes to the tricks and abuses that politicians in particular subject the language to, it's also very entertaining, filled with anecdotes from the Today programme and beyond.

[PC2022 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this shortly after reading Melvyn Braggs 'Adventure of English', hoping it would be similar.

In many ways it is, but it just doesn't flow as well, and ultimately isnt quite as interesting. I still kinda enjoyed it though.
Humphrys is clearly very passionate about the correct use of English, but the book could have done with a bit more editing: in many places he goes on a bit of rant, covering grievances he already got off his chest only a chapter or two earlier, and after a while these rants starts to get a bit tiresome

[Stringy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not quite my cup of tea. I agree with quite a lot of what he says, about how English constantly evolves yet we should always stand up for clear, understandable usage. But his anecdotes weren't that interesting to me, and I found it too snarky to be an enjoyable read. Your mileage may vary - if you are a fan and are used to his style, I imagine it would read as being much funnier than it did to me.

[M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although English is my second language, I have always been a stickler so I knew I would enjoy this book. John Humphrys put my thoughts into words. He is a great storyteller hence on numerous occasions when reading "Lost for Words" I was nodding and laughing. I also learnt a lot. It's definitely worth spending some time on even if you are not a grammar or spelling nazi.

[Rose]

This was okay, although the audiobook narrator had a really annoying voice. In this instance, I would have much preferred that Humphreys read it himself, since his voice is so well-known. The book had some interesting points, although repeatedly strayed too far into boredom territory.

[Erzan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very hilarious way looking at the use of English language. The difference between spoken and written.