An Ironic Reading of Richards and Ogden

I commented below on a post that pointed out the irony that it is difficult to understand a text about how meaning is not always clear and/or understood as the author had intended. Furthermore, Richard and Ogden seek to remedy these problems. This made me think about Locke's distinction between Civil and Philosophical discourse. Civil use is defined as "such a communication of thoughts and ideas by words, as may serve for the upholding common conversation and commerce, about the ordinary affairs and conveniences of civil life" (Locke 817). Conversely, philosophical use is defined as a way to "convey the precise notions of things, and to express in general propositions certain and undoubted truths" (Locke 817). The way I think about civil language is that it is simplistic. It is basic and easily understood. I started thinking that these texts would be more successful if they were written in more simplistic language. As Richards, Ogden and Locke all seek to remedy miscommunication through words, it is almost as if they should agree with that resolution. Richards himself translated the Illiad into basic English (Richards 1273). So it seems that he understands that complicated language complicates understanding. This is just an idea that popped into my head. I'm not saying I fully agree with it. This idea reminds me of Sparknotes or "No Fear Shakespeare" in which Shakespeare's texts are put side by side with a more simplistic and modern translation. Certainly some meaning is lost in that situation. Furthermore, as a lover of literature and language, I am not going to advocate for the "dumbing down" of it. I just thought that it was an interesting idea and that it would make it easier to understand the overall ideas presented in these difficult texts, but I'm sure we would lose some of the nuances.