imo, this is patently not what Orwell documented and criticized via narrative example, and certainly was not what i took as his position on the evolution of nat

imo, this is patently not what Orwell documented and criticized via narrative example, and certainly was not what i took as his position on the evolution of naturally occurring languages, in the alluded to book -- he is a writer, and i imagine no doubt understands the importance of language and shared associations, and what it means for a language to naturally evolve its vernacular (accepted, common, or developing) -- through usage, or otherwise. Orwell highlighted and warned against the consequences of people in influential positions of power intentionally distorting the collective associations with their new, updated versions of existing words, campaigning around those distortions, and intentionally reframing associations over time such that, the associations are polarizing and obfuscated, motivated by manipulation to benefit a select few, not motivated by advancing communication -- it certainly was not an example of society and its language naturally evolving "definitions" through usage. and the novel wasn't a criticism against slang, or association/vernacular changing/evolving over time throughout collective use, nor was it a stance on requiring fixed, permanent, unwavering definitions -- it only emphasized how important it is to have consistent meaning. he just wanted to encourage people to be skeptical of those pushing for the "different" or updated meaning of words, that clearly had a well-defined context, and association, previously -- why are they so dedicated and determined to "push" for a new meaning to get accepted, when there is a previously established and well accepted meaning already. that doesn't sound natural to me, that sounds manufactured.