Anglophile

2011 !

2011-02-13T13:13:00.002+05:30

I wish you very happy and peaceful days during 2011 !

'Square feet' or 'Square foot'?

2010-11-22T19:15:00.005+05:30

A: What is the average cost of construction nowadays?
B: It is Rs.1,500/- per sqaure feet.
A: So, a house of an area of 1,000 sft costs Rs.15 lakh, doesn't it?
B: Yes, of course.
____________

Now, here, 'per square feet' means 'for each square feet'.
Each is singular, meaning one, in which case feet does not agree with per or each or one.
Now, mathematically, area means length multiplied by breadth. If length is 1 foot and breadth also is 1 foot, the area is 1 x 1 = 1 (one).

We may, therefore, say 'per square foot' or 'for one square foot'.

The antecedent is plural

2010-04-14T09:50:00.007+05:30

Is the following sentence correct?
"This is one of the most interesting books that was published last year."
There is an error in this sentence and it is linked to the antecedent. The relative pronoun 'that' used in the sentence stands for a word that goes before it. Whether that word is 'one' or 'books' is the question. It is the latter. 'Books' being plural in number needs a plural verb. Accordingly the verbal 'was published' should have been 'were published'. Thus the correct version is : "This is one of the most interesting books that were published last year".

Plural forms of hyphenated words

2010-02-13T10:59:00.008+05:30

When a word has two or more constituents we often hyphenate them. A word so hyphenated is considered single for all general purposes; e.g. well-wisher, seven-year-old etc. These words appear as well-wishers and seven-year-olds in their plural forms. On the same analogy why can't we make the plural of any hyphenated word by adding an 's' to the ending component? For instance, the plural of 'brother-in-law' may be made 'brother-in-laws' rather than 'brothers-in-law'. Though, for semantic reasons, British English may not recognize such pluralizations as standard, a trend to use it that way is emerging. Is it acceptable? This is a logical question that deserves to be debated.

The Order of Persons

2009-10-08T10:48:00.002+05:30

Usually, the Second Person-the Third Person-the First Person (II-III-I) is the order we follow when we want to mention all the three Persons in a context.

eg. You, she and I should meet the manager now.

However, there may be occasions when we have to share the credit of the success we may achieve or to shoulder the burden for the failure we may suffer. While the II-III-I order can be used in the former case, the I-II-III (the First Person-the Second Person-the Third Person) order is preferred in the latter.

eg: I, You and John are responsible for the defeat in the match.

Millard Fuller, the greatest philanthropist of our time!

2009-02-14T20:40:00.012+05:30

Millard Fuller (1935 - 2009) was founder of Habitat for Humanity and the Fuller Center for Housing, USA. Millard, an acknowledged philanthropist, gave up his whole fortune worth millions of dollars for housing the poor all over the world. India has also benefited from his ministry with more than 20,000 families extricated from their substandard housing conditions and accommodated in simple, decent homes. Millard's mission, which aims at the ultimate objective of the eradication of poverty housing from the earth, continues as successfully as before. The Fuller Center for Housing, led by David Snell (President) and guided by Linda Fuller (Co founder) is making fast strides in helping the underprivileged that are in need of shelter within and outside the US. The corpus for this noble non-profit organization includes donations made by humane people like you.

Please visit http://www.fullercenter.org/ for more details.

Subject - Verb Concord

2009-01-01T21:53:00.006+05:30

Is this sentence correct?

"I suggest that he consult a doctor immediately."

Yes, it is. Though, apparently, the subordinate clause (he consult a doctor immediately) does not display the subject-verb concord, 'he consult' needs to be construed as 'he should consult'. The auxiliary verb 'should' in such cases can be unexpressed.

A native speaker may frown upon this sentence !

2008-12-27T21:56:00.002+05:30

I am working in this office since 1983.

Reason : When we want to refer to an activity that commenced at some definite time in the past and is still continuing, we need to use the present perfect progressive, and NOT the present progressive tense construction.

Relief : I have been working in this office since 1983.

कितना सुंदर है!

2008-10-25T16:20:00.005+05:30

Can we take animals for granted always?

2008-06-11T14:36:00.005+05:30

The ABC

2007-11-27T15:55:00.000+05:30

When we mean the fundamental aspects, we have a tendency to use the expression 'the ABCD', which is not considered good English. It should be 'the ABC'. Suppose you want to state that Abhishek does not know the basics of Arithmetic, then you can say it this way: 'Abhishek does not know the ABC of Arithmetic'.

Indian English

2007-09-05T16:19:00.000+05:30

No doubt, India has contributed many words to the English language, thanks to the recognition and receptivity willingly accorded by the native speakers. We have every reason to be proud of words like 'guru', 'yoga' and 'ayurveda' having found a place in the dictionaries, whether online or on-shelf. It is always amazing to see words being coined, based on logic. 'Prepone' and 'recordical' are the two words often heard. It might be true that unless we use them frequently, they will not gain popularity and acceptability. Be that as it may!

We should, however, remember the fact that such words will only be frowned upon in formal contexts (particularly in the examinations that follow British English in our country) as they are considered non-standard. We need, therefore, to use 'advance' for 'prepone' and 'documentary' for 'recordical'.

The Printer's Devil!

2007-05-01T22:15:00.000+05:30

Many people refer to the Printer's Devil as the error that creeps in during printing. The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English defines the expression as 'an errand boy in a printing office'. And an errand boy is one who makes short journeys, or runs up and down, to take or get something like a message, or goods from a shop. The Wikipedia says that a Printer's Devil was an apprentice in a printing press, who performed a number of tasks, such as mixing tubs of ink and fetching type. A number of famous men served as printer's devils in their youth, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Warren Harding, John Kellogg, and Lyndon Johnson. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Printer's Devil as an apprentice in a printing office. Again, according to the Free Dictionary, a Printer's Devil is an apprentice in a printing establishment. So, stories otherwise, however credibly imaginative they might be, should be unacceptable in good English. How, then, can we call the printing mistake the Printer's Devil? It is just the Printing Error - as simple as that!

What is AMBIGUITY?

2007-04-26T16:51:00.000+05:30

Ambiguous means nondefinitive. When a word, phrase, clause or a sentence is capable of being interpreted in more than one way, it raises ambiguity. We cannot define its meaning. So, a communication which can acceptably render different connotations is ambiguous.

Example: Visiting guests could be a nuisance.

Why is the following sentence unacceptable in English?

2007-04-15T22:15:00.002+05:30

I have spoken to him yesterday.

Reason: An activity taking place at a definite time in the past cannot be expressed in the Present Perfect tense construction.
Relief: I spoke to him yesterday.

The nuances of the modal verb 'CAN'

2007-03-22T17:08:00.000+05:30

The sentence below is not considered acceptable in English.

Abu could catch the train yesterday.

Reason : A past activity realized is not expressed with 'could'.
Relief : Abu was able to catch the train yesterday.

Liar's Paradox - A Brain Twister !!!

2006-09-24T22:08:00.000+05:30

Am I speaking the truth when I say I always tell lies?

etc versus eta !!!

2006-03-19T14:55:00.000+05:30

We have ‘etc’ abbreviated from ‘et cetera’ to mean “and other things” or “and so on”. This does not go with persons. To mean “and others” or “and other persons” we have ‘et al’ coming from ‘et alia’. When et cetera can be shortened to etc, why not et alia to eta?

To be analogous and logical, I prefer eta to et al.

Viewers may offer their critical comments.

On Grammar and Its Role

2006-02-25T20:27:00.000+05:30

Grammar is the science of language. As science establishes what happens in a given situation, so does grammar in a given sentence. While science experiments with the data in hand, grammar examines the usages in vogue. Grammar describes how words function in different contexts and determines how the syntax of a language should be.

A living organism, language is also subject to change. Conventions give way to current trends. Modern usages receive recognitions and the ancient ones become archaic. In the process, the why of the usages, whether current or prospective, needs to be explored and their acceptability or otherwise needs to be explained. This should precisely be the role of grammar in any language. English is no exception.

Grammar should meet the demands of the time. Clarity in communication is of paramount importance. When there is ambiguity in a usage, it is to be removed. When a logical contention in support of an expression is raised, it has to be accepted for scrutiny and analysis. The result may be positive or negative; the urge observed for a change should always be considered. Gone are the days when we frowned upon sentences like ‘He is taller than me’ and ‘It’s me’.

Now the question of when and where the grammar of a language should play its role arises. The first step in learning a language is to hear it spoken or read by a learned person. If that person takes adequate care to do justice to his duty, half the problem is solved. For, the listener, from the beginning, starts registering the standard and acceptable usages emanating from the connoisseur’s mouth. As long as these usages are correct and grammatical, the listener has the greatest advantage of being conversant with good language without deliberate exposure to grammar. And what he has learnt will remain in memory until, perhaps, he finds a change expedient and acceptable.

One need not be a mechanic to drive a car. The mechanic maintains the car and the driver drives it the way he likes and with the style he adopts. Though he may become a smart driver, his car needs to be kept in good condition. Education can be likened to the car. If we are able to impart updated, need-based instruction, the learner will, in due course of time, imbibe his own diction and style without having to study grammar in particular. However, the car driver, if slightly discerning, can excel in his performance. A bit of mechanical knowledge will enhance his expertise and encourage him to undertake long, confident drives. On the same analogy, if the language learner acquires a little grammatical knowledge, he will find himself fluent enough to manipulate the malleability of the sentences he might have to employ in order to meet the contextual requirements.

Language needs to be learned from the learned, preferably from teachers who can be taken for granted. A perfect language teacher ought to keep himself abreast of all aspects of the language he is teaching. He ought to be adept especially in the grammar of that language. He ought to watch the modern trend, too. Only then will he be able to effectively and efficiently explain its nuances as warranted by the situation.

English has become the international lingua franca. Most of the universities around the world teach English in two ways - as General subject and as Main subject. At the General level the learner is expected to acquire just a sort of working knowledge of the language while at the Main level he is required to thoroughly master the grammar as well as the language. Those who qualify themselves under the latter category will be competent to teach English in the manner it should be taught.

The teacher of English has to decide the method of instruction suitable for his students. A good teacher will be able to choose the best if he succeeds in correctly assessing the level of his students. He can then easily schedule the assignments in tune with their standards. The extent of grammar to be taught in the schedule can also be determined by him while preparing lessons for his students.

Yet, what is the role of grammar in the modern classroom? Is it optional or essential? It is, in fact, neither. The role of grammar in the modern classroom should be facilitative in nature and approach. As English is taught to both native and non-native students, the method to be pursued in the two cases cannot be the same. Nevertheless, both of them need to know grammar.

Grammar pronounces the acceptability of usages. We need to identify the usages considered acceptable. Are they the ‘standard’ ones spoken by the flimsy minority in the UK or the ‘popular’ ones adopted by the fluffy majority in the US? It may not be justifiable to choose either of them. We need to strike a balance between the two, because we see a seamless blend of both at the international level. The concepts of British English and American English seem to be losing their significance in the modern era and therefore their merger is not unlikely in a couple of decades from now. English may then become the world’s language. No one can claim to have exclusive sovereignty over it when it is the common wealth of the users of the world.

Viewed in this light and in the backdrop of Information Technology-dominated globalisation, the grammar of English in the modern classroom should be capable of catering to the universal needs of the ‘cosmozens’ - to use a portmanteau for cosmopolitan citizens. In order to achieve this end the universities need to evolve a common yardstick in respect of pronunciation, meaning and usage of the words in use and base their courses of study on that yardstick. An IRP (Internationally Recognized Pronunciation) can do away with the anomalous accent, stress and intonation being followed by the conglomerate community today. It can also usher in an era of uniformity in the teaching and learning of English. Then the teacher in the modern classroom need only allude to the subtlety involved in a particular expression for the general information of his students. During lectures, however, he will have to take adequate care of his own use of grammatically correct sentences that are being listened to by his students. A separate session on grammar may not therefore be necessary in a modern classroom.

To teach a language without much emphasis on its grammar and to prepare the learner to be capable of handling it with facility at anytime, anywhere would naturally call for concerted efforts on the part of the academia. A system of education equipped to address the needs of the changing time has to be put in place so that the role of grammar will turn to be one of enabling the learner to inculcate a sense of self-confidence for the purpose of using the language with ease throughout the world.