Search THE READING ROOM

Sunday, December 5, 2010

(5) Facebook rants to make you think about bad English vs good English (16-20)

Ramesh Prabhu Rant No. 16: Why do we say "first-come-first-serve" when we should say "first-come-first-served"? 

November 29 at 1.40pm

  • Monica Chauhan, Samarpita Samaddar and Saurav Sen like this.

    •  
      Deep Pal May be because we often mean "first-come-first-serve basis"? Or is that wrong too?

      November 29 at 4:28pm via Facebook Mobile ·
    •  
      Ramesh Prabhu 
      That is wrong, too, Deep. What we mean by the expression "first-come-first-served" is that the first person to come will be served first, and so on. So we should say/write "first-come-first-served basis".

      From dailywritingtips.com:
      A common error is to write the phrase as “first come, first serve.” The confusion arises from thinking that “come” is the same kind of verb form as “serve” and that they’re supposed to match.

      One way to look at it is to think of first come, first served as an elliptical form of the first to come will be the first to be served.
      November 29 at 4:43pm

      ***

      Ramesh Prabhu Rant No. 17: I am a big admirer of Mint and Mint Lounge but in the magazine-format Lounge of Nov. 27, a standfirst refers to "alumni Sidin Vadukut" and the article itself refers to Mallika Sarabhai as an "alumni" of IIM-A. In the first case it should be "alumnus"; in the second case it should be "alumna". Also, on Page 49, Vadukut spells "in spite" as one word in his tech review. I am aghast.

      November 30 at 12:16pm


      • Bala Murali Krishna and Neil Ima like this.

        •  
          Deep Pal Is it politically correct any longer to use the feminine gender? We call actresses 'actor' these days, if you've noticed. More importantly, when & how much should a language give in to political correctness?

          November 30 at 12:45pm via Facebook Mobile ·
        •  
          Ramesh Prabhu
          This is nothing to do with political correctness, Deep. "Alumnus" is singular; "alumni" is plural. So Sidin Vadukut cannot be an "alumni"; Mallika Sarabhai cannot be an "alumni".

          If we want to use the "actor" analogy, perhaps Sarabhai can be... referred to as an "alumnus", but never an "alumni".

          Here is a usage note from dictionary.com:

          Alumnus (in Latin a masculine noun) refers to a male graduate or former student; the plural is alumni. An alumna (in Latin a feminine noun) refers to a female graduate or former student; the plural is alumnae.

          Traditionally, the masculine plural alumni has been used for groups composed of both sexes and is still widely so used: the alumni of Indiana University.

          Sometimes, to avoid any suggestion of sexism, both terms are used for mixed groups: the alumni/alumnae of Indiana University or the alumni and alumnae of Indiana University.

          While not quite equivalent in meaning, the terms graduate and graduates avoid the complexities of the Latin forms and eliminate any need for using a masculine plural form to refer to both sexes.

          November 30 at 12:51pm ·
        •  
          Deep Pal You referred to Sarabhai as 'alumna', hence my question. Assumed that was a feminine for 'alumnus'

          November 30 at 2:16pm via Facebook Mobile ·
        •  
          Ramesh Prabhu It is, Deep. I would prefer to refer to Sarabhai as "alumna", which is the house style of our college newspaper.
          November 30 at 2.18pm

          ***

          Ramesh Prabhu Rant No. 18: Why don't we know the difference between"lose" and "loose"? We "lose" weight, we wear "loose" clothing — not the other way around.
          December 1 at 10:48am

          Samarpita Samaddar and Payal Padmanabhan like this.

            •  
              Ajay Kurpad Am reading 'My Grammar and I' (or should that be "Me")' by Caroline Taggart and J.A. Wines.

              Good read and very witty with the way they have put stuff together. Unlike any run-of-the-mill grammar book.
              December 1 at 10:56am · · 1 person
            •  
              Ramesh Prabhu Ajay: Why don't you post an example or two?

              December 1 at 12:43pm ·
            •  
              Ajay Kurpad Lewis says that Louis will lose his loose pair of Levi's at Los Angeles.

              December 1 at 1:45pm

      ***

      Ramesh Prabhu Rant No. 19: Why don't we know the difference between "literally" and "figuratively"? When we’re angry do we "literally" hit the roof? Even Shobhaa De, writing in the Sunday ToI, has a problem with "literally": "Sure, power is an aphrodisiac and some vain journos have taken the aphrodisiac part literally to err... screw their detractors!" One, this is in bad taste. Two, power is not a literal aphrodisiac.
      Thursday at 1:37pm


Posted by

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)