How's this for INITIATIVE?

AAQIB JAVED

In October 1991, I was in the press box at the Sharjah Stadium watching Pakistan's Aaqib Javed decimate the Indian batting line-up in the final of the Wills Trophy.

Aaqib claimed seven wickets for 37 runs, a world record, including a hat-trick: Ravi Shastri, Azharuddin, and Sachin Tendulkar — all three given out LBW. Two of these decisions were apparently questionable, but that's not the point of this post.

Aaqib Javed was only 19 at the time. How did he even get to play for his country at such a young age and with hardly any cricketing experience?

Here's the story in Aaqib's own words:

"One day when I was in college, Wasim Raja held trials at the Gaddafi Stadium for some camp. I landed up there almost as a joke. Some of my friends were pulling my leg, doing zabardasti. It was the first time in my life that I had entered the Gaddafi Stadium. The system at that trial was that fast bowlers had to bowl two deliveries and bas, that was it. I had my turn, I bowled my two balls. I was sure that nobody was even watching. There was such a crowd, people were talking, hanging about. It was easy not to get noticed. After I finished I kept watching the trials from the sidelines. The more boys that I saw, the more I began to realise that I was actually quite good. But for some reason, I never made it to the short list.

"So I went to Wasim Raja later and told him, 'I think you weren't looking when my turn came. I think I'm not bad. Why don't you give me another chance?' He was a bit surprised, but he said, 'Okay, go ahead.' I bowled three-four balls. They were good balls, outswingers. He selected me for the camp. The camp ran for one month. And at the end of that month, he said, 'Aaqib Javed is the most talented bowler in this camp.' I think that was a huge moment in my life. It was Wasim Raja who unearthed my hidden talent; he made me aware of my potential. That's the point when I became serious about cricket."

Aaqib soon found himself leaving for Australia with the Pakistan team in 1988. And three years later, he was wreaking havoc in Sharjah, winning the final against India almost single-handedly.

None of this would have happened if Aaqib had not chosen to make things happen instead of waiting for things to happen.

Because he had confidence in his own ability — "The more boys that I saw, the more I began to realise that I was actually quite good" — he had the chutzpah to go up to the "boss" and question his non-selection.

How's that for initiative?

Many of the young people I know would be so much more successful in their lives and careers if only they had more confidence in themselves, and took the initiative and made things happen instead of waiting for things to happen. Like Aaqib Javed.

***

This fascinating insight into the rise of a modern fast bowler comes from Rahul Bhattacharya's Pundits from Pakistan, one of the best books I have read about cricket. Bhattacharya began writing on cricket in 2000; this book, which also works wonderfully as a travelogue, was written after India's tour of Pakistan in March-April 2004, which he covered for the Guardian and Wisden.

Two fabulous movies — but are they for everyone?

Both Black Swan and The King's Speech are so absorbing that you lose yourself in them (that's what happened to me over the weekend).

There's a profound psychological aspect to Natalie Portman's portrayal of the angst-ridden ballerina in Black Swan. And she does such a good job of it that one can have no quarrel with her Oscar for Best Actress.

In The King's Speech, Colin Firth is superb (and a fitting winner of the Best Actor Oscar) as the royal stammerer. This film is based on a true story and that makes it all the more touching — Geoffrey Rush is marvellous as the speech therapist and the scenes featuring the "teacher" and the "student" alone are worth the price of the ticket. In addition, there is a lot of humour and wit in this movie.

TALKING POINT: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush in The King's Speech.

I have to say, though, that neither of these films may appeal to the average movie-goer. Both are for thinking people. It helps to know something about ballet and Swan Lake to really appreciate Black Swan. And it helps to know something about British culture and the British public's obsession with the royal family and the story of a king's renunciation of his throne to marry the woman he loved to really appreciate The King's Speech, which also won, deservingly, the Best Picture Oscar.

After you watch both, let me know whether you agree with my views.

What PR professionals should not do to journalists

And just as important, what journalists should not do to PR professionals.

But first, a little background. Earlier this week, Commitscion Samarpita Samaddar (Class of 2010), who is the public relations officer of IFA (India Foundation for the Arts), had an unpleasant encounter with a journalist in Bangalore. Samarpita later wrote on Facebook about the tantrums this journalist had apparently thrown because of "a DVD that cannot be copied due to copyright issues". Another Commitscion, Saroj Joseph (Class of 2006), who is the PR manager for Lush, also wrote about her experience with some journalists "who do not hear you out and just bang the phone and you are left staring at the phone".

Now, in my time as a journalist (almost 25 years with newspapers and media groups in Mumbai, Dubai, and Bangalore), I have met a few unprofessional PR execs. I may not have been rude to them but I let them know in subtle ways that I wouldn't give them the time of day.

I have also met some PR professionals who are nice people, but, sadly, they don't seem to understand that journalists and newspapers are not to be used to promote their clients' agenda.

Why would I be interested in giving publicity to something that has no news value? When I was working as a journalist, what I wanted from a PR professional was news. And I am glad to say I have been fortunate to interact with quite a few no-nonsense PR execs who were brilliant at their work. Give me the news point, I would say to them, and leave it to me to do the story. They understood. I reciprocated.

Back to Samarpita's grouse. I told her that I agree with her 100%: The journalist she is referring to had no business making a fuss about "a DVD that cannot be copied due to copyright issues" if it was NOT RELEVANT to the story. However, it is important to remember that journalists are in the best position to decide what is relevant to the story. Also, every industry has its share of rogues and incompetents. So there are bad journalists, there are sloppy journalists, there are freeloading journalists — but I believe they are a minority.

And this was my advice to Saroj: "I am not sure you should expect any journalist (unless he or she knows you well) to have the time to speak with you on the phone. When I used to get calls from PR professionals when I was busy, I would tell them to send me a fax (this was in the pre-email era) or, later, send me an email. If I found the event/press release newsworthy, I would follow up by assigning a reporter to check it out."

This brings me to the main point of this post: The eternal tussle and, sometimes, nasty feuding between journalists and publicists. Which is sad. Because we need each other. So we need to work together.

Here's what might help us to understand each other. First, a list of PR no-nos. And, second, a list of things journalists should not do to publicists.

CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT

Both lists have been put together by consumer advocate and journalist Christopher Elliott. (I am obliged to Commitscion Jalaja Ramanunni, Class of 2009, for sending me the links.)

Elliott's lists make so much sense, and what he has to say is so important, that I am reproducing below both lists in full. Not only will journalists and PR professionals benefit from studying them but aspiring media professionals will also be able to learn how to modify their behaviour when they enter the industry.

TOP 10 PR NO-NOS

BY CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT

10. Asking me for an exact air date or publication date on a story. Although it is your right to know when a story is going to appear (and I will gladly tell you) I often don’t know the precise date until just before publication.

9. Sending me an unsolicited press kit. Come on. Do you have any idea how many trees you’re killing?

8. Asking what my “angle” is. I often don’t know until I’m done with my reporting. Rest assured, you will know what the story is about when I’m running my fact-check with you.

7. Calling to find out if your client is in the story. I don’t know until the story is published. Often, neither does my editor.

6. Requesting a letter of assignment. I wouldn’t ask for information and then not write about it. What kind of travel writer do you think I am? ;-)

5. Mailing me something “embargoed” or asking me to sign a nondisclosure statement. I’m a journalist — I get paid to break news, not keep your clients’ secrets.

4. Sending me an e-mail that begins, “Dear {USER_FIRSTNAME}”. Look, if you’re gonna spam me, at least learn how to use the software.

3. Pitching me for an outlet I haven’t written for in years. Everything I write is online. Take a few minutes and read up. I’ll love you for it.

2. Calling my editor when you’re not happy with a story. I’ll find out, and when I do, we’ll both be unhappy.

1. Following up with a phone call to “see if I got the press release.” Honestly, they should expel people from PRSA for doing this.

• To read Elliott's post in its entirety, go here.

10 THINGS I'D NEVER DO TO A PUBLICIST

BY CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT

 10. Misrepresent my story. I’ll always tell you what my story is about (but please remember, I have editors who reserve the right to change my angle).

9. Hang up on you. If you call me — no matter how persistent you are — I won’t hang up on you. Ever.

8. Ask you to write the story for me. That includes pilfering wording and original thoughts from a press release.

7. Lecture, lecture, lecture. Who cares what I think, anyway? It’s what’s in the story that’s important.

6. Take anything you say (or do) personally. You’re a pro, and sometimes a client asks you to do things. I understand.

5. Ask for a freebie. There is a special place in hell reserved for journalists who abuse their position to get free stuff. I’m not too keen on going there.

4. Complain to your client or boss about you. You have enough to worry about already. The only reason I would go over your head is if you stop responding to my e-mails, calls or singing telegrams.

3. Be rude. Politeness is what separates us from the animals. I’ll endeavor to be a gentleman, always.

2. Ask you to do my reporting. Last time I checked, that was my job.

1. Ignore you. If I get a personal e-mail, I promise to respond to it as quickly as possible. If I get a call, I’ll try to return it expeditiously. (This doesn’t apply to mass-mailings or calls to “follow up” on a press release.)

• To read Elliott's post in its entirety, go here.

What do journalists have to say about these two lists? What are the thoughts of PR professionals when they read these 20 points? And what do media students have to say?

*

ARCHITA NADGOUDA

"I RELATE TOTALLY
TO THIS POST"

Commitscion ARCHITA NADGOUDA (Class of 2011), who works with the PR firm Edelman in Bangalore, posted this comment on my Facebook link: Sir, I relate totally to this post. In my three months at work I've experienced all that you've mentioned. I know that anything with news value gets picked easily by the journos (even without us being pushy about it). But they too have to understand that they need us as much as we need them and not act pricey when we call them (I know of journos who have published wrong information just because they didn't want to hear us out completely. Doing this repeatedly will only reflect badly on their newspaper!).

I think the bickering will end only if both parties learn to respect each other and develop a better understanding of each other's profession.

P.S. This post was really informative. I'll share it on my wall for my colleagues. Thanks. :)

*

SINDHU PAWAR

"EVERY PR PROFESSIONAL
SHOULD READ THIS"

Commitscion SINDHU PAWAR (Class of 2011), who works with the PR firm Nucleus in Bangalore, posted this comment on my Facebook link: Thanks for sharing this, Sir. I completely agree with it. As a PR person, I would like to say that every PR professional has to read this, understand the implications, and make clients understand them as well. And then, come up with better strategies and ideas; think about what it is that is newsworthy instead of bugging journalists every time regarding something that is not "sellable" or newsworthy.

Even I am going to share this on my wall. Once again, thank you Sir :)

50 rants to make you think about bad English vs good English

Rant No. 1: Why do we ring up and say "XYZ is there?" Shouldn't we ask, "Is XYZ there?"

***

Rant No. 2: Why do we say, "Send me a mail", when we mean, "Send me an email"?

***

Rant No. 3: Why do we say, "I am tensed" or "I am tensed up" when we mean, "I am tense"?

***

Rant No. 4: Why do we say "one of my friend...", when we should say "one of my friends..."?

***

Rant No. 5: Why do we say "12 noon" and "12 midnight" when "noon" and "midnight" will suffice? (A Bangalore Mirror news report referred to "12 midnight".)

• For comments and explanations (Rants 1-5), go here.

***

Rant No. 6: Why do we write "miniscule" when the correct word is "minuscule"? (Strangely, the best-edited magazine in town, Time Out Bengaluru, used "miniscule" in its Nov. 12-25 issue, Page 25 — "The number of Indians checking into geo-social networks is currently miniscule...".)

***

Rant No. 7: Sandeep Mishra (Sunday ToI) interviews a sexagenarian slum-dweller in Bhubaneswar and quotes her as saying, "They (her daughter and family) occasionally visit me and extend some pecuniary help." Extend some pecuniary help? Who talks like this? Not me and certainly not a sexagenarian slum-dweller in Bhubaneswar. I stopped reading the interview at that point. Mr Mishra: Please read Indlish, by Jyoti Sanyal.

***

Rant No. 8: Santosh Kumar RB writes in DNA (Nov. 15, Page 5): "The police SAID that Gowda REPORTEDLY told them that she was suffering from depression and was getting treated FOR THE SAME" (EMPHASIS mine to highlight the BAD ENGLISH). Mr Santosh Kumar: Please read Indlish, by Jyoti Sanyal.

• For comments and explanations (Rants 6-8), go here.
  

***

Rant No. 9: When are we going to realise that "ofcourse, atleast, inspite, infact, incase" are TWO words? ToI of Nov. 18, 2010, had "infact" in the lead story in the business section.

***

Rant No. 10: What's with "wee hours"? In two related stories on Page 1 of DNA today (Nov. 19), H.M. Chaithanya Swamy writes about an accident that happened "in the wee hours of Wednesday". Mr Swamy, please read Indlish, by Jyoti Sanyal — scroll down this post to learn why you should not use words and expressions from pre-Victorian literature in a news report.

• For comments and explanations (Rants 9-10), go here.

***

Rant No. 11: Strapline in Bangalore Mirror: "After clinching India's second gold, Bajarang Lal hopes that government will now come to the aide of rowers". Do BM subs not know the difference between "aide" and "aid"? And do they not know the difference between "prostrate" and "prostate"? A story about prostate enlargement problems referred to the gland as the "prostrate" in the headline, photo caption, text.

***

Rant No. 12: Why do we say "bored of (something)" when we should say "bored with (something)"?

***

Rant No. 13: Why do we write "(sound) byte" when it should be "(sound) bite"?

UNACCEPTABLE: "Basu makes literary reporting easy — when you meet him, he converses in convenient bytes." Interview/review, Page 58, Tehelka, Nov. 20

ACCEPTABLE: "It might take decades before mankind's overactive output of text has been converted into bytes." Article on e-book readers, Page 50, Tehelka, Nov. 20

***

Rant No. 14: Why do we write "upliftment (of society)" when it should be "uplift (of society)"?

***

Rant No. 15: Why don't we know the difference between alternate/alternately and alternative/alternatively? Here is a DNA announcement from the After Hrs. section: "Foodscape and Barcode will now appear alternatively every Thursday". Shouldn't that be "alternately"?

• For comments and explanations (Rants 11-15), go here.

***

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

***

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.

***

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.

***

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.

***

Rant No. 20: Why don't we know the difference between "few" and "a few"? When we say, for instance, "I have few friends", we mean "I have hardly any friends"; when we say "I have a few friends", we mean "I have some friends".

• For comments and explanations (Rants 16-20), go here.

***

Rant No. 21: Why don't we know that non-essential clauses placed in the midst of a sentence should be set off from the rest of the sentence by commas?

UNACCEPTABLE: "Ashok Row Kavi, the Father of gay activism in India said, 'What I like....' " (Bangalore Mirror, Dec. 5)

ACCEPTABLE: "Ashok Row Kavi, the father of gay activism in India, said, 'What I like....' "

***

Rant No. 22: In my time, headline errors were unforgivable. ToI has goofed up twice today (Dec. 7) — what do you make of that?

1. Page 18, lead story: "Champion of free speech become its worst gag"

2. Page 19: "Miner offers $3.5B for Riversdale in which Tata hold biggest stake"

***

Rant No. 23: Why does ToI insist on using the lower case "i" for the first person singular on the Edit Page?

Page 16, Dec. 5: "When i was checking in..."; "But for all my trying, i could not match the shared pain i saw...."

Page 16, Dec. 8: Headline — 'I played a baddie in Aayi milan ki... But i got all the seetis'; "When i came out of hospital, i looked like a peeled tomato".

***

Rant No. 24: Why don't we know how to spell "calendar"? Caption in Mint (Dec. 4): "... Toyota expects to sell 70,000 units of the two cars by the end of the next CALENDER year." [emphasis added]

***

Rant No. 25: Why do so many of us spell (and pronounce) "pronunciation" as "pronounciation"?

• For comments and explanations (Rants 21-25), go here.

***

Rant No. 26: Why do we write "for e.g." when "e.g." means "for example (exempli gratia)"?

***

Rant No. 27: Why do we continue to use ":—" as a punctuation mark? Don't we know it's a dodo? Depending on the context, we should use either the colon or the dash; never both.

***

Rant No. 28: Why don't we know it's "P.T.O.", not "P.T.O"; "U.S.A.", not "U.S.A"; "M.A.", not "M.A". Have I made my point?

***

Rant No. 29 (This one is dedicated to Divya Lobo, Class of 2010, who taught me a few things in class, including the correct way to pronounce "sword". Thanks, Lobo): Why don't we know how and when to use hyphens when describing someone's age?

UNACCEPTABLE: "I was gay when I was 12-years-old." (Bangalore Mirror, Dec. 5)

ACCEPTABLE: "I was gay when I was 12 years old. I just didn't know it then."

***

Rant No. 30 (This one is dedicated to Padmini Nandy Mazumder — Class of 2011. She knows why.):

Why are we so fond of using the circumlocutions "first and foremost", "each and every", "until and unless"? Why don't we stick to either "first" OR "foremost"; "each" OR "every"; "until" OR "unless" depending on the context?

• For comments and explanations (Rants 26-30), go here.

***

Rant No. 31: Why don't we know how to distinguish a declarative sentence from an interrogative one? DNA published a story today (Jan. 5) with this headline: "Why keeping New Year resolutions is difficult?" That question mark at the end reduced the headline to "babu" English and ruined the story for me.

***

Rant No. 32: A "dais" is a raised platform, as at the front of a room, for a lectern, throne, seats of honour, etc. Why do so many of us say or write "dias" when we mean "dais"?

***

Rant No. 33: Why is it necessary to use the word "dusty" to describe libraries or encyclopaedias?

UNACCEPTABLE: "Wikipedia [has] replaced libraries stocked with heavy, dusty encyclopaedias." — Mint, Dec. 31

For one, it is a cliché. Second, I have never seen a dusty library or encyclopaedia. Have you?

***

Rant No. 34: India Today (Jan. 10) has no problems with the F-word, spelling it out in full in one article. But in another piece in the same issue it uses asterisks to camouflage a Hindi obscenity (ch*****). What gives?

***

Rant No. 35: What is this "ya" one finds so often in Facebook status updates? Here's one: "He's a friend ya...." And here's another: "i ll come tomo ya... m ok hw u?" I understand all the shorthand used on FB but for "ya". Is it supposed to be "yeah"? Or "yaar"? Or is it just another crutch word like "basically"?

• For comments and explanations (Rants 31-35), go here.

***

Rant No. 36: When did "post" become the preferred substitute for "after" (when not used as a prefix)?

UNACCEPTABLE: "I'm filing something tonight, which I just got to know of post our meeting."

ACCEPTABLE: "Post-recession, Europe is a little more open"

***

Rant No. 37: Why do we say "cope up with (something") when it should be "cope with" (something)?

***

Rant No. 38: Why don't we know the difference between "maybe" and "may be"? The opening line of Sunil Gavaskar's column in Sunday Times (Jan. 16) reads: "The Tests maybe over in Australia and South Africa, but...." That should be "may be".

If he wanted to use "maybe", he could have written "Maybe the Tests are over in Australia and South Africa, but...."

***

Rant No. 39: Why don't we know that the @ symbol in email addresses is pronounced "at" and not "at the rate of"?

***

Rant No. 40: Why don't we know how to make simple plurals?

UNACCEPTABLE: "Daily Bread is looking for franchisee's." (Ad in Bangalore Mirror, Dec. 5)
ACCEPTABLE: "Daily Bread is looking for franchisees."

UNACCEPTABLE: "Here are some email ID's."
ACCEPTABLE: "Here are some email IDs."

• For comments and explanations (Rants 36-40), go here.

***

Rant No. 41: Why are some (many?) of our newspapers so fond of using the non-specific and often inappropriate word "miscreant" in crime stories when there are perfectly serviceable equivalents, which are not only specific but also appropriate?

UNACCEPTABLE: "[A city corporator] was shot dead by unidentified miscreants ... on Sunday afternoon." (Bangalore Mirror, Jan. 17)

BETTER: "[A city corporator] ... was shot dead by a group of seven assailants ... on Sunday." (ToI, Jan. 17)

BETTER: "[A city corporator] ... was shot [dead] by a seven member gang in broad daylight on Sunday...." (DNA, Jan. 17)

Read veteran journalist Jyoti Sanyal's views on the subject: "Who's this 'miscreant'?"

Mini-rant: In the DNA report, it should be "a seven-member gang" — the sub has left out the hyphen. Also, "broad daylight" is one of the oldest of cliches. Wouldn't "Sunday afternoon" have sufficed?

***

Rant No. 42: Why do our newspapers begin hard news reports with "In a bizarre incident... / In an audacious incident..."? Readers can surely infer for themselves if the incident is bizarre or audacious by getting quickly to the heart of the story, which is not going to happen if you persist in delaying the main point by beginning with a pointless comment or subordinate clause.

***

Rant No. 43: Banner headline on sports page of ToI today (Jan. 24): "SA survive Pathan pyrotechnic". That should be "pyrotechnics", because it is a noun in this context. (ToI Sports Desk: Ignorance is NOT bliss.)

***

Rant No. 44: It's not "an" university. It's not "a" orange.

And it's not "an" Eurostar train, as has been published in ToI on Jan. 25 (Page 2, caption).

***

Rant No. 45: Why don't we know the difference between the modifier "everyday" and the phrase "every day"?

Headline in DNA's After Hrs. supplement yesterday (Jan. 26): "I am a proud Indian everyday". Wrong. That should read: "I am a proud Indian every day".

CORRECT: I go to college every day.
CORRECT: Going to college is an everyday affair.

• For comments and explanations (Rants 41-45), go here.

***

Rant No. 46: Why do so many of us insist on spelling "definitely" as "definately"?

***

Rant No. 47: Why do so many of us insist on spelling "interested" as "intrested" and "interesting" as "intresting"?

***

Rant No. 48: It's "hold on to (something)", NOT "hold onto (something). It's "he is up to (something)", NOT "he is upto (something).

***

Rant No. 49: Why do some (many?) of us use two spaces after a punctuation mark when only one space is necessary? (Thank you for the tip-off, Atri Mukerjee.)

***

Rant No. 50: Why do we insist on spelling "privilege" as "priviledge"? (This one is dedicated to Shanika Bhowmick. She knows why.)

• For comments and explanations (Rants 46-50), go here.

(11) Facebook rants to make you think about bad English vs good English (46-50)

Ramesh Prabhu

Rant No. 46: Why do so many of us insist on spelling "definitely" as "definately"?

January 28 at 10:36am

• Sushmita Chatterjee, Tania Sarkar, Souvik Chakraborty and 2 others like this.
• • 

    Sanaa A'esha Really? Never seen that before.

    January 28 at 11:13am

    
    
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu Sanaa: When is the last time you corrected an answer sheet or a written assignment? :-)

    January 28 at 11:20am

    
    
  • 

    Sanaa A'esha Haha! I guess copy checking isn't that bad a part of a job after all.

    January 28 at 11:22am

    
    
  • 

    Vidya Nayak i definately dont:)

    January 28 at 1:27pm

    
    
  • 

    Ayushman Baruah This is too obvious I thought but ya as a teacher I am sure you come across lots of people...

    January 28 at 2:32pm

    
    
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu Yes, Ayushman, lots of YOUNG people who think "definitely" is spelt "definately".

    January 28 at 2:36pm

    
    
  • 

    Catherine Dequadros Lol! I was confused for a very long time till Ron Ma'am drilled it into my head :P

    January 28 at 2:54pm

    
    
  • 

    Ayesha Tabassum I haven't come across this one Sir... most people spell it as 'definitely'

    January 28 at 3:00pm

    
    
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu Ayesha: See Catherine's comment above. And re-read my reply to Sanaa's comment.

    January 28 at 3:01pm

    
    
  • 

    Ayesha Tabassum Ok Sir... agreed with you... but I was DEFINITELY not confused :)

    January 28 at 3:06pm

     
  • 

    Samarpita Samaddar Catherine: REALLY? Like really? :O

    January 28 at 3:50pm

     
  • 

    Tania Sarkar similar goes for 'definition'... they spell it as 'defination'!

    January 28 at 7:48pm

     

    ***

    Ramesh Prabhu

    Rant No. 47: Why do so many of us insist on spelling "interested" as "intrested" and "interesting" as "intresting"?

    January 31 at 10:21am

     

    • Samarpita Samaddar likes this.
    • • 

        Samarpita Samaddar And that makes me flinch every time. How can people not know the difference?

        January 31 at 11:28am

        
        

        ***

        Ramesh Prabhu

        Rant No. 48: It's "hold on to (something)", NOT "hold onto (something). It's "he is up to (something)", NOT "he is upto (something).

        February 1 at 10:15am

         

        • Divya Bhandarkar and Anagha Gunjal like this.
        • • 

            Ramesh Prabhu

            Handy Hint: On to vs. Onto
            It's easy to pass over this one in conversation, but when editing, you may find yourself coming to a complete halt to decide between the two. According to Merriam-Webster, "onto" is a preposition meaning "to a position on" (he hopped onto the bike). Separately, "on" is an adverb and "to" is a preposition, which refer to position and movement respectively (he hung on to the handlebars).
            
            For me, those definitions are too similar to quickly make a distinction. It helps to determine whether "on" is part of the verb it's modifying (hopped on), but fortunately, The Chicago Manual of Style offers a more useful trick: mentally say "up" before "on." If the sentence still makes sense, then "onto" is probably the right choice (he hopped up onto the bike).
            
            http://bluepencilediting.blogspot.com/2008/12/handy-hint-on-to-vs-onto.html

            February 2 at 10:27am

         

        ***

        Ramesh Prabhu

        Rant No. 49: Why do some (many?) of us use two spaces after a punctuation mark when only one space is necessary? (Thank you for the tip-off, Atri Mukerjee.)

        February 2 at 10:28am

        
        
      • Nida Merchant likes this.

         
      • 

        Ramesh Prabhu Why you should never, ever use two spaces after a period. -- http://www.slate.com/id/2281146/

        February 2 at 4:48pm
        

         

        ***

        Ramesh Prabhu

        Rant No. 50: Why do we insist on spelling "privilege" as "priviledge"? (This one is dedicated to Shanika Bhowmick. She knows why.)

        February 3 at 10:19am

         
      • 

        Dipankar Paul The same reason why 'seperate', 'pronounciation', 'reccommend', 'embarass' (and others) exist in the lexicon of the doomed...

        February 3 at 11:26am

         
      • 

        Samarpita Samaddar Good one.

        February 3 at 2:18pm

(10) Facebook rants to make you think about bad English vs good English (41-45)

Ramesh Prabhu

Rant No. 41: Why are some (many?) of our newspapers so fond of using the non-specific and often inappropriate word "miscreant" in crime stories when there are perfectly serviceable equivalents, which are not only specific but also appropriate?

UNACCEPTABLE: "[A city corporator] was shot dead by unidentified miscreants ... on Sunday afternoon." (Bangalore Mirror, Jan. 17)

January 20 at 10:47am 

• Divya Bhandarkar, Shweta Rajan and Christine Pereira like this.
• • 

    Ramesh Prabhu

    BETTER: "[A city corporator] ... was shot dead by a group of seven assailants ... on Sunday." (ToI, Jan. 17)
    
    BETTER: "[A city corporator] ... was shot [dead] by a seven member gang in broad daylight on Sunday...." (DNA, Jan. 17)
    
    Read veteran journalist Jyoti Sanyal's views on the subject: "Who's this 'miscreant'?": http://goo.gl/HWBGh
    
    Mini-rant: In the DNA report, it should be "a seven-member gang" -- the sub has left out the hyphen. Also, "broad daylight" is one of the oldest of cliches. Wouldn't "Sunday afternoon" have sufficed?

    January 20 at 10:47am

     
  • 

    Ayushman Baruah I remember I asked you this question in class once...a miscreant means an evil doer...and this word does exist. So is it really wrong to use it?

    January 20 at 11:33am

     
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu Ayushman: Read veteran journalist Jyoti Sanyal's views on the subject: "Who's this 'miscreant'?": http://goo.gl/HWBGh

    January 20 at 1:41pm

    
    
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu Also, if you read my original rant, you will understand: Why are some (many?) of our newspapers so fond of using the non-specific and often inappropriate word "miscreant" in crime stories when there are perfectly serviceable equivalents, which are not only specific but also appropriate?

    January 20 at 1:44pm

     
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu

    My point, Ayushman, is that "miscreant" is not specific. In good writing, certainly in journalism, it is the specifics that enable easier and quicker understanding. How tall is a "tall" man? Get it?
    
    Also, as you have pointed out, "miscreant"... means "evil-doer". Should we then write "A city corporator was shot dead by seven evil-doers on Sunday"? Absurd, isn't it?See More

    January 20 at 7:46pm

     
  • 

    Prashant Nahata Ramesh, after going thru your rants, on the appropriate use of the english language I feel as if I am attending a daily refresher's course.But please keep up the good work as the ilk of your students generation needs it and we guys also need to be periodically given primers for our own perusal.

    January 21 at 1:45am

     
  • 

    Prashant Nahata Feel scared of voicing our thoughts before you as we are more likely to be caught wrongfooted with the use of the "ENGLISH "language

    January 21 at 1:48am

    
    

    ***

    Ramesh Prabhu

    Rant No. 42: Why do our newspapers begin hard news reports with "In a bizarre incident... / In an audacious incident..."? Readers can surely infer for themselves if the incident is bizarre or audacious by getting quickly to the heart of the story, which is not going to happen if you persist in delaying the main point by beginning with a pointless comment or subordinate clause.

    ***

    Ramesh Prabhu

    Rant No. 43: Banner headline on sports page of ToI today: "SA survive Pathan pyrotechnic". That should be "pyrotechnics", because it is a noun in this context. (ToI Sports Desk: Ignorance is NOT bliss.)

    ***

    Ramesh Prabhu

    Rant No. 44: It's not "an" university. It's not "a" orange.
    
    And it's not "an" Eurostar train, as has been published in ToI today (Page 2, caption).

    January 25 at 10:34am

     
  • Divya Bhandarkar, Pooja Garg Singh and 2 others like this.

     
  • 

    Shiv Sujir It could be 'a' honest mistake sir ;)

    January 25 at 10:38am

     
  • 

    Nandini Hegde they need a phonetics class!

    January 25 at 2:16pm

    
    
  • 

    Ayushman Baruah ‎@Ramesh: I knew about this and also follow it myself but I am not clear about the explanation. Can you help?

    January 25 at 6:11pm

    
    
  • 

    Shiv Sujir The usage of 'a' and 'an' depends on the vowel sound at the beginning of the word and not on the vowel itself.

    January 25 at 7:47pm

    
    
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu

    Ayushman: Shiv has got it.
    
    For example, "unscrupulous" would take "an". "He is an unscrupulous man."
    
    But "university" would take "a" because, phonetically, "university" begins with a "you" sound.

    
    For more details (and additional clarity), go to http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/591/1/.

    January 25 at 8:19pm

    
    

    ***

    Ramesh Prabhu

    Rant No. 45: Why don't we know the difference between the modifier "everyday" and the phrase "every day"?
    
    Headline in DNA's After Hrs supplement yesterday: "I am a proud Indian everyday". Wrong. That should read: "I am a proud Indian every day".
    
    CORRECT: I go to college every day.

    CORRECT: Going to college is an everyday affair.

    January 27 at 10:34am

     
  • Divya Bhandarkar, Shweta Rajan and Ayushman Baruah like this.

     
  • 

    Ayushman Baruah How about every one vs everyone and no one vs noone?

    January 27 at 1:12pm

    
    
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu Ayushman: "Use 'everyone' for people when you are talking about all of them ('Hello, everyone!'). Use 'every one' when you are talking about the collection of each individual person or thing (I bought a package of potato chips and every one was broken')." -- From http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic34853.html

    January 27 at 1:22pm

     
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu ‎"No one" is always two words now, though when I first became a journalist in 1981, the Mid Day reporters used to write it as "no-one".

    January 27 at 1:24pm

    
    
  • 

    Ayushman Baruah Thanks sir.

    January 27 at 1:24pm

    
    
  • 

    Ramesh Prabhu

    Additional notes:
    
    The one-word modifier everyday and the two-word phrase every day are not interchangeable (despite store ads that say, "Lowest prices everyday" – incorrect).
    
    Everyday (one word) is an adjective meaning "encountered or used typically or routinely; a synonym is ordinary.
    
    Every day (two words) literally has the same meaning as "each day."
    
    A simple way to test which is appropriate is to substitute "each day" in place of "every day / everyday." If "each day" works, we want to use every day (two words); if "each day" does not work, we want everyday. For example, "We have low prices every day" = "We have low prices each day"; therefore, every day is correct – and everyday is incorrect. On the other hand, since we may not correctly rephrase "This is an everyday event" as "This is an each day event," the one-word adjective everyday is correct. (From the net.)

    January 28 at 10:52am

     
  • 

    Ayesha Tabassum Ramesh Sir... I don't know how to thank you enough... I too have corrected so many people every day... ;)

    January 28 at 3:11pm