Search THE READING ROOM

Sunday, February 27, 2011

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

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 
    • 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

      ***
      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: "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 today (Page 2, caption).
      January 25 at 10:34am
       
    • 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

      ***
      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
       
    • 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

(9) Facebook rants to make you think about bad English vs good English (36-40)

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"
January 12 at 11:45am 
  • Shweta Rajan and Tania Sarkar like this.

    • Ramesh Prabhu
      Ankana Chakraborty commented on Gmail Buzz:  "Post" does mean after. So why is "post a discussion" wrong?

      My response: Because it is a prefix and not a standalone word.

      From http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/using-prefix-post
       
      Post: a prefix meaning after or later than

      Here are five examples of prefixes using "post":

      1. Postpone (verb): "She decided to postpone her vacation until next year."
      2. Posthumous (adjective): "This is a posthumous album by Michael Jackson."
      3. Postnatal (adjective): "There's a good system of postnatal care for mothers in my country."
      4. Postdate (verb): "I'll postdate this cheque until the end of the month when I get paid."
      5. Postmortem (noun): "They had a postmortem to find out how the man was killed.

      *

      My guess is that the IT industry, which has turned the adjective "corporate" into a noun "corporates" is to blame for turning a prefix into a standalone word.

      January 12 at 3:59pm
       

    • Ramesh Prabhu Would you say "pre a discussion"?
      January 12 at 3:59pm · 

    • Shruthi Shiva Who says that?
      January 12 at 6:13pm
       

    • Ramesh Prabhu Shruthi: The same people who say "post a discussion", I guess. :-)
      January 12 at 7:50pm

      ***
      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 yesterday's Sunday Times 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...."
      January 17 at 10:27am

        • Sudhir Prabhu Thanks again. Didn't know the difference between the two. :)
          January 17 at 10:28am
           

        • Ramesh Prabhu
          Sudhir: "Maybe" is an adverb meaning "perhaps."

          "May be" is a verb phrase showing possibility.

          Examples:
          I heard that our instructor may be absent today. Maybe class will be cancelled.

          January 17 at 10:30am


        • Ayushman Baruah Excellent insight...this is why I still like to have my final clarifications from you...
          January 17 at 11:06am


        • Tania Sarkar Thank you, sir... I had been looking up the net for this but was not getting anything as clearly explained as this. :)
          January 17 at 11:27am
           

        • Raka Mazumdar Thanks sir.I was getting a little confused over the usage.
          January 17 at 12:03pm


        • Varun Chhabria You taught me the difference a month back. :P
          January 17 at 7:21pm
           

        • Pratibha Chandran This is like Bhaskar Menon's analysis which used to come in PTI.
          January 23 at 9:43pm

          ***
          Rant No. 39: Why don't we know that the @ symbol in email addresses is pronounced "at" and not "at the rate of"?
          January 18 at 11:07am

        • Sudhir Prabhu I wonder how this one started.
          January 18 at 11:17am


        • Vibha Ghai I second that ... gets my goat every time someone says that!
          January 18 at 11:39am


        • Tania Sarkar I knew, sir! :)
          January 18 at 12:12pm  

        • Ramesh Prabhu
          Sudhir: Here's a definition from Yahoo Answers, from somebody whose handle is "Irish (something)":

          *******

          The @ symbol IS NOT exclusively for email addresses. Long time ago the @ symbol was used in commerce and, yes, it already meant "at" ba...ck then.

          It was used to give the price of goods in relation to the quantity of that particular good. For example:

          1 Washer Machine @ $53.00 ea. = $53.00
          (one washer machine at $53.00 each)

          3 Hamburgers @ 5¢ = 15¢
          (three burgers at five cents each)

          4 oranges @ 3¢ each = 12¢
          (four oranges at three cents each)

          Please notice that I am using prices of your prepubescent grandparents' era which is when the @ symbol was more widely used.

          *******

          I think when we were taught this symbol in school, we were told to pronounce it as "at the rate of" in the context given above. And that seems to have stuck in today's email era.

          January 18 at 1:28pm


        • Amrita Dey I KNEW IT!!! :)

          January 18 at 1:38pm


        • Sudha Aries i knew...i knew it!
          January 18 at 5:36pm


        • Princess Sudipta Paul thank god ... i knew atleast this one :)
          January 18 at 10:04pm


        • Ramesh Prabhu ‎"at least", not "atleast", Princess.
          January 19 at 10:30am
           

        • Anagha Gunjal Sir: I can never go wrong with "at least" for the rest of my life.
          January 19 at 8:38pm
           

        • Shaonli Dutta I know this Sir!
          January 19 at 10:30pm


        • Pratibha Chandran This will help everyone
          January 23 at 9:41pm
          ***
          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."
          January 19 at 10:40am

        • Ramesh Prabhu UNACCEPTABLE: "Raddi-wala's were enlisted to help...." (Article in Time Out Bengaluru, Dec. 24-Jan. 6)
          ACCEPTABLE: "Raddi-walas were enlisted to help...."

          January 19 at 10:40am


        • Anagha Gunjal
          thank you so much for this one, sir. i am tired of correcting people's plurals and apostrophes. i hope people start getting hints that they need to improve their English at least by reading your rants.

          i am losing friends by correcting their grammar. they have begun to resent me. hehe

          January 19 at 11:15am

        • Bala Murali Krishna This is a biggie. There are so many subs who can never get it right.
          January 19 at 11:32am


        • Anagha Gunjal Bala: really? i am surprised.
          January 19 at 11:34am


        • Bala Murali Krishna Many subs are a lot worse than they get credit for. By the same token, there are great subs who get far less credit than they deserve.
          January 19 at 11:36am
           

        • Nandini Hegde ‎@ anagha: I've the same problem! I keep correcting spellings and grammar! They get annoyed so I just write 'Ted Mosby:' and then correct them! :P
          January 19 at 11:47am
           

        • Ayushman Baruah This is quite an obvious one but ya I guess some do make such mistakes.
          January 19 at 11:57am


        • Anagha Gunjal
          Bala: I am sure the sub is sometimes over-occupied and pressed with deadlines and a few spelling mistakes can be understood by the readers. But getting the basic grammar wrong (something which I can figure out) is something unacceptable which I have learnt from RP Sir.

          Nandini: seriously? haha

          January 19 at 11:59am
           

        • Neil Ima Today I saw someone write CD's for CDs.
          January 19 at 6:21pm


        • Anagha Gunjal Neil: did you correct that person?
          January 19 at 8:39pm


        • Bala Murali Krishna CD's vs. CDs is, I suspect, a style thing with at least some newspapers. I think NYT's style would be CD's, not the simple plural form.
          January 20 at 11:25am


        • Ramesh Prabhu Bala: NYT uses CDs

          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/arts/music/11choice.html

          (see headline)

          January 20 at 2:03pm


        • Bala Murali Krishna thanks Ramesh for checking it out. NYT style varies from AP in many things.
          January 20 at 4:12pm


        • Bala Murali Krishna On this topic, some of you not already familiar with this NYT blog might want to check it out: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/after-deadline/
          January 20 at 4:19pm
           

        • Bala Murali Krishna Ramesh, NYT is inconsistent with its own style. Look at CD's in this headline:
          Pennies That Add Up to $16.98: Why CD's Cost So Much
          http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/05/arts/pennies-that-add-up-to-16.98-why-cd-s-cost-so-much.html

          January 21 at 12:21pm
           

        • Ramesh Prabhu
          Bala: "CD's" was how the NYT used to spell it, but things have changed. Your example is from 1995, mine from this year.

          Here is an explanation, written in 2007, from the NYT's then director of copy desks, Merrill Perlman:

          As to the question ... of why we put apostrophes in decades (the 1960's) and in the plural of some all-capitalized initialisms (DVD’s), the answer is we don't anymore. Phil Corbett, the deputy news editor who is in charge of the stylebook, eliminated those anachronisms last October, with this comment:

          Our main reason for using the apostrophe had been to avoid confusion in all-cap heds, but with those heds long since eliminated everywhere but Page One, that rationale is no longer compelling. And the apostrophe annoyed many readers, who thought we were mistakenly using a possessive form instead of a plural.

          (To read the complete "Talk to the Newsroom" column, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/business/media/19asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all)
           

          January 21 at 1:07pm
           

        • Bala Murali Krishna thanks, Ramesh. NYT always has a proper explanation for these things and I am glad it wasn't any inconsistency.
          January 21 at 1:38pm