Sunday, September 30, 2007

Full proof technique and full scape paper

We have been working hard to come out with a full proof technique to check the oil spill.
I was wondering what the usage full proof means. Why do many people use it this way instead of the correct foolproof? Probably there is an impression that people go for fully proof technique without really understanding the meaning.

A technique or technology or a machine can be foolproof and not full proof.
Fool proof is proof against human misuse or error or impervious to human incompetence.
Example: a foolproof detonator, a foolproof safety lock, a foolproof scheme.
This is just as in bullet proof vehicle which means the vehicle is proof against bullets.
We can also use this word as a verb.
Example: Foolproof this appliance.

Similar is the usage “Full scape paper
I fail to understand the source of such a usage.
Many refer to writing paper which is a little longer than A4 sheet as full scape.
It is better if this is corrected as foolscap.
A foolscap paper is a full sheet of 13.5 in × 17 inches (342.9 mm × 431.8 mm).
The reason of such usage may be that this size is enough to make a clown’s (fool’s) cap.
Better we go with foolscap paper and foolproof techniques.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

If I would have left early, I would have ……..

You must be wondering what the sentence is all about.
What could the sentence “If I would have left early, I would have reached the party in time” mean?
The meaning is clear, I believe.
A situation which did not really happen or a condition which would have been better if happened is expressed here.
But the meaning alone does not make the sentence correct.
We understand the meaning quite clearly when someone says “I does not know” though we realize, it is wrong to say so.
The usage we are talking about is quite useful in our language and we use it often.
They are conditional clauses and it is improper to repeat “would have” in the same sentence. It can be expressed either by using the connecting conjunction “if” or without that.
So, the sentence needs to be corrected as:
Had I left early, I would have reached the party.
Or
If I had left early, I would have reached the party.

Let us look at another example:

Had I not seen with my own eyes, I would not have believed it.
Or
If I had not seen with my own eyes, I would not have believed it.

I would love to have the readers’ feed back on this.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

I have read that book yesterday

Is there anything wrong in this sentence?
This is a simple sentence and tense used is present perfect.
In fact, I asked a few of my friends who are fairly good in English conversation and writing. They found nothing wrong in the usage.
But there’s something wrong here.
While using present perfect tense (have read), the sentence could be
I have already read that book or
I have read that book
It can never be “I have read that book yesterday.”
The past time adverb (yesterday, last week etc.) cannot be placed along with present perfect tense.
If the time needs to be specified, past simple is the option.
Example:
I read that book yesterday.
I met him last week.
I have already seen him. (I have seen him last week –incorrect)
We haven’t seen Tom for a long time - Correct (for a long time is not a past time adverb)
Past simple and present perfect are two different ways in English to talk about an event in the past.
The past simple suggests “then” or “at that time”.
The present perfect suggests “up to now” or “before now”
Hope these two usages are clear.

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Does @ mean at the rate of?

We have heard many people reading out the email address. aksharrif@yahoo.com is read as akshariff at the rate of yahoo.com.
It is very peculiar to expand the symbol@ as at the rate of.
We hear this mainly in this part of the world.
@ needs to be read as at. It is meaningful because the unique email id akshariff is located at the server yahoo.com
Remember one thing: @ symbol IS NOT exclusively for email addresses. Long time before all of us were born, in fact, even way before our fathers started having wet dreams, the @ symbol was used in commerce and yes, it already meant "at" back 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)

A clarification was sought when an author wrote in his research paper that silkworms were fed with mulberry leaves @ 15 kg per 400 worms whether @ meant at or something else.
Globally, @ is read as at, not at the rate of.
Let us follow this.