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.

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.

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.

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.

The antenna of cockroach is longer than silk moth

Today let us examine the error of comparison.
Someone who knows English well or a native English speaking student will never say “The antenna of cockroach is longer than silk moth.”
Don’t you find anything funny in this? There is a big error in this sentence. The error is due to wrong comparison. The speaker wanted to compare the antenna of cockroach with the antenna of silk moth but compared the antenna of the cockroach with the silk moth.
I see a lot of similar comparisons in research papers and essays.
The sentence needs a correction. “The antenna of cockroach is longer than that of silk moth.”
The idea is clear, the meaning is clear and the sentence is grammatically correct.
When we try comparisons, we must bear the following in mind:
1. The comparison must sound right.
2. We can compare only things that are logically correct.
3. We can compare only things that are grammatically correct.

Look at the following sentences:
"The population of Tokyo is more than Seoul."
This may look alright. Read and reread, you can spot the error.
The population of Tokyo is more than that of Seoul. The comparison is between the populations of two cities.
The roads of new Delhi is better than Bangalore – incorrect.
In this sentence the roads of New Delhi is compared with Bangalore and not with the roads of Bangalore.
It must be rewritten as “The roads of new Delhi is better than that of Bangalore”
“William’s story is much better than Stuart” must be corrected as “William’s story is much better than Stuart’s”

Next time, when you venture a comparison, check whether you did it right.

I request you kindly to look into …

An officer enters the Director’s room.
Before the officer could wish the director,
The Director: How do you do
The officer: I am fine, thank you sir.
Dir: Have you finished the weighment?
Off: Yes sir. Sir, I request you kindly to look into my leave application.
Dir: Sure, in a day or two.

This is a brief but funny dialogue.
We can spot three most common and ubiquitous errors in this dialogue.
1. When someone look at us and say “hello, how do you do”, the spontaneous answer is “I am fine, how about you?” as done by the officer to the Director.
This is really a pity.
“How do you do” is not a sentence equivalent to “How are you?”
This is only a greeting just like “good morning”.
So, when somebody says “how do you do” we must reciprocate by saying “how do you do” not “I am fine”.
2.Have you finished the weighment?
What is this weighment? You don’t see this word anywhere but still people use it.
“Have you finished taking weight?” would be a better usage.
3.I request you kindly to look into
What a big difference a misplaced to can make. The officer needs to understand who he expects to be kind.
If the Director needs to be kind he should say/write, “I request you to kindly” Otherwise, the officer will become kind to the Director.
God’s grace, the dialogue ended quickly.

An unique user and a honest boy

A American gave an unique pen and a umbrella to an European who was studying in an University.
A hour later, he gave it to a honest friend.
Are you not feeling uncomfortable? You are bound to but many do not.
It is natural to feel uncomfortable because the articles a and an are mindlessly placed.
Some of us are not sure where to use or not to use a and an.
A and an are indefinite articles and they signal that the noun modified is indefinite, referring to any member of a group.
I will discuss the use of articles in detail in one of the future posts.
Here, the intention is only the removal of doubts on using a and an.
The title of a book I recently saw was “An useful compendium……..”
This resulted from a blind learning that the article used must be an when the next noun/adjective begins with a vowel.
It is wrong to follow this blindly.
This following guideline will be a more reliable one to follow.
1.a + singular noun beginning with a consonant:
Examples: a boy; a car; a bike; a zoo; a dog
2.an + singular noun beginning with a vowel:
Examples: an elephant; an egg; an apple; an idiot; an orphan
3.a + singular noun beginning with a vowel but consonant sound:
Examples: a user (sounds like 'yoo-zer,' i.e. begins with a consonant 'y' sound although started with a vowel u, so 'a' is used); a university; a unique idea, a European player.
4.an + singular noun beginning with a consonant but vowel sound:
Examples: an honest boy (sounds like onest,' i.e. begins with a vowel 'o' sound although started with a consonant h, so 'an' is used), an hour.
So, the choice of articles a or an is decided by the sound of the succeeding noun/adjective rather than based on whether the first alphabet is a vowel or a consonant.
Let us rewrite the introductory sentences now.
An American gave a unique pen and an umbrella to a European who was studying in a University.
An hour later, he gave it to an honest friend.