Live argument on ‘prepone’

In one of my earlier posts “Can we prepone a meeting” I suggested the usage ‘advance’ in place of ‘prepone’ since there is no such word in English. One of the readers argued against this.

With all respect to the reader I stand my ground. The general argument is that why this word can’t be added to English. It can be added but still I will be using the correct word ‘advance’ because English is not only for locals whom we converse with. I understand that this word is originated from India. When put it across to a native English speaker you can see the baffling look on his face.

It is not appropriate to compare ‘prepone’ with the word ‘googled’. Google is a relatively new phenomenon and a word is now derived by a section to express ‘searching something on google’. English is not starved for a word to ‘bring something forward’. We have the right word ‘advance’ for this.

The word ‘prepone’ originated from sheer ignorance.

I also read an argument in another blog why not ‘prepone’ if we can use prefix, prerequisite, prepaid, pre KG, preposition and preproduction.

Here as well, there is a clear difference. In each of those words, ‘pre’ is added to an existing meaningful word as a prefix.

‘Prepone’ could have been a meaningful word which would position itself as an antonym to postpone if we had a meaningful word ‘pone’ which would probably mean ‘to hold’ ‘to condut’ or ‘to organize’. Unfortunately, ‘postpone’ is a single word which is not derived by suffixing post to ‘pone’. Thus prepone cannot be its opposite number.

When we use English, why not we try to use it correctly so that the native English speakers won’t be baffled?

A little and a few

1. He has little chance of getting the train.
2. There is little water in the pot.
3. Few people attended the meeting.

What do we understand from these statements?
Many of us wrongly understand the usage of “little” and “few”.
We feel that:
(1) He has a chance of getting the train if he goes fast.
(2)You can get some water in the pot.
(3) Some people attended the meeting.
But these are incorrect. The first sentence means:
He does not have a chance to get the train
The second one means
There is no water in the pot.
The third one means
Nobody attended the meeting.

To get the meaning what we presume, we must say “a little” and “a few”.
Little and few when put alone give us negative meaning.

The little, very little, the few, very few etc. also are used for positive meaning depending on the situation.

Look at the following worked-out sentences to get it clear:


1. A little learning is a dangerous thing.
2. I've had a few drinks but I'm not drunk.
3. You won't change her mind so there is little use in trying (No use).
4. Michael Cane was born in South London, not the East End. Few people know that (Nobody knows).
5. I need a little help. I'm a bit stuck.
6. There weren't many people there. Just a few
7. Will you have a few strawberries? They're very good.
8. Will you have a little more ice-cream? We might as well finish it.
9. There's little point in continuing. We're all too tired (No point).
10. Could you spare me a few minutes?
11. I don't know if we can fit the cupboard into our house. There's little space as it is (No space).
12. All this kitten needs is a little love and attention.
13. There's little I can do about this. It's outside my control (Nothing).
14. Martin is a good student. He has few problems with English (No problems).
15. Generally Peter is good but sometimes he has a few problems.
16. I need to borrow a few dollars. Can you help me out?
17. We made good time because there was little traffic on the road so early in the morning (No traffic).
18. I think Coventry will win the match but few people agree with me (No one).
19. I can only speak a few words of Chinese.
20. I'm going to give you a little advice. Study harder!

Untenable double standards

Look at the statements below:
The experiment was conducted during three seasons viz., summer, rainy and winter.
Mr. Smith was allowed to use the living space, table, chair etc.
He reported to his office, i.e., Meteorological station.
It was a discovery by Darwin et al.
He is overtly superstitious. E.g., he doesn’t see towards west in first 10 minutes after getting up in the morning.

There is an interesting point to note in the above statements. If some one wants to read these sentences, many would read:
viz. as namely
etc. as et cetera,
i.e., as that is,
et al as et al,
e.g, as example or at the most for example.

Why is this double standard? Some expressions are read as written while some others are read in altogether different way probably their meanings
Can we write a word and read it in a different way?
Let us examine.
1. When viz is written why do some of us read it as namely? Of course, this abbreviation means namely. But viz. stands for videlicet and it means namely. It is better we read it videlicet.
2. Etc. stands for et cetera and it means and so on, and so forth, and that, and all that, and the like and and the rest. We read it as et cetera.
3. i.e. stands for id est and it means that is. (id = that; est= is). Better we read it as id est.
4. et al means and others or and the rest. We read it as et al.
5. E.g., is usually mis-read as example or for example. E.g actually stands for exempli gratia and it means for example.

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.