Team-BHP - A YetiGuide® : How To Post In Proper English

Quote:

Originally Posted by arunphilip (Post 4470033)

Doubly frustrating when - during my childhood - we were referred to both these sources as a means of improving our language skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dailydriver (Post 4470045)

I do not think Thad actually meant that. It could have been more of a sarcastic rather than a serious statement. But I am on a loose footing here :D. ... ... ...

Certainly I mean it, and I am sad and frustrated also at what has happened to both institutions.

Maybe a decade ago, I recall suggesting to a young student whose education costs I was helping out with, that she should read The Hindu on a regular basis, for news (although certain biases might be admitted, as with most newspapers) and for English language. Now I would not do so. The only thing I can say about its use of English is that it is not as bad as my other daily, The New Indian Express.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom (Post 4470101)

The only thing I can say about its use of English is that it is not as bad as my other daily, The New Indian Express.

When I was in Kolkata during the early 2000s I found the language of The Statesman pretty good. I wonder whether they have maintained their standard or have succumbed to market/TOI forces

In the case of the BBC, I think that the change has been intentional, under the heading of dumbing down. On top which, budgets have been cut, local reporters are no longer out in the field, and quoting Twitter has displaced proper journalism. In the case of The Hindu, I think that it still fancies itself as a serious newspaper, but it has lost a generation of skilled writers, editors and subeditors. It's fault lay in not replacing them with similarly skilled people (perhaps they can't find any) or having them train their successors.

Of the two, I despise the BBC's path the most. Perhaps, of course, that is because it is a deeper part of my heritage, indeed, it was a very real part of my education.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom (Post 4470183)

In the case of the BBC, I think that the change has been intentional, under the heading of dumbing down. On top which, budgets have been cut, local reporters are no longer out in the field, and quoting Twitter has displaced proper journalism. In the case of The Hindu, I think that it still fancies itself as a serious newspaper, but it has lost a generation of skilled writers, editors and subeditors. It's fault lay in not replacing them with similarly skilled people (perhaps they can't find any) or having them train their successors.
Of the two, I despise the BBC's path the most. Perhaps, of course, that is because it is a deeper part of my heritage, indeed, it was a very real part of my education.

I tend to agree with you, Thad - that, probably, the manpower pool with necessary skills has begun to run dry. People - most of the under-40's - nowadays rarely read hard copies. They prefer condensed, compressed information where typos are routinely overlooked and where graceful grammar and prose have taken the back seat. A long time ago, it seems to me!
And this has happened in all sectors of the print media, like an epidemic. Otherwise we would not have had this thread!

English does not have to be formal, it can be colloquial. That doesn't mean that it has to be bad, or that idioms can be ignored and words misused which results in them becoming redefined by usage with the wrong meanings.

The generations that made The Hindu what it was were influenced by British English, and perhaps by the BBC itself (the social and political aspects of which would certainly be outside the scope of this forum), rather than by Twitter and American marketing-speak.

Heyho... The world changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AltoLXI (Post 4476673)

floccinaucinihilipilification - 'the action or habit of estimating something as worthless'
hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - 'a fear of long words'

Would it be safe to conclude that Mr. Tharoor's occasional attempts at inducing hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia are nothing short of floccinaucinihilipilification?

I am sure that he will one day dig up a single word that would exhaust his tweet limit (280 characters).

Quote:

Originally Posted by arunphilip (Post 4476741)

Oops

Long before English words were getting Tharoored, we had, on the forum, converted an apparent noun into a verb and a process.

Why am I referring to that now?

Because you are hereby cross-condored for reposting something that was already available at post #10053 of the :

:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dailydriver (Post 4476825)

Because you are hereby cross-condored for reposting something that was already available at post #10053 of the :

Good catch, but I intentionally cross-posted this from the jokes thread in here, as it felt appropriate for the turn the discussion had recently taken. :) If you see the link on the image in my post, it takes you to the original post from the jokes thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dailydriver (Post 4476830)

Thanks for pointing that out. I never knew one could place a link by way of an image too. Baby steps; one at a time.

No worries, that's where we all start. Just select the [IMG]…[/IMG] tag in its entirety, and then click the hyperlink button.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arunphilip (Post 4476826)

If you see the link on the image in my post, it takes you to the original post from the jokes thread.

Thanks for pointing that out. I never knew one could place a link by way of an image too.

Baby steps; one at a time stupid:.

Reaching Nowhere?

Hindu Headline: Effort to blah blah blah reaches nowhere.

Or something like that. The trouble with these things (writers please note) is that one remembers the mistake, not the content . You cannot reach nowhere! But it is all too easy to get nowhere!

Is it the American "Few?"

Few drivers care about safety. Ah, how true! Not many at all!

There are a few drivers that care about safety. Well, good: that's a start!

I'm really confused by how people are using the word "few," particularly on this site. I think that when they say few, they mean several, but not a lot, which is the the meaning of a few.

I think it might be the fault of the Americans. I had a long, long argument with an American (actually, an elderly Tambram America!) once on the use of "few." He thought it could even mean none. :Frustrati

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom (Post 4480853)

Reaching Nowhere?

I think it might be the fault of the Americans. I had a long, long argument with an American (actually, an elderly Tambram America!) once on the use of "few." He thought it could even mean none. :Frustrati

It surprises me. We were taught that few, when used without the preceding article 'a', meant "very few" or "none at all". On the other hand, a few is used to indicate "n some or not a large quantity".

I was taught by an Englishman and not an American.

Few people read books these days.
Few=Almost no one

A few people still read books.
A few=Some

There is little water left in the tank.
Little=Almost none

There is a little water left in the tank.
A little=Some

No American or English english teachers for me. Self taught; with a little push from my Keralite English teachers at school :D.