Team-BHP
(
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilt
(Post 5804587)
A rebuttal to this (one I do not subscribe to) could be that "upgradation" is the process (or the actual action) of upgrading ;)
|
In over 15 years of working with computers, and having been involved in many an upgrade, I must have spoken of the process in just about every possible grammatical form. I never heard of, let alone used, the word
upgradation. It is a completely unnecessary word
Quote:
Originally Posted by am1m
(Post 5804638)
I actually change/correct this particular usage a lot in the kind of work I do! So as of today, I'll agree with you.
|
This addition of syllables is, in my humble opinion (IMHO) the result of, first, not being aware that they are unnecessary and, second, thinking the result
looks fancier.
Quote:
But again, the word 'upgrade' itself has some origin. One online reference says it's 1873 as a noun, 1901 as a verb. So, its usage has evolved too.
|
I actually find it hard to imagine what it might have meant to me before my computing lifetime began. I probably didn't use it much.
Quote:
I'm not making a case for lazy writing, I'm just saying that our version of 'correct' English (or any language) is based on simply what we were taught was correct at that time, or what we got used to. (And that's a bit like 'my generation had the best music' :))
|
It's a good point. In fact, I even make a point of using an
old dictionary!
I hope you all find that
underwhelming! ;)
Yes, language changes, and sometimes in good ways. Dickens's English is not my English. I spent a few pages of a book wondering why a guy would go out
marketing, before realising that it must have been the US English for shopping!
Over-speeding is a word that is quite often mentioned on the forum, while the correct one is
speeding.
Speeding means driving faster than allowed in a particular area. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom
(Post 5804968)
*SNIP* This addition of syllables is, in my humble opinion (IMHO) the result of, first, not being aware that they are unnecessary and, second, thinking the result looks fancier. *SNIP*
|
"Preventative", anyone? Or "orientated"?
Cheers
hahaha... one of the oldest is probably flammable and inflammable.
And why is there no unflammable? Wait, internet says there is. Internet says there is both unflammable and uninflammable. :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom
(Post 5805391)
hahaha... one of the oldest is probably flammable and inflammable.
And why is there no unflammable? Wait, internet says there is. Internet says there is both unflammable and uninflammable. :confused:
|
Er... inflamable. one m for this but two for flammable.
Cheers
Quote:
that truck was an uncontrolled cannon.
|
Loose cannon is the correct idiom.
Next, let us consider the word
damaged, as one might after encountering a loose cannon. Something cannot be
completely damaged: it would be
destroyed. Partly damaged is also not right: just say
damaged!
I think these mistakes are now embedded, at least in Indian English, so we have to put up with them, but that does not mean that we have to make them! rl:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom
(Post 5813019)
*SNIP* Something cannot be completely damaged: it would be destroyed. Partly damaged is also not right: just say damaged!*SNIP*
|
Same as being "slightly dead" and "very dead" eh ;)
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilt
(Post 5813504)
"slightly dead" and "very dead" eh ;)
|
More like opposite? Something
can be slightly damaged or badly damaged,
Reminds me of a very old tale. The parents interrogating the teenager:
"Are you pregnant?"
"Only a bit..."
Deccan Herald uses an archaic idiom
much of a muchness in a writeup.
Has it been used correctly?
Can't say that I have heard it in India, but otherwise I would not say that it is archaic.
I think what the reporter really meant is not much to speak about. Much of a muchness is more like more of the same.
Looking for some expert advise on the usage of the word 'circa'. I have seen this mainly being used to indicate approximate timeline - 'circa 800 AD' for example.
I see some people using this at work for giving approximations around efforts (e.g. circa 1200 man days) or costs (circa 150,000 USD). Is this correct usage of 'circa'?
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodie09
(Post 5887557)
the usage of the word 'circa'.
|
More often used with years or periods, but it is not wrong, as such, to use it for other approximations.
Rather than look in my dictionary, I tried
Fowler's English Usage (you can find a free pdf on the internet, which, as the title suggests, is about
usage rather than definitions. It had nothing to say about this. Next I tried
Hart's Rules (the editors'/typesetters' bible, also available free) and it says...
Quote:
The Latin circa, meaning 'about', is used in English mainly with dates
and quantities. Set the abbreviation c. close up to anyfiguresfollowing
(c.£10,400), but spaced from words and letters (c. AD 44). In discursive
prose it is usually preferable to use about or some when describing
quantities other than dates (about eleven pints, some 14 acres) ...
|
I'd suggest keeping it to dates.
Above all, I'd suggest
sticking to simple English. Use about, around, approximately, etc, rather than
circa. Although it seems to be well adopted in Indian English, I'd say the same about
post. Say
"after lunch!"
my "tldr:" Stick to simple English, rather than using Latin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom
(Post 5887708)
I'd suggest keeping it to dates.
Above all, I'd suggest sticking to simple English. Use about, around, approximately, etc, rather than circa. Although it seems to be well adopted in Indian English, I'd say the same about post. Say "after lunch!"
my "tldr:" Stick to simple English, rather than using Latin.
|
Completely agree with you sir. I personally prefer simple English, specially when at work as the prime objective is to get the message across. Simple English helps there. I have never used 'circa' at work but observed the usage in workplace by few, and hence the question I posted. Thanks for the insightful response.
The regulars on this thread will enjoy this:
https://youtu.be/zEaqySLiAck
In the comments section, I found a new term to describe grammar nazies, the Alt-Write!
Getting it rong is the new write.
Language does not evolve, it degrades.
| All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 01:40. | |
