ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 14 (29.10.06)
Collective Nouns and Uncountable Nouns
In their discussion of nouns, the master teachers claim that ‘collectives like “equipment” and “furniture” shouldn’t take the plural verb (sic) because they don’t disagree with each other!’.
The experts have got it wrong: equipment and furniture are uncountable nouns, not collective nouns. There is an elementary distinction between the two. (Erroneous examples below are marked *.)
Collective nouns are countable (they have plural forms), and refer to a group of people or things. The examples cited in EaiiB 14 are management, public and jury. Other common ones include family, staff, crew, team, group, community, aristocracy and navy. Some of these are common in the plural (e.g., families, communities), others less so. It is worth noting that, when referring to individuals in these groups, we have to paraphrase: three members of staff; seven crew members (not *three staffs; *seven crews). However, we may use collective nouns in the plural when referring to different sets thereof: the staffs of the White House and Downing Street; cabin and ground crews.
Uncountable nouns (also called mass nouns), by contrast, are generally singular. Common examples include equipment, furniture, luggage, metal, medicine, information, work, cheese and fruit. Some are never plural (*equipments, *furnitures), while others may be used like countable nouns, although they take on different meanings: two exceptional cheeses (two varieties thereof); three works by Schubert (but looking for work).
In EaiiB 5 (27.8.06), the master teachers misunderstood the difference between youth and youths, claiming that the plural is now acceptable in examples such as *the nation’s youths. In the uncountable sense, youth is singular but has an inherently plural meaning, such that it allows either a plural or a singular verb: The youth of Singapore is/are optimistic about the future. The countable use, however, has the specific, very different meaning of ‘young man/men (typically involved in criminal activity)’ and may be either singular or plural, e.g., a hooded youth; a gang of youths.
Parallelism
The master teachers, as already quoted above, wrote: ‘collectives like “equipment” and “furniture” shouldn’t take the plural verb (sic) because they don’t disagree with each other!’.
Since the subject of the sentence is plural — collectives like ‘equipment’ and ‘furniture’ — it should take a corresponding plural object. Make it ‘take plural verbs’.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 13 (22.10.06)
This week’s instalment, like the last, was something of a waste of column-inches, as it said astonishingly little. Perhaps the master teachers are getting a little stale (and the current smoky conditions aren’t helping)?
Prepositions
The discussion material — a notice with several awkward errors which read, ‘Please return all the equipment in its original locations after used’ — was an excellent choice since several issues were raised, for instance, the mismatch between the uncountable equipment, singular its and plural locations.
American vs British
In EaiiB 12, we were promised that ‘Next week, we will look at words which may actually be used differently in [Britain and America] and in Singapore’. After waiting a week, however, all we got could have been condensed into:
‘Gas and elevator are American, whereas petrol and lift are British. And while pants means “trousers” to Americans and Singaporeans, to the British it refers primarily to underwear.’
No doubt the reader would have enjoyed the story of the Singaporean undergraduate in Britain unwittingly announcing that she had left her underwear at her friend’s, but it does seem rather a waste to spend half the column saying little more than the above. To give EaiiB’s readers greater value, this section could have contained a list of American and British word-pairs — better still, the reader could have been challenged to guess which words were British and which American, with answers provided at the bottom of the page. The paucity of examples given in these past two instalments is surprising, considering that there are countless books, dictionaries and websites on the differences between American English and British English.
Period and Full-Stop
Also known as full-point.
This week’s instalment, like the last, was something of a waste of column-inches, as it said astonishingly little. Perhaps the master teachers are getting a little stale (and the current smoky conditions aren’t helping)?
Prepositions
The discussion material — a notice with several awkward errors which read, ‘Please return all the equipment in its original locations after used’ — was an excellent choice since several issues were raised, for instance, the mismatch between the uncountable equipment, singular its and plural locations.
American vs British
In EaiiB 12, we were promised that ‘Next week, we will look at words which may actually be used differently in [Britain and America] and in Singapore’. After waiting a week, however, all we got could have been condensed into:
‘Gas and elevator are American, whereas petrol and lift are British. And while pants means “trousers” to Americans and Singaporeans, to the British it refers primarily to underwear.’
No doubt the reader would have enjoyed the story of the Singaporean undergraduate in Britain unwittingly announcing that she had left her underwear at her friend’s, but it does seem rather a waste to spend half the column saying little more than the above. To give EaiiB’s readers greater value, this section could have contained a list of American and British word-pairs — better still, the reader could have been challenged to guess which words were British and which American, with answers provided at the bottom of the page. The paucity of examples given in these past two instalments is surprising, considering that there are countless books, dictionaries and websites on the differences between American English and British English.
Period and Full-Stop
Also known as full-point.
Monday, October 23, 2006
AN ASIDE
Foreign Names in Singapore: A Pedant’s View
(A shorter version of this post was published in TODAY, 27.10.06)
How should VivoCity be pronounced? According to the megamall’s press office, it is ‘VeevoCity’, presumably because vivo is Italian. However, this is a somewhat awkward Anglo-Italian hybrid that begs to be completely anglicized: ‘Viv-oCity’ or ‘Vie-voCity’ are much kinder on the ears.
Incidentally, vivo in Italian means ‘alive’, among other things. (It can also mean ‘I live’, from the infinitive vivere.) Since adjectives in Italian agree in gender with nouns, and city is feminine (la città), the name should more accurately be VivaCity — which ends up as a rather nice play on vivacity. Similarly, we have viva voce because la voce (‘voice’) is feminine. (Admittedly, though, all this is splitting hairs!)
We are reliably informed that a Zara salesgirl, like many Singaporeans, prefers to say ‘BeeboSeetee’. (Perhaps she has a better excuse than most — and her Spanish employers to thank — since ‘v’ is pronounced like ‘b’ in Spanish?)
Biennale has also proved problematic, not least for the festival’s promoters themselves, who mangle it completely in one of their ads attempting to transcribe its pronunciation with phonetic symbols. The truth is closer to /biε'n:a:le/. (If this looks rather like the word itself, it is because Italian spelling is phonetic.)
Although Mediacorp, as our national broadcaster, is our closest equivalent of the BBC, its name is routinely mispronounced as ‘Mediacore’, especially by its own presenters. It is worth remembering that corp is short for corporation and has nothing to do with the French corps. Hence, the final ‘p’ should be sounded, as in Rand Corp and Shin Corp. While the preferred pronunciation of a name should be the prerogative of the organization or individual involved — ‘Coe-lin’ Powell springs to mind — an aberrant pronunciation is somehow harder to justify when it is based on ignorance.
For sheer ignorance, however, nothing comes close to name of the Swiss-themed foodcourt, Vil'age, which we are told is French and hence pronounced ‘vee-lah-jay’. For the record, it does not exist in any known language; neither should it be dignified with a faux French-Italian pronunciation.
But all is not lost, however. The recent renaming of Fusionpolis as ‘Fusionopolis’ is cause for celebration. Whereas the old name was impossible to pronounce elegantly (where exactly is one supposed to place the stress or stresses?), the new name rolls effortlessly off the tongue, with stress falling naturally on the third syllable. Quite obviously, Fusionpolis was the creation of Singaporean bureaucrats, and a reflection of syllable-timing in Singapore English, while Fusionopolis (the way many Westerners had unwittingly been mispronouncing the original name) is more in keeping with stress-timing in older ‘native’ varieties of English. What a difference an extra syllable makes!
Foreign Names in Singapore: A Pedant’s View
(A shorter version of this post was published in TODAY, 27.10.06)
How should VivoCity be pronounced? According to the megamall’s press office, it is ‘VeevoCity’, presumably because vivo is Italian. However, this is a somewhat awkward Anglo-Italian hybrid that begs to be completely anglicized: ‘Viv-oCity’ or ‘Vie-voCity’ are much kinder on the ears.
Incidentally, vivo in Italian means ‘alive’, among other things. (It can also mean ‘I live’, from the infinitive vivere.) Since adjectives in Italian agree in gender with nouns, and city is feminine (la città), the name should more accurately be VivaCity — which ends up as a rather nice play on vivacity. Similarly, we have viva voce because la voce (‘voice’) is feminine. (Admittedly, though, all this is splitting hairs!)
We are reliably informed that a Zara salesgirl, like many Singaporeans, prefers to say ‘BeeboSeetee’. (Perhaps she has a better excuse than most — and her Spanish employers to thank — since ‘v’ is pronounced like ‘b’ in Spanish?)
Biennale has also proved problematic, not least for the festival’s promoters themselves, who mangle it completely in one of their ads attempting to transcribe its pronunciation with phonetic symbols. The truth is closer to /biε'n:a:le/. (If this looks rather like the word itself, it is because Italian spelling is phonetic.)
Although Mediacorp, as our national broadcaster, is our closest equivalent of the BBC, its name is routinely mispronounced as ‘Mediacore’, especially by its own presenters. It is worth remembering that corp is short for corporation and has nothing to do with the French corps. Hence, the final ‘p’ should be sounded, as in Rand Corp and Shin Corp. While the preferred pronunciation of a name should be the prerogative of the organization or individual involved — ‘Coe-lin’ Powell springs to mind — an aberrant pronunciation is somehow harder to justify when it is based on ignorance.
For sheer ignorance, however, nothing comes close to name of the Swiss-themed foodcourt, Vil'age, which we are told is French and hence pronounced ‘vee-lah-jay’. For the record, it does not exist in any known language; neither should it be dignified with a faux French-Italian pronunciation.
But all is not lost, however. The recent renaming of Fusionpolis as ‘Fusionopolis’ is cause for celebration. Whereas the old name was impossible to pronounce elegantly (where exactly is one supposed to place the stress or stresses?), the new name rolls effortlessly off the tongue, with stress falling naturally on the third syllable. Quite obviously, Fusionpolis was the creation of Singaporean bureaucrats, and a reflection of syllable-timing in Singapore English, while Fusionopolis (the way many Westerners had unwittingly been mispronouncing the original name) is more in keeping with stress-timing in older ‘native’ varieties of English. What a difference an extra syllable makes!
Monday, October 16, 2006
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 12 (15.10.06)
A Pointless Discussion, Yet Again
The teachers discuss a label (which appears to be on a highlighter pen), sent in by a reader: ‘High-quality ink brightly colored write agreeable slippery flowing freely safety not poisonous do enjoy to write the fun’.
This was a very poor choice of material — the English is so illiterate (it is probably of mainland Chinese origin) as to make meaningful analysis somewhat pointless. Surprisingly, however, the master teachers do not appear to realize this, and spend half the column struggling to say something constructive.
For a column such as this to be useful to readers, examples should be better chosen to reflect the problems commonly encountered by the target audience. If an example is so illiterate as to baffle even the less competent reader, then there is little (if anything) he or she can learn from it.
British vs American
The teachers discuss some differences between British and American spelling.
They might also have pointed out that one should try, as far as possible, not to mix both systems, since very obvious inconsistencies in spelling, usage and other conventions can annoy or disorient markers of examination and test scripts, and put the candidate at a serious disadvantage.
Hence, it is valuable to know the key differences between British and American English — if only to keep them apart.
A Pointless Discussion, Yet Again
The teachers discuss a label (which appears to be on a highlighter pen), sent in by a reader: ‘High-quality ink brightly colored write agreeable slippery flowing freely safety not poisonous do enjoy to write the fun’.
This was a very poor choice of material — the English is so illiterate (it is probably of mainland Chinese origin) as to make meaningful analysis somewhat pointless. Surprisingly, however, the master teachers do not appear to realize this, and spend half the column struggling to say something constructive.
For a column such as this to be useful to readers, examples should be better chosen to reflect the problems commonly encountered by the target audience. If an example is so illiterate as to baffle even the less competent reader, then there is little (if anything) he or she can learn from it.
British vs American
The teachers discuss some differences between British and American spelling.
They might also have pointed out that one should try, as far as possible, not to mix both systems, since very obvious inconsistencies in spelling, usage and other conventions can annoy or disorient markers of examination and test scripts, and put the candidate at a serious disadvantage.
Hence, it is valuable to know the key differences between British and American English — if only to keep them apart.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 11 (8.10.06)
Between…to
The teachers examine a notice that read, ‘You may encounter some difficulties boarding the train at this area between 8:00 am to 9:30 am on Monday to Friday…’. (This was an excellent choice of material, since it involves some common errors.)
They begin by noting that ‘In Singapore, we tend to confuse “between…and” and “from…to”’, and proceed to consider the differences between the two constructions.
However, their explanation completely misses the mark, and they neglect to suggest a correction. Surprisingly, they omit mention of an exceedingly common error — the incorrect pairing of to with between — as seen in the notice. (This is, in fact, not peculiar to Singapore; it is also mentioned in two excellent books, Bill Bryson’s Troublesome Words and Michael Swan’s Practical English Usage.) The notice might have read, ‘You may encounter some difficulty boarding the train here between 8.00 and 9.30 a.m. from Mondays to Fridays’.
‘Irregardless’
The experts suggest that the prefix ir– is ‘not required in the word regardless’. This seems to imply that there is a choice, whereas, strictly speaking, irregardless is always wrong — although it is also common in Britain and America. The experts might have pointed out that the prefix is redundant, because the suffix –less already carries the negative meaning ‘without’.
Between…to
The teachers examine a notice that read, ‘You may encounter some difficulties boarding the train at this area between 8:00 am to 9:30 am on Monday to Friday…’. (This was an excellent choice of material, since it involves some common errors.)
They begin by noting that ‘In Singapore, we tend to confuse “between…and” and “from…to”’, and proceed to consider the differences between the two constructions.
However, their explanation completely misses the mark, and they neglect to suggest a correction. Surprisingly, they omit mention of an exceedingly common error — the incorrect pairing of to with between — as seen in the notice. (This is, in fact, not peculiar to Singapore; it is also mentioned in two excellent books, Bill Bryson’s Troublesome Words and Michael Swan’s Practical English Usage.) The notice might have read, ‘You may encounter some difficulty boarding the train here between 8.00 and 9.30 a.m. from Mondays to Fridays’.
‘Irregardless’
The experts suggest that the prefix ir– is ‘not required in the word regardless’. This seems to imply that there is a choice, whereas, strictly speaking, irregardless is always wrong — although it is also common in Britain and America. The experts might have pointed out that the prefix is redundant, because the suffix –less already carries the negative meaning ‘without’.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 10 (1.10.06)
‘Sitting’ and ‘Seating’
The master teachers discuss a notice in a coffee shop that read: ‘There Are More Sitting At The Rear’. They speculate that ‘the confusion is probably between the use of sitting, which is a verb, and seating, which is a noun’, and that ‘[sitting] is ALWAYS used to describe an action’.
This is wrong, because sitting is also a noun, as in There will be two sittings in court this afternoon and The Queen did five sittings for the portrait (she may well have been standing throughout).
It would have been clearer simply to explain that, in the context of the coffee shop notice in question, seating has more to do with seats (or the arrangement thereof), and sitting with the action. Word class (verb/noun) is not the key here.
The example for this column was well chosen, since even competent users confuse the two terms occasionally.
‘Live’ vs ‘Stay’
In their discussion of the difference between live and stay, the teachers surprisingly omit to mention an extremely common feature of Singapore English: the use of the progressive (continuous) aspect with so-called ‘stative verbs’, which essentially describe states.
To illustrate: Instead of saying I live in Tampines, I work at the LTA, I have a headache, we often say I’m staying in Tampines, I’m working at LTA, I’m having a headache. In Standard English (StdE), using the –ing progressive with a stative verb carries the implication ‘at this moment’. So, one would say I felt fine an hour ago, but I’m having a headache now. The Singapore English I’m staying in Tampines differs from StdE on two counts: the use of stay rather than live, and the use of the –ing progressive. Other common stative verbs include love, understand and know.
The use of the progressive aspect with statives is a feature of Indian languages, and of Indian English, in which such examples are common: I am knowing him; I am understanding you. This is in fact the clearest relic of Indian influence in Singlish (owing to the large numbers of teachers from India and Sri Lanka in the early 20th century), which otherwise largely shows the influence of Malay and Chinese syntax.
It is interesting to note that McDonald’s uses I’m lovin’ it as its slogan, although love is a stative verb. This is presumably (purely speculative) because the progressive is a deviant usage common among young Americans, and therefore ‘cool’.
‘Sitting’ and ‘Seating’
The master teachers discuss a notice in a coffee shop that read: ‘There Are More Sitting At The Rear’. They speculate that ‘the confusion is probably between the use of sitting, which is a verb, and seating, which is a noun’, and that ‘[sitting] is ALWAYS used to describe an action’.
This is wrong, because sitting is also a noun, as in There will be two sittings in court this afternoon and The Queen did five sittings for the portrait (she may well have been standing throughout).
It would have been clearer simply to explain that, in the context of the coffee shop notice in question, seating has more to do with seats (or the arrangement thereof), and sitting with the action. Word class (verb/noun) is not the key here.
The example for this column was well chosen, since even competent users confuse the two terms occasionally.
‘Live’ vs ‘Stay’
In their discussion of the difference between live and stay, the teachers surprisingly omit to mention an extremely common feature of Singapore English: the use of the progressive (continuous) aspect with so-called ‘stative verbs’, which essentially describe states.
To illustrate: Instead of saying I live in Tampines, I work at the LTA, I have a headache, we often say I’m staying in Tampines, I’m working at LTA, I’m having a headache. In Standard English (StdE), using the –ing progressive with a stative verb carries the implication ‘at this moment’. So, one would say I felt fine an hour ago, but I’m having a headache now. The Singapore English I’m staying in Tampines differs from StdE on two counts: the use of stay rather than live, and the use of the –ing progressive. Other common stative verbs include love, understand and know.
The use of the progressive aspect with statives is a feature of Indian languages, and of Indian English, in which such examples are common: I am knowing him; I am understanding you. This is in fact the clearest relic of Indian influence in Singlish (owing to the large numbers of teachers from India and Sri Lanka in the early 20th century), which otherwise largely shows the influence of Malay and Chinese syntax.
It is interesting to note that McDonald’s uses I’m lovin’ it as its slogan, although love is a stative verb. This is presumably (purely speculative) because the progressive is a deviant usage common among young Americans, and therefore ‘cool’.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 9 (24.9.06)
‘Singapore Idol’ or ‘Singaporean Idol’?
The master teachers speculate on the naming of ‘Singapore Idol’. In Singapore, when referring to people, Singaporean tends to be used to emphasize citizenship, and Singapore, the country (especially representation at international events).
Hence, a useful distinction (which may not apply to other varieties of English, e.g., American) may be made between Singaporean Idol (i.e., an Idol who is a citizen of Singapore) and Singapore Idol, who is resident in Singapore but not necessarily a citizen (and probably can’t sing either). Similarly, the Singapore Girl is that icon of Singapore and not necessarily a citizen. On the Singapore–Mumbai route, for instance, one meets many Singapore Girls who are in fact Indian nationals. By contrast, Singaporean girl may refer only to a citizen of Singapore.
The experts wrongly suggest that Singapore in ‘Singapore Idol’ is ‘acting as an adjective’. It is not. It is actually a noun premodifier or classifier — a noun that modifies a head noun. Generally, such noun phrases can be paraphrased using a preposition, in this case as ‘Idol of Singapore’. On the BBC, one often hears expressions such as England captain, Pakistan cricketer and France striker — the country names are noun classifiers, and the people in question represent their countries.
To give another related example, if English teacher refers to a teacher from England, English is an adjective describing nationality. However, if it denotes a person who teaches English, then English becomes a noun classifier, and we can paraphrase it as ‘teacher of English’.
‘Pass up’ Homework
The master teachers also discuss the expression pass up homework. It would have been useful to point out that its Standard English sense of forgoing something is informal, and should not be used in formal writing. Incidentally, the expression pass up homework most probably — and this is pure speculation — originated from teachers asking pupils to pass their homework up to the front of the row.
‘Singapore Idol’ or ‘Singaporean Idol’?
The master teachers speculate on the naming of ‘Singapore Idol’. In Singapore, when referring to people, Singaporean tends to be used to emphasize citizenship, and Singapore, the country (especially representation at international events).
Hence, a useful distinction (which may not apply to other varieties of English, e.g., American) may be made between Singaporean Idol (i.e., an Idol who is a citizen of Singapore) and Singapore Idol, who is resident in Singapore but not necessarily a citizen (and probably can’t sing either). Similarly, the Singapore Girl is that icon of Singapore and not necessarily a citizen. On the Singapore–Mumbai route, for instance, one meets many Singapore Girls who are in fact Indian nationals. By contrast, Singaporean girl may refer only to a citizen of Singapore.
The experts wrongly suggest that Singapore in ‘Singapore Idol’ is ‘acting as an adjective’. It is not. It is actually a noun premodifier or classifier — a noun that modifies a head noun. Generally, such noun phrases can be paraphrased using a preposition, in this case as ‘Idol of Singapore’. On the BBC, one often hears expressions such as England captain, Pakistan cricketer and France striker — the country names are noun classifiers, and the people in question represent their countries.
To give another related example, if English teacher refers to a teacher from England, English is an adjective describing nationality. However, if it denotes a person who teaches English, then English becomes a noun classifier, and we can paraphrase it as ‘teacher of English’.
‘Pass up’ Homework
The master teachers also discuss the expression pass up homework. It would have been useful to point out that its Standard English sense of forgoing something is informal, and should not be used in formal writing. Incidentally, the expression pass up homework most probably — and this is pure speculation — originated from teachers asking pupils to pass their homework up to the front of the row.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 8 (17.9.06)
Go Marketing
The master teachers discuss the expression go marketing. They claim that marketing should be used only in the business sense, and never in the everyday sense of shopping for groceries. However, many dictionaries (e.g., Longman, Cambridge, Macmillan, Encarta) label go marketing/do the marketing in the latter sense as American English. Hence, the expression is not as illogical as the experts contend. Indeed, if it is acceptable — albeit old-fashioned — in American English (of which there are almost 300 million native speakers in the USA alone), then it is somewhat absurd to suggest that four million Singaporeans are wrong.
Go Marketing
The master teachers discuss the expression go marketing. They claim that marketing should be used only in the business sense, and never in the everyday sense of shopping for groceries. However, many dictionaries (e.g., Longman, Cambridge, Macmillan, Encarta) label go marketing/do the marketing in the latter sense as American English. Hence, the expression is not as illogical as the experts contend. Indeed, if it is acceptable — albeit old-fashioned — in American English (of which there are almost 300 million native speakers in the USA alone), then it is somewhat absurd to suggest that four million Singaporeans are wrong.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 7 (10.9.06)
Closed on Fridays
The discussion of the sign ‘Close on Firday’ would have been more helpful if it had explained: (i) that the opposite of closed is open (not opened), and (ii) why it should have been Fridays instead of Friday. Both are persistent problem areas even for highly-educated adults, so it would have been an excellent opportunity to point them out to EaiiB’s younger readers.
Shutter Bus
The master teachers discuss a notice in which shuttle bus was misspelt as shutter bus. This, they conjecture, is ‘because some Singaporean speakers pronounce their “l”s like “r”s’.
On the contrary, the experts are confusing spelling with pronunciation. It is almost certain that, like many Singaporeans, the writer does not pronounce ‘l’ or ‘r’ at the end of syllables — hence, shuttle and shutter are effectively homophones (different words pronounced alike). Since neither ‘l’ nor ‘r’ is pronounced, it is naïve to attribute the misspelling to confusion between the two sounds. The choice of shutter is more likely to be due to its relative familiarity to the writer.
Although some Singaporeans (especially Chinese) do appear to confuse ‘l’ and ‘r’ in speech, this is in fact quite restricted in its occurrence: mainly consonant clusters and intervocalic positions (between vowels). However, although they might say brack, crock, frat (instead of black, clock, flat), they are unlikely to misspell these words, because the problem is one of pronounciation rather than spelling. In other words, speakers mangle these words because they can't pronounce them properly, not because they can't spell them.
Singlish Questions
The master teachers discuss the Singlish question His son got study overseas, meh? and supply what they believe is the Standard English (StdE) equivalent: Did his son study overseas?. However, the correct StdE counterpart of the Singlish sentence is, in fact, His son didn't study overseas, did he? (or Are you sure his son studied overseas?) — this is a so-called declarative question. Meh does not, as the experts mistakenly believe, simply mark a statement as a question: It is used by speakers to challenge the veracity of a fact presented to them. Hence, it is very similar to question tags (did he? in the above example) in StdE declarative questions.
The Singlish equivalent of Did your son study overseas? is, incidentally, Your son got study overseas or not?. Got is not ‘often misused and overused in Singaporean speech’, as the experts wrongly assert — in Singlish it systematically marks clauses for past tense or perfective aspect. It has no place in StdE, true enough, but that does not make it ‘often misused or overused’ in ‘Singaporean speech’ or Singlish.
Closed on Fridays
The discussion of the sign ‘Close on Firday’ would have been more helpful if it had explained: (i) that the opposite of closed is open (not opened), and (ii) why it should have been Fridays instead of Friday. Both are persistent problem areas even for highly-educated adults, so it would have been an excellent opportunity to point them out to EaiiB’s younger readers.
Shutter Bus
The master teachers discuss a notice in which shuttle bus was misspelt as shutter bus. This, they conjecture, is ‘because some Singaporean speakers pronounce their “l”s like “r”s’.
On the contrary, the experts are confusing spelling with pronunciation. It is almost certain that, like many Singaporeans, the writer does not pronounce ‘l’ or ‘r’ at the end of syllables — hence, shuttle and shutter are effectively homophones (different words pronounced alike). Since neither ‘l’ nor ‘r’ is pronounced, it is naïve to attribute the misspelling to confusion between the two sounds. The choice of shutter is more likely to be due to its relative familiarity to the writer.
Although some Singaporeans (especially Chinese) do appear to confuse ‘l’ and ‘r’ in speech, this is in fact quite restricted in its occurrence: mainly consonant clusters and intervocalic positions (between vowels). However, although they might say brack, crock, frat (instead of black, clock, flat), they are unlikely to misspell these words, because the problem is one of pronounciation rather than spelling. In other words, speakers mangle these words because they can't pronounce them properly, not because they can't spell them.
Singlish Questions
The master teachers discuss the Singlish question His son got study overseas, meh? and supply what they believe is the Standard English (StdE) equivalent: Did his son study overseas?. However, the correct StdE counterpart of the Singlish sentence is, in fact, His son didn't study overseas, did he? (or Are you sure his son studied overseas?) — this is a so-called declarative question. Meh does not, as the experts mistakenly believe, simply mark a statement as a question: It is used by speakers to challenge the veracity of a fact presented to them. Hence, it is very similar to question tags (did he? in the above example) in StdE declarative questions.
The Singlish equivalent of Did your son study overseas? is, incidentally, Your son got study overseas or not?. Got is not ‘often misused and overused in Singaporean speech’, as the experts wrongly assert — in Singlish it systematically marks clauses for past tense or perfective aspect. It has no place in StdE, true enough, but that does not make it ‘often misused or overused’ in ‘Singaporean speech’ or Singlish.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 6 (3.9.06)
Another Pointless Sign
The experts examine a sign that read ‘Sorry is not / allow washing hand / here / thank you’. As with previous columns, this was a pointless exercise, considering that the sign was in such bad English that even EaiiB’s intended audience would find it illiterate. (It is a wonder that, even now, the experts appear not to realize they are engaging in something futile.) If, on the other hand, readers had been asked to try rewriting the sign, then they might have produced errors worthy of discussion — and they would certainly have learnt something from it. Another example of an error worth discussing is the subject of our next point.
Past Perfect
The experts write: ‘Our column had previously featured a rental ad where the agent asked his prospective clients to: “Kindly leave your problem to us.”’
This is a very odd use of the past perfect (had featured). Indeed, it is an exceedingly common error in Singapore, of which even English teachers are guilty (as aptly demonstrated by the experts themselves).
In his authoritative Practical English Usage (2nd ed.), Michael Swan writes: ‘The past perfect is not used simply to say something happened some time ago, or to give a past reason for a present situation’ (p. 428). In this case, the experts should simply have used the simple past (featured), and their sentence would have benefited from rephrasing: In a previous column, we featured a rental ad… or In our column several weeks ago, we featured a rental ad….
‘Kindly’ Revisited
The master teachers maintain that kindly is more formal than please in a request such as Kindly fill in the form, and that it is considered polite.
To our knowledge, the only dictionary that labels kindly as polite is the Times-Chambers Essential, which is essentially a dictionary of Singapore Standard English. There appears to be little justification for sanctioning this usage, when it is at odds with the rest of the world, and when most other reputable dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge, Longman, Merriam-Webster) tell us that kindly carries an implication of anger, impatience or irritation.
The experts argue that, ultimately, context will help us understand what is being said. If so, then it is puzzling that they should take exception to supposedly baffling signs, such as the one discussed in this edition (Sorry is not allow washing hands here — this in a washing area), or expressions such as take lunch.
The experts should exercise consistency with regard to the errors they aspire to correct and the variety of English they aim to teach.
In summary, kindly is not another word for please; and only in Singapore is it regarded as polite.
Another Pointless Sign
The experts examine a sign that read ‘Sorry is not / allow washing hand / here / thank you’. As with previous columns, this was a pointless exercise, considering that the sign was in such bad English that even EaiiB’s intended audience would find it illiterate. (It is a wonder that, even now, the experts appear not to realize they are engaging in something futile.) If, on the other hand, readers had been asked to try rewriting the sign, then they might have produced errors worthy of discussion — and they would certainly have learnt something from it. Another example of an error worth discussing is the subject of our next point.
Past Perfect
The experts write: ‘Our column had previously featured a rental ad where the agent asked his prospective clients to: “Kindly leave your problem to us.”’
This is a very odd use of the past perfect (had featured). Indeed, it is an exceedingly common error in Singapore, of which even English teachers are guilty (as aptly demonstrated by the experts themselves).
In his authoritative Practical English Usage (2nd ed.), Michael Swan writes: ‘The past perfect is not used simply to say something happened some time ago, or to give a past reason for a present situation’ (p. 428). In this case, the experts should simply have used the simple past (featured), and their sentence would have benefited from rephrasing: In a previous column, we featured a rental ad… or In our column several weeks ago, we featured a rental ad….
‘Kindly’ Revisited
The master teachers maintain that kindly is more formal than please in a request such as Kindly fill in the form, and that it is considered polite.
To our knowledge, the only dictionary that labels kindly as polite is the Times-Chambers Essential, which is essentially a dictionary of Singapore Standard English. There appears to be little justification for sanctioning this usage, when it is at odds with the rest of the world, and when most other reputable dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge, Longman, Merriam-Webster) tell us that kindly carries an implication of anger, impatience or irritation.
The experts argue that, ultimately, context will help us understand what is being said. If so, then it is puzzling that they should take exception to supposedly baffling signs, such as the one discussed in this edition (Sorry is not allow washing hands here — this in a washing area), or expressions such as take lunch.
The experts should exercise consistency with regard to the errors they aspire to correct and the variety of English they aim to teach.
In summary, kindly is not another word for please; and only in Singapore is it regarded as polite.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 5 (27.8.06)
Youth vs. Youths
A reader pointed out that a Sunday Times headline, ‘Why youths prefer Singlish’, was wrong because the reference was clearly to young people as a group; hence the word youth should have been used. The experts, however, claimed that ‘most dictionaries do allow the plural form to be used when referring to young persons in general’, and implied that this was evidence of language change.
It is obvious that the experts have either misread or misunderstood their dictionaries. Most dictionaries list four senses of the word youth, of which two are relevant to this discussion. Sense 1 is ‘young men and women considered as a group’ (Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture). It is always singular (youth), but may take a singular or plural verb (e.g., The youth of Singapore is/are invited to serve the nation). This is the sense intended by the Sunday Times headline. Sense 2 is ‘boy or young man; male teenager’, and is marked ‘often derogatory’ or ‘disapproving’ by dictionaries, as in ‘a gang of youths’. Indeed, Macmillan’s definition is ‘a male teenager, especially one involved in violent or criminal activities’. It can be either singular (youth) or plural (youths).
Not a single dictionary we have consulted — Longman, Cambridge, Oxford, Collins Cobuild, Macmillan, not even the Times-Chambers Essential — claims that youth used in Sense 1 may be plural, as the experts dubiously insist. This is in fact a highly typical Singapore English error, and a serious one in the context of English learning and teaching: It is as bad as referring to old people collectively as *the elderlies (in linguistics, * means the phrase is ungrammatical).
Verdict: The Sunday Times reader was absolutely correct, the experts patently wrong.
A Not-Quite Cliché
The experts write, ‘Pardon the cliché, but the English language is always evolving’. This is, by no stretch of the imagination, a cliché because it has not reached the point of being overused by the public. ‘Times are changing’ might be regarded by most people as a cliché, but most definitely not ‘the English language is always evolving’.
Youth vs. Youths
A reader pointed out that a Sunday Times headline, ‘Why youths prefer Singlish’, was wrong because the reference was clearly to young people as a group; hence the word youth should have been used. The experts, however, claimed that ‘most dictionaries do allow the plural form to be used when referring to young persons in general’, and implied that this was evidence of language change.
It is obvious that the experts have either misread or misunderstood their dictionaries. Most dictionaries list four senses of the word youth, of which two are relevant to this discussion. Sense 1 is ‘young men and women considered as a group’ (Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture). It is always singular (youth), but may take a singular or plural verb (e.g., The youth of Singapore is/are invited to serve the nation). This is the sense intended by the Sunday Times headline. Sense 2 is ‘boy or young man; male teenager’, and is marked ‘often derogatory’ or ‘disapproving’ by dictionaries, as in ‘a gang of youths’. Indeed, Macmillan’s definition is ‘a male teenager, especially one involved in violent or criminal activities’. It can be either singular (youth) or plural (youths).
Not a single dictionary we have consulted — Longman, Cambridge, Oxford, Collins Cobuild, Macmillan, not even the Times-Chambers Essential — claims that youth used in Sense 1 may be plural, as the experts dubiously insist. This is in fact a highly typical Singapore English error, and a serious one in the context of English learning and teaching: It is as bad as referring to old people collectively as *the elderlies (in linguistics, * means the phrase is ungrammatical).
Verdict: The Sunday Times reader was absolutely correct, the experts patently wrong.
A Not-Quite Cliché
The experts write, ‘Pardon the cliché, but the English language is always evolving’. This is, by no stretch of the imagination, a cliché because it has not reached the point of being overused by the public. ‘Times are changing’ might be regarded by most people as a cliché, but most definitely not ‘the English language is always evolving’.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 4 (20.8.06)
Another Pointless Discussion
A sign that read ‘PLEASE KEEP CLEANING’ was discussed. This is of questionable pedagogical value, considering that it is not even a typical Singlish mistake — even the column’s target audience would find it illiterate.
Taken Your Lunch?
The master teachers criticize the expression Have you taken your lunch?. While Have you had your lunch? is to be preferred (only because it is the more standard), it is hard to imagine anybody actually misinterpreting the former as meaning ‘physically taking’ it (which the teachers claim they might).
Even the Oxford English Dictionary — and one does not get a higher authority than this — defines the verbs eat and lunch as, respectively, ‘(intransitive) to take a meal’ and ‘(intransitive) to take lunch’.
It is a widely-held myth among the teaching profession that take a meal is wrong — it is, in fact, chiefly an Americanism. For more myths perpetrated by teachers, see Adam Brown’s excellent book, English Language Myths: 30 Beliefs That Aren’t Really True.
Blur
The experts’ criticism of the Singlish adjective blur, as in ‘Eh, why are you so blur?’, stops short of being helpful because alternatives are not suggested. (Some examples, depending on context: confused, clueless, dazed, absent-minded, disoriented, befuddled, addled, oblivious, ignorant, naïve, stupid, brainless, dense, witless.)
It is also difficult to see how this is a word ‘whose grammatical and semantic accuracy we have conveniently sacrificed to suit our purpose[s]’ — as the experts believe — when in fact its semantic range has been usefully extended by the Singaporean community of speakers. Accuracy may be said to be ‘sacrificed’ if real ambiguity results, as in the case of presently (which may mean either ‘now’ or ‘soon’ — though the latter is old-fashioned). But, for Singaporean speakers, blur has very precise meanings and nuances that its closest Standard English equivalents lack.
Another Pointless Discussion
A sign that read ‘PLEASE KEEP CLEANING’ was discussed. This is of questionable pedagogical value, considering that it is not even a typical Singlish mistake — even the column’s target audience would find it illiterate.
Taken Your Lunch?
The master teachers criticize the expression Have you taken your lunch?. While Have you had your lunch? is to be preferred (only because it is the more standard), it is hard to imagine anybody actually misinterpreting the former as meaning ‘physically taking’ it (which the teachers claim they might).
Even the Oxford English Dictionary — and one does not get a higher authority than this — defines the verbs eat and lunch as, respectively, ‘(intransitive) to take a meal’ and ‘(intransitive) to take lunch’.
It is a widely-held myth among the teaching profession that take a meal is wrong — it is, in fact, chiefly an Americanism. For more myths perpetrated by teachers, see Adam Brown’s excellent book, English Language Myths: 30 Beliefs That Aren’t Really True.
Blur
The experts’ criticism of the Singlish adjective blur, as in ‘Eh, why are you so blur?’, stops short of being helpful because alternatives are not suggested. (Some examples, depending on context: confused, clueless, dazed, absent-minded, disoriented, befuddled, addled, oblivious, ignorant, naïve, stupid, brainless, dense, witless.)
It is also difficult to see how this is a word ‘whose grammatical and semantic accuracy we have conveniently sacrificed to suit our purpose[s]’ — as the experts believe — when in fact its semantic range has been usefully extended by the Singaporean community of speakers. Accuracy may be said to be ‘sacrificed’ if real ambiguity results, as in the case of presently (which may mean either ‘now’ or ‘soon’ — though the latter is old-fashioned). But, for Singaporean speakers, blur has very precise meanings and nuances that its closest Standard English equivalents lack.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 3 (13.8.06)
Silly Signs, Pointless Discussions
The master teachers consider a sign photographed in China that read, ‘Deformed Toilet’. What, we wonder, is the purpose or relevance of this, other than to raise a laugh or two? In Singapore, there are ubiquitous notices proclaiming ‘Handicapped Toilet’ — it would have been far more useful and instructive to discuss these.
Furthermore, the experts conclude rather lamely thus: ‘“Toilet for the handicapped” seems very long. One way could be to use the universally recognized symbol like those for male and female toilets with the image of a wheelchair.’ This was obviously a cop-out, since they conveniently steer clear of discussing troublesome expressions common in Singapore such as the aforementioned ‘Handicapped Toilet’ and ‘Handicapped Parking Lot’. And wasn’t that ‘universally recognized symbol’ already on the Chinese sign they criticize?
EaiiB — a Herculean Task?
Under the subhead ‘Thanks for feedback’, they thank readers, ‘some of you complimenting us on taking on this Herculean task of getting English right and others disagreeing with us’.
We should point out that Herculean ought properly to describe tasks that require great physical effort, but the master teachers used it in the newer, looser sense of requiring great mental effort. Even so, it is difficult to imagine writing a column on English being a Herculean task, unless one lacks the requisite knowledge. (Or was this perhaps a Freudian slip on the part of the self-styled experts?)
Silly Signs, Pointless Discussions
The master teachers consider a sign photographed in China that read, ‘Deformed Toilet’. What, we wonder, is the purpose or relevance of this, other than to raise a laugh or two? In Singapore, there are ubiquitous notices proclaiming ‘Handicapped Toilet’ — it would have been far more useful and instructive to discuss these.
Furthermore, the experts conclude rather lamely thus: ‘“Toilet for the handicapped” seems very long. One way could be to use the universally recognized symbol like those for male and female toilets with the image of a wheelchair.’ This was obviously a cop-out, since they conveniently steer clear of discussing troublesome expressions common in Singapore such as the aforementioned ‘Handicapped Toilet’ and ‘Handicapped Parking Lot’. And wasn’t that ‘universally recognized symbol’ already on the Chinese sign they criticize?
EaiiB — a Herculean Task?
Under the subhead ‘Thanks for feedback’, they thank readers, ‘some of you complimenting us on taking on this Herculean task of getting English right and others disagreeing with us’.
We should point out that Herculean ought properly to describe tasks that require great physical effort, but the master teachers used it in the newer, looser sense of requiring great mental effort. Even so, it is difficult to imagine writing a column on English being a Herculean task, unless one lacks the requisite knowledge. (Or was this perhaps a Freudian slip on the part of the self-styled experts?)
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 2 (6.8.06)
Food and Drinks?
It was reported that some readers had (rightly) taken issue with the master teachers’ use of the phrase food and drinks. The teachers defend it on the grounds that the plural drinks sounds more natural in everyday speech. But they are missing the point: Used in the context of a hawker centre notice, food and drink is a set phrase that exists as a unit and does not allow internal modification. Even if the Queen had had only one positive episode during her annus horribilis, she would not have spoken of her up and downs, except perhaps jocularly.
The experts also wrongly suggest that kindly is merely a more formal variant of please — this is a pervasive myth among Singaporean speakers that does not bear repeating, certainly not by MOE Master Teachers.
Food and Drinks?
It was reported that some readers had (rightly) taken issue with the master teachers’ use of the phrase food and drinks. The teachers defend it on the grounds that the plural drinks sounds more natural in everyday speech. But they are missing the point: Used in the context of a hawker centre notice, food and drink is a set phrase that exists as a unit and does not allow internal modification. Even if the Queen had had only one positive episode during her annus horribilis, she would not have spoken of her up and downs, except perhaps jocularly.
The experts also wrongly suggest that kindly is merely a more formal variant of please — this is a pervasive myth among Singaporean speakers that does not bear repeating, certainly not by MOE Master Teachers.
ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 1 (30.7.06)
‘Off’ as a Verb
The master teachers suggest that a sentence such as Please off your mobile ’phone is faulty because a verb is missing. They are wrong: The problem really is that many Singaporean speakers treat off as a verb (a process known in linguistics as ‘reanalysis’). The evidence could not be clearer: Some speakers even add verb endings to off and on; and many teachers will tell you they have heard their pupils saying things like Don’t keep onning and offing the computer! (Incidentally, this is not peculiar to Singlish, for Standard English has to out someone; to up the ante/stakes/offer; to down tools/an enemy ’plane/a couple of beers.)
It would have been more instructive to point out instead that off cannot function as a verb. This would also have been an excellent opportunity to introduce phrasal verbs, the bane of so many learners of English.
If an error is to be remedied, it must first be analyzed correctly. Likewise, the physician who misdiagnoses his patient’s illness cannot hope to cure him.
‘Off’ as a Verb
The master teachers suggest that a sentence such as Please off your mobile ’phone is faulty because a verb is missing. They are wrong: The problem really is that many Singaporean speakers treat off as a verb (a process known in linguistics as ‘reanalysis’). The evidence could not be clearer: Some speakers even add verb endings to off and on; and many teachers will tell you they have heard their pupils saying things like Don’t keep onning and offing the computer! (Incidentally, this is not peculiar to Singlish, for Standard English has to out someone; to up the ante/stakes/offer; to down tools/an enemy ’plane/a couple of beers.)
It would have been more instructive to point out instead that off cannot function as a verb. This would also have been an excellent opportunity to introduce phrasal verbs, the bane of so many learners of English.
If an error is to be remedied, it must first be analyzed correctly. Likewise, the physician who misdiagnoses his patient’s illness cannot hope to cure him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
