These few sentences were found in this year's O-level English language paper:
"But obviously, this type of initiative should go beyond..."
"So this week..."
"And you won't be tempted..."
What struck me was that all these statements begun with conjunctions, "but", "so", etc.
When I was in primary school, a very long time ago, it was strongly emphasized that sentences cannot begin with these words. Hence, if one wishes to express contrast, he has to use "however", instead of "but", at the start of a new sentence. Maybe this rule is considered old-fashioned now, especially in the context of digital media, where texts tend to be much less formal.
I suppose, even the august Cambridge has to make concessions, and move with the times.
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
How to write job advertisements
The newly passed "Fair Consideration Framework" takes on discriminatory job advertisements to ensure that Singaporeans get an equal opportunity for each vacancy. No potential employer is allowed to express preference for applicants of foreign origins.
Perhaps in principle, the requirement to give Singaporeans a fair chance is a sensible one, as anecdotal evidence suggests that some employers tend hire people of their own nationality, overlooking Singaporeans who may be equally qualified. However, the actual implementation of these guidelines baffles me, especially how these guidelines restrict the way these advertisements are phrased, and what is perceived as discriminatory language.
It is commonly recognized that language conveys more than their literal meaning, and hence it could be exploited to hint rather than convey, and thereby pass on certain hidden agenda that would make sense only to those who are cued into the intended, true messages. Still, the new guidelines seem to take this concept to the extreme, by claiming discrimination in sentences that seem perfectly innocuous to me. Take for example:
"Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are welcome to apply".
This is no longer allowed under the Framework as it supposedly suggests that bias for foreigners. How does one arrive at this interpretation? I would have thought that it meant that Singaporeans are welcome!
As rumblings of discrimination continue, I worry that we overreact by perceiving it everywhere, or worse, claiming victimization for our own failings. After all, it must be accepted that not every Singaporean would be suitable for the jobs that are available, even if they happen to be unemployed.
Perhaps in principle, the requirement to give Singaporeans a fair chance is a sensible one, as anecdotal evidence suggests that some employers tend hire people of their own nationality, overlooking Singaporeans who may be equally qualified. However, the actual implementation of these guidelines baffles me, especially how these guidelines restrict the way these advertisements are phrased, and what is perceived as discriminatory language.
It is commonly recognized that language conveys more than their literal meaning, and hence it could be exploited to hint rather than convey, and thereby pass on certain hidden agenda that would make sense only to those who are cued into the intended, true messages. Still, the new guidelines seem to take this concept to the extreme, by claiming discrimination in sentences that seem perfectly innocuous to me. Take for example:
"Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are welcome to apply".
This is no longer allowed under the Framework as it supposedly suggests that bias for foreigners. How does one arrive at this interpretation? I would have thought that it meant that Singaporeans are welcome!
As rumblings of discrimination continue, I worry that we overreact by perceiving it everywhere, or worse, claiming victimization for our own failings. After all, it must be accepted that not every Singaporean would be suitable for the jobs that are available, even if they happen to be unemployed.
Sunday, August 04, 2013
Sorry isn't always an apology
This controversy should never have been, and comes about because of the English language, once again, trips us up with its confusing, idiomatic word meanings. At the heart of the online furore is a truncated video of the pastor, apparently claiming to have received an apology from God for his suffering.
"For the first time in eight months, God, I heard Him cry. And he said 'My son, Kong, thank you...I am so sorry, but you need to go through this by yourself..." (transcript from "'Sorry' video")
Many, it seems, are indignant that a man would presume to be worthy of this word from God, but don't we all know that the phrase "I'm sorry" could mean two things?
1. To express contrition i.e. an apology
2. To express sorrow at another's state, i.e. condolences
Isn't this why, when we hear bad news of others, we sometimes say, "I am so sorry to hear that." In the same way, the person receiving this will not answer, "It isn't your fault".
This court case has certainly been the focus of much media attention and public interest, but this is no reason to find ways to condemn a man. Just let justice take its natural, rightful course, and in the meanwhile, don't be the first one to cast a stone.
"For the first time in eight months, God, I heard Him cry. And he said 'My son, Kong, thank you...I am so sorry, but you need to go through this by yourself..." (transcript from "'Sorry' video")
Many, it seems, are indignant that a man would presume to be worthy of this word from God, but don't we all know that the phrase "I'm sorry" could mean two things?
1. To express contrition i.e. an apology
2. To express sorrow at another's state, i.e. condolences
Isn't this why, when we hear bad news of others, we sometimes say, "I am so sorry to hear that." In the same way, the person receiving this will not answer, "It isn't your fault".
This court case has certainly been the focus of much media attention and public interest, but this is no reason to find ways to condemn a man. Just let justice take its natural, rightful course, and in the meanwhile, don't be the first one to cast a stone.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Against political correctness
They went and politically corrected the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible! By bending backwards to erase perceived gender-biasness, the new ‘improved’ version sacrificed literary merit for political correctness.
This passage is taken from Psalm 103:15-16 in NIV 1984:
As for man, his days are like grass,
he flourishes like a flower of the field;
the wind blows over it and it is gone,
and its place remembers it no more.
And this is what happens when they tried making this passage gender-neutral in NIV 2011:
The life of mortals is like grass,
they flourish like a flower of the field;
the wind blows over it and it is gone,
and its place remembers it no more.
This example uses the plural ‘they’ instead of ‘his’ to avoid reference to gender. Because subject-verb agreement still has to be maintained, don’t you think there is awkwardness in the grammar of subsequent imagery? I find myself lurching uncomfortably from singular to plural to singular, and this makes memorization more difficult.
In fact, I protest that the 2011 version strays from sound translation practices by adding an additional layer of interpretation to the original text. “Dynamic equivalence” is a poor excuse if this intervention is unnecessarily imposed to satisfy modern sensibilities.
I can’t help feeling too that some emotive effects are lost when the word ‘man’, part of our core vocabulary, is replaced with ‘mortals’, a more peripheral word. Being made of monosyllabic words, the rhythm of the 1984 version is more emphatic, while the complex noun ‘the life of mortals’ reduces the impact of the line when read as a poem.
After all, CS Lewis in his letter to young writers, says that we should always choose the simpler word over a difficult word, and there is good sense in such advice.
This passage is taken from Psalm 103:15-16 in NIV 1984:
As for man, his days are like grass,
he flourishes like a flower of the field;
the wind blows over it and it is gone,
and its place remembers it no more.
And this is what happens when they tried making this passage gender-neutral in NIV 2011:
The life of mortals is like grass,
they flourish like a flower of the field;
the wind blows over it and it is gone,
and its place remembers it no more.
This example uses the plural ‘they’ instead of ‘his’ to avoid reference to gender. Because subject-verb agreement still has to be maintained, don’t you think there is awkwardness in the grammar of subsequent imagery? I find myself lurching uncomfortably from singular to plural to singular, and this makes memorization more difficult.
In fact, I protest that the 2011 version strays from sound translation practices by adding an additional layer of interpretation to the original text. “Dynamic equivalence” is a poor excuse if this intervention is unnecessarily imposed to satisfy modern sensibilities.
I can’t help feeling too that some emotive effects are lost when the word ‘man’, part of our core vocabulary, is replaced with ‘mortals’, a more peripheral word. Being made of monosyllabic words, the rhythm of the 1984 version is more emphatic, while the complex noun ‘the life of mortals’ reduces the impact of the line when read as a poem.
After all, CS Lewis in his letter to young writers, says that we should always choose the simpler word over a difficult word, and there is good sense in such advice.
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Confused metaphors
This advertisement caught my eye for its confused imagery.
Now since the sentence starts out comparing time (tenor) with money (vehicle), one would expect the following punchline to be about money. Instead, it moves on to describe time as 'short and sweet', which takes reference from a different vehicle altogether. In simple terms, I mean, if you want to compare time with money, stick to attibutes of money in the following description. For example, 'If time (tenor) is money (vehicle), we are thrifty (reference to money).'
I managed to figure out at last that the advert is saying that time is precious, and we do not want to waste it. Therefore, investments are kept short and sweet. But this message takes too long to emerge.
Besides, I have always thought that copywriting should avoid complex sentences as the immediate impact is reduced. I mean, in the train, you don't want to ask the target audience to keep information in their mind while they make sense of the rest of the sentence, especially if the phrasing is confusing to begin with! How about recasting it as 'Time is precious. We/Let's keep things short and sweet.'
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Alas, the tale of a soldier and his maiden rarely has a happy ending.
By now the photo has gone viral online and is splashed in print media as well. I'm sure theman boy is rueing his moment of slack, when he allowed his maid to carry his heavy haversack for him. Actually, maybe there are reasons we do not know. Perhaps his maid offered to carry the haversack for him and would not hear of a rejection, or maybe he just needed a few seconds to type out a message and took back the load soon.
Whatever it is, he is never going to have a chance to explain, because then we would all know who he is. And when a picture speaks a thousand words, what more can he say in defence? (pun fully intended)
By now the photo has gone viral online and is splashed in print media as well. I'm sure the
Whatever it is, he is never going to have a chance to explain, because then we would all know who he is. And when a picture speaks a thousand words, what more can he say in defence? (pun fully intended)
Friday, February 11, 2011
Is it on?
I am perturbed. As someone working constantly with text and vetting work, I always try to make sure that I have reasonably good knowledge of language rules, and as far as I know, the word 'leverage' does not come with 'on'. Why then do I see it everywhere? And now it has crept into mainstream media, in an advertisment for an IPO. Now, either the copywriter had been most negligent, or a new rule is emerging. Sigh, this is so confusing.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Standard Singlish
The mistake is probably excusable, since it is made by goodenglish.org. One can hardly expect it to get its Singlish right.
On one of its posters, in imitation of typical Singapore English, there is an expression 'You got eat already or not?' I have to protest that this expression is an unflattering and inaccurate caricature of Singlish.
The problem with this sentence is the expression of its perfective aspect. In standard English, it is expressed as 'Have you eaten...?', with the compound verb 'have eaten' carrying present perfective meaning.
In Singlish, the perfective aspect is carrried in 'already', as in, for example, 'the bus come already' (the bus has come). On the other hand, 'got' is sometimes used to indicate past tense, as in 'the bus got come' (the bus came).
I think that the sentence in the goodenglish.org poster is simply carrying too much, and redundant information. The expression should simply be 'you got eat or not', or 'you eat already or not', but not 'you got eat already or not?' Excuse my purist streak, but not every mangled expression is Singlish. Singaporeans who do speak Singlish intuitively follow systematic rules too. We may speak wrongly, but we don't speak like idiots.
Maybe it is the first sign of creolisation - when the users of the pidgin forms begin to recognize new language structures, and can identify whether an expression is correctly incorrect, or incorrectly incorrect. Hm...maybe we don't want to get there, of course. This brickbat aside, I support the Speak Good English movement.
On one of its posters, in imitation of typical Singapore English, there is an expression 'You got eat already or not?' I have to protest that this expression is an unflattering and inaccurate caricature of Singlish.
The problem with this sentence is the expression of its perfective aspect. In standard English, it is expressed as 'Have you eaten...?', with the compound verb 'have eaten' carrying present perfective meaning.
In Singlish, the perfective aspect is carrried in 'already', as in, for example, 'the bus come already' (the bus has come). On the other hand, 'got' is sometimes used to indicate past tense, as in 'the bus got come' (the bus came).
I think that the sentence in the goodenglish.org poster is simply carrying too much, and redundant information. The expression should simply be 'you got eat or not', or 'you eat already or not', but not 'you got eat already or not?' Excuse my purist streak, but not every mangled expression is Singlish. Singaporeans who do speak Singlish intuitively follow systematic rules too. We may speak wrongly, but we don't speak like idiots.
Maybe it is the first sign of creolisation - when the users of the pidgin forms begin to recognize new language structures, and can identify whether an expression is correctly incorrect, or incorrectly incorrect. Hm...maybe we don't want to get there, of course. This brickbat aside, I support the Speak Good English movement.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Reflections on Commonwealth Games athletes' village
Why is the English language so confusing?
According to an Indian minister, the athletes' village is 'habitable'. As I have always used the word 'inhabitable' to mean 'liveable', I thought he made a mistake. So I checked the dictionary. As it turns out, both words - 'habitable' and 'inhabitable' mean the same thing! But I thought that usually the suffix 'in-' is used to transform a word to its opposite meaning. No, in this peculiar case, the antonym is 'uninhabitable'.
I can't help thinking, the minister made a strategic decision in his choice of word by avoiding the least hint of the negative suffix. Whether the athletes' village is actually 'uninhabitable' or 'inhabitable', he declares without ambiguity, it is 'habitable'.
According to an Indian minister, the athletes' village is 'habitable'. As I have always used the word 'inhabitable' to mean 'liveable', I thought he made a mistake. So I checked the dictionary. As it turns out, both words - 'habitable' and 'inhabitable' mean the same thing! But I thought that usually the suffix 'in-' is used to transform a word to its opposite meaning. No, in this peculiar case, the antonym is 'uninhabitable'.
I can't help thinking, the minister made a strategic decision in his choice of word by avoiding the least hint of the negative suffix. Whether the athletes' village is actually 'uninhabitable' or 'inhabitable', he declares without ambiguity, it is 'habitable'.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Leverage
We invent new words all the time, and when we don't, we are busy using words in new ways. I have no idea why, but people love using nouns as verbs:
Let's journey together
Can you loan me a pen? and grrr...
This impacts our country.
Frankly, I think this betrays intellectual sloth (stone me if you will!) We just can't be bothered to think of the correct words, and why must 'lend' take on so many forms? Lend, lent, loan...who cares?
But today I am ranting about the abuse of a different word. Somewhere, the word 'lever' finds its way from the science textbook into financial jargon, in its noun form 'leverage', where it is used as a verb.
I leverage my capital to increase my income.
In this new disguise, it then slips into everyday use, thereby usurping the function of its mother verb 'lever'. But the worst offence is, people then develop the habit of tacking on an extra preposition to this (no!) verb
I leverage on my skills in cooking...NOoooooo, why have 'leverage on' if you only need 'leverage', and why use 'leverage' if you mean to say 'lever'?
If you insist on using the word wrongly, at least, use it wrongly in the right way! Arh, now even I am confused.
Let's journey together
Can you loan me a pen? and grrr...
This impacts our country.
Frankly, I think this betrays intellectual sloth (stone me if you will!) We just can't be bothered to think of the correct words, and why must 'lend' take on so many forms? Lend, lent, loan...who cares?
But today I am ranting about the abuse of a different word. Somewhere, the word 'lever' finds its way from the science textbook into financial jargon, in its noun form 'leverage', where it is used as a verb.
I leverage my capital to increase my income.
In this new disguise, it then slips into everyday use, thereby usurping the function of its mother verb 'lever'. But the worst offence is, people then develop the habit of tacking on an extra preposition to this (no!) verb
I leverage on my skills in cooking...NOoooooo, why have 'leverage on' if you only need 'leverage', and why use 'leverage' if you mean to say 'lever'?
If you insist on using the word wrongly, at least, use it wrongly in the right way! Arh, now even I am confused.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Threadfin
I've expanded my repertoire of dishes, though I no longer like cooking. It is not fun anymore, and I'm so tired of healthy dishes - porkball porridge, steamed fish, lightly stir-fried tenderloin. Sometimes I am tempted to put in a few drops of sesame oil and rice wine...but no, these things are forbidden for now. Too 'heaty'.
Apparently, the convalescent has to feed on this special fish 'gnor he', to make sure that the wounds heal better. Unfortunately, since I know only the dialect name for this fish, I have no idea how to buy it at NTUC. I see 'snapper', 'cod', 'salmon', 'batang'...which is 'gnor he'? Being a anti-social and misanthropic, I don't speak to strangers and hence cannot ask the 'aunties' shopping in NTUC. And being a modern woman, I don't dare to go into the wet market...not that there is one where I live. Sigh...
Luckily, NTUC must have realised the predicament we young wives are in. It helpfully labelled the fish '五鱼' at the fish counter, and I understand enough dialect to know that 'gnor' means '五' in Mandarin. Ladies who are like me, for your information, the mystery fish is 'threadfin'. Now you know.
But I haven't found the sugarcane yet. Never mind, at least I have also learnt to double boil.
Apparently, the convalescent has to feed on this special fish 'gnor he', to make sure that the wounds heal better. Unfortunately, since I know only the dialect name for this fish, I have no idea how to buy it at NTUC. I see 'snapper', 'cod', 'salmon', 'batang'...which is 'gnor he'? Being a anti-social and misanthropic, I don't speak to strangers and hence cannot ask the 'aunties' shopping in NTUC. And being a modern woman, I don't dare to go into the wet market...not that there is one where I live. Sigh...
Luckily, NTUC must have realised the predicament we young wives are in. It helpfully labelled the fish '五鱼' at the fish counter, and I understand enough dialect to know that 'gnor' means '五' in Mandarin. Ladies who are like me, for your information, the mystery fish is 'threadfin'. Now you know.
But I haven't found the sugarcane yet. Never mind, at least I have also learnt to double boil.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
World Peace
i am a busy person, mind you, but in the interest of world peace, i shall have to go and offer my vetting services to the White House.
Reading the report on Hu Jintao's visit to the States makes me really ti xiao jie fei - i don't know whether to laugh or cry.
i cannot believe that the americans cannot even get the official name of china right, and end up insulting the country mortally by calling it the 'republic of china', which is, unfortunately, taiwan. somebody obviously has not done his homework. maybe everyone is just too busy and important to notice a minor detail like that.
or maybe this is a sad reflection of the country's education system.
at any rate, i think there is great promise for a second career for me.
Reading the report on Hu Jintao's visit to the States makes me really ti xiao jie fei - i don't know whether to laugh or cry.
i cannot believe that the americans cannot even get the official name of china right, and end up insulting the country mortally by calling it the 'republic of china', which is, unfortunately, taiwan. somebody obviously has not done his homework. maybe everyone is just too busy and important to notice a minor detail like that.
or maybe this is a sad reflection of the country's education system.
at any rate, i think there is great promise for a second career for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)