Advani 'mutinous'?

Is it right to describe Lal Krishna Advani's recent views and actions 'mutinous'?

But that adjective appears inappropriate in the Advani context because he has been, since the formation of Bharatiya Janata Party been a leader even if he did not hold a formal position. He has been the elder of the party.

Technically, he differed and quit from the several party fora which makes him a dissenter, if even a lonely one. Aleader does not rebel of mutiny; he only leads.

The Hindu, in its editorial on June 13 used the adjective. A mutinous person is one who is willfully disobedient. Here, he had objections and the adjective does not sit apt on him.

'Inadequate overhaul'

'Overhaul', as is commonly understood, is taking things apart and putting them together. It does not imply any half-measure.

The dictionaries have this meaning for overhaul: to dismantle in order to make repairs. As a verb, it is to take apart and then putting them together. Merriam-Webster has this: to repair, to renovate, remake, revise or renew thoroughly.

Those who don't bother about the nuances, overhaul suggests remaking or renewing thoroughly.

So this headline for an editorial (called 'leader' within the newspaper, as does The Economist) in The Hindu looked odd: Inadequate overhaul. But it was not, for what it referred to was inadequate response of the Archaeological Survey of India to the issue of preserving monuments.  The paper meant, what was being done was not enough. What was being done was not comprehensive enough.

It is a happy thing that we find something that sounds odd but is actually correct usage.

Army and 'order'

Organisations sometimes need outside help to better run them.

Some appoint consultants, others commission studies to find flaws in the way things are done and then look to changing procedures.

But when Indian Army wants to speed up the process of selection of officers and make it transparent, it just orders a study. In this case, the Indian Army orders a study by the Indian Institute of Management - Ahmadabad.

Fortunately, the IIM-A was not ordered; The Army chief ordered someone, apparently down the line, to have a study done.

Read this headline on The Hindu website om May 24, 2013 night: Army orders an IIM study to review officer selection.

We don't know what the print edition would prefer as the headline.

It is not the work of the headline writer. The text itself speaks of the order. 

An organisation which depends on order for itself efficiency, no other word would do!

In the second paragraph, however, there is an asked. Seems rather out of step, doesn't it?

Know your English, but she has no opposite for 'sin'

The Hindu has a reputation for good English. It has been said time and again that one improves on his or her English language skills by reading that newspaper. This may not necessarily hold good for every printed item in the newspaper these days, but it most certainly it is the case with its editorial pages.

For long, the newspaper has been doing another service of a weekly column, Know your English, published every Monday. The columnist S Upendran responds to questions from readers and explains the meaning and usage of words and expressions.

This column is printed regularly but in some corner of the newspaper's Monday pull-outs. Navigating to it is quite a task. Therefore this blog would, as and when it is able to spot one, provide the hyperlink to it, as it has here.

In this Know your English on May 6, 2013, Upendran explains the difference between effeminate and womanish. He also tells you, "Most Indian languages have an opposite" for sin, like punyam, punya, etc.but English does not have an exact opposite. Many people make do with words like 'virtue, 'grace'., etc. as opposites".

Now Mr Upendran may want to tell that while a comma precedes the etc., should it be followed by another comma? Etc., being an abbreviation of et cetera, the Latin words for so on and so forth, should invariably end with a full stop but a comma could follow?

The missing 'erstwhile'

This blog's intent is to look at the use or misuse of words and expressions in journalism but here is an exception. It is about non-use of a word - erstwhile. And the confusion it causes.

The Hindu's news item on April 1, 2013 failed to use 'erstwhile' when talking about the former ruler of Bastar giving the impression that in a democratic republic which India is, royalty with titles exist. The only place where its use was not required - and not used - is in the fourth paragraph because the report recalls the past when India did have kings.

It is another matter that people in several regions, including cities like Jaipur, do look at the former rulers as royalty and refer to them as His/Her Highness but for a newspaper to treat them as royalty is ill-advised.

The use of 'Bastars' to identify the people who belong to a region is interesting.

All comments are welcome.

When use of 'out' when 'in' would have done.

In a news item on March 4, 2013, The Hindu said this: "They got two children born out of their wedlock". That was not the newspaper had meant to convey.

The report was about a couple who quarreled and then resumed their marital life after which they had two children. That is very much within the wedlock.

It is possible that the writer literally translated what is said for the same thing in any Indian language - it happened from out of it, or because of it. The out here is not the same as saying, for instance, out of frustration, he screamed.

That error could mean a lot to the couple. The man in has been identified by name, about how a criminal case against him following his wife's complaint - fortunately not named - led to a criminal case. That led to denial of a job for which he otherwise qualified.

We do not know if the person complained to the newspaper or threatened it with a suit because children out of wedlock reflected adversely to their reputation. The Reader' Editor corrected it in his Corrections and clarifications column on March 7.

There is another issue with the construction of that unintended mischievous sentence in the report. Why "got two children born out of their wedlock? Why not merely the two children (if it were really so, and I am pushing it here only  for argument's sake) born out of wedlock?