Is or was?

This blog attempts to look at the usage of English in daily life which also includes the media. It has to a lot to do with grammar. Therefore this question:

Shouldn't the is, the third person singular present tense have been avoided and the singular past was employed in this headline in Moneylife, Someone knew Narayana Murthy is coming back and traded on it?

It is like this, If he was to come back, I would welcome it. If not Infosys would have to settle for what was its fate.

Having said this, Moneylife is a useful, brave journal.

Bombayite or Mumbaikar?

There was a time when a Bombay resident was a Bombaywallah or a Bambaiyya. Since the city reverted to its non-anglicized origual name, Mumbai, such persons are called Mumbaikar. In Marathi, the 'kar' is normally a suffix to a place-name which means 'resident of'.

My ancestors are said to have been residents of Vijapur, which made us Vijapurkars. All residents of Thane, regardless of their surnames, thus also qualify to be Thanekars, like all Pune residents, Punekars.

Most newspapers, even English language ones, have taken to the use of 'Mumbaikar' but some bloggers, as this, use 'Bombayite'. Some prefer Mumbaiite. The Hindustan Times has also taken to it almost routinely. Which means, there is no consistency.

This brings us to the use of two other usages: 'Andhraite' and 'Keralite' when referring to people from the two states, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. To my understanding, Andhra Pradesh is a region (pradesh) where Andhras live and in Kerala, people who speak Malayalee, and therefore are Malayalees, reside. If this logic were wrong, then people of Bengal (I am on West Bengal) would be Bengalites.

Tamilnadu was the name coined for the region where Tamil is spoken and by the same logic, Odisha for the region where Odiya is the language. Like Gujarat is the state of Gujaratis. All this has to do with the linguistic basis for forming the state, the first being Andhra Pradesh, the region of Andhras who speak Telugu. It is a surprise it did not become Telugu Pradesh or Telugunadu.

It is possible I may be wrong. If there are any contrarian views, hey are welcome here. But do take the trouble to convey it.

'Decide' is forerunner to a 'final decision'?

You 'decide' on doing something. Is that a prelude to a 'final decision' to come later?

A blurb to an interview of K Keshava Rao, a Congress leader in Andhra Pradesh says "in this interview with Rediff.com 's Vicky Najappa, Rao says that he has decided to join the TRS, but would wait until Thursday night before taking a final decision"

I suppose when you decide, it is final. Or you are only considering deciding to do something.

Read the interview and it would emerge that the blurb could have said Rao was edging toward a decision but dependent on how the powers that be in Congress and the Government respond to a demand for quick decision on formation of Telangana.

It is equivocation containing  threat to the party for its dilly-dallying.

We need to decide, finally, how we use the word without a qualifier.

Comptroller - the 'p'?

With Vinod Rai, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) having retired, we are less likely to read and hear about that office for few, even if in a Constitutional office, attract such attention as he had because of his report on G2 telephony and the presumptive loss of 1.7 lakh crore.

It was so often used that CAG, an abbreviation became the norm for referring to the office, even in the first reference breaking a journalistic norm, that very few had to grapple with Comptroller, with a p. How is it pronounced? We in India do bring that p when uttering it. Do we need to?

We needn't.The Merriam-Webster online dictionary's audio facility excludes that p. Try it here. The freedictionary which provides audio support for both British and American pronunciation too skips the p. Click on the Union Jack.

The Oxford Dictionaries, online, explains that its origin is "late 5th century: variant of CONTROLLER, by erroneous association with French compte 'calculation' or its source, later Latin comptus"

What? Come again!

I came across this in an article on the editorial page of The Times of India (May 28, 2013):

"The sum of many publications (is) bigger than the sum of their parts."

It needs the reader to pause a while and unravel what the writers, Kaushik  Murali and Saubhik Chakrabarti, meant to convey.

Obviously, it is a take off of the expression, ascribed to Aristotle, which is, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". A website, sum.com, explains it thus: "When you add together the parts, the total value will be larger than if you had counted up the individual components."

It is a holism, a doctrine that a system may have properties over and above those of its parts and their organisation. Like, for instance, a human body has a value higher than the value of each of the components that make up a human body.

But the "sum of many publications (is) bigger than the sum of their parts"? Not easy to take in. Not very comfortable for a reader, even if it were a correct expression.

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?

Terrorism or murder?

Words have a purpose. That is why they are used. Indiscretion in the choice of words employed could convey an entirely different picture than intended. Carelessness can be with disastrous consequences.

Tristan Stewart-Robertson, a Glasgow-based journalist who writes a column for Firstpost.com deals with the use of the word 'terrorist' in describing the alleged killers of a person in Woolwich the other day.

His argument is that in the context of wild attacks anywhere which are now routinely classified as 'terror' and the attackers as 'terrorist(s)' in the media could well be a huge error. A murder could be plain murder, and a terror attack quite something else.

His piece can be read here.

In this context, when we speak or write of the sway of bahubalis in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, gangsters elsewhere, including the local goons who just like to keep the areas around them under their thumbs, are also terrorists. They were covered under a law, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. These days we use the term terror in an entirely different context, to explain the attacks on Mumbai, the attacks on the World Trade Centre, especially after the rise of al-Qaida.

Stewart-Robertson is clear - don't call a murder a terror attack.