Dear Oliver

Yesterday evening, as I was driving home, I was listening to a radio programme and the item for discussion was a government policy of subsidising elderly people so that they pay polyclinic rates at normal GP clinics. The lady being interviewed belonged to a volunteer group which was helping these old folks fill up forms to get on the scheme. Both the interviewee and the interviewer referred to the elderly folk as "elderlies" which I thought sounded quite strange I would use the word elderly as an adjective rather than a noun.

Is this "elderlies" an acceptable word, something like in the term "medical orderlies"?

Regards, Suat Khoh

Dear Suat

Thank you for starting me off on an interesting word.

I have heard the word "oldies" used in casual conversation -- although that's hardly a polite word, and certainly not a word that one would use in the presence of an old person. Elderlies is a non-existent form, as far as I am aware, and these two people on the radio were certainly using a non-standard word with rather rude, and negative connotations. Elderlies carries with it a reference to doddering, decrepit and pathetic people in advancing stages of senility. At least accord to such people the dignity of the term "the elderly".

Grammatically, adjectives like elderly, young, rich, famous and notorious function as nouns when you place "the" in front of the word. They cannot be pluralized but they always take a plural verb:

viz. the elderly, the young, the rich, the famous and the notorious must be followed, for example, by have or are.

Semantically, I find it extremely odd when fifty-year-olds are described as elderly. Personally, I would find it offensive if anyone tried to categorize me as elderly although I'm well past fifty. We all grow older each day and it's perfectly true to say that we are older today than we were yesterday. However, we need not necessarily become old and elderly unless we choose to regard ourselves as such. Those who do, soon acquire all the characteristics and ailments of advanced age. I shall resist that for as long as I can.

After all, youth is a feeling, not an age! Stay young in spirit and mind!

Regards, Oliver Seet

Dear Dr Seet

Another offensive term is middle-aged. Some people in their mid or late thirties are called middle-aged. Yuks! To whom should this term actually refer to, if at all? I'm all for scrapping it and the heads of those who use it as a subtle weapon when they feel like insulting someone.

Regards, Jeseca

Dear Jeseca

That's a word laced with offensive implications; it implies, for example, that the person is no longer young, is a little past his/her prime, is probably overweight and weak-kneed, and has problems with his/her cholesterol and blood-pressure.

The concept is based on an ancient perception that the life of a man is three-score-and-ten, viz 70 years and, therefore, at 35 you are considered as middle-aged. How ridiculous it sounds today when life expectancy has increased considerably.

Actually, I believe that one is only beginning to peak at 35 and that the process goes on for as long as one is mentally, psychologically and physically agile -- well, at least mobile.

One should never describe anyone as middle-aged unless one is seeking a confrontation with that person! I don't think anyone would accept that label.

Middle-aged is, therefore, a taboo word -- a word which one should assiduously avoid using.

Regards, Oliver

PS: For those of you who would like to read some interesting observations made by other colleagues on "elderlies", here are a couple.

• Thank you for your "column" on English usage in Singapore. Regarding the elderly, I used to do a bit of testing at a retirement village in Australia. In one session, I referred to the residents as "more mature members of society". You should have seen the smiles on their faces. I guess they too were tired of being referred to as the elderly. However, I am not optimistic that the phrase would catch on in Singapore. Perhaps it will be reincarnated as yet another three letter acronym: the MMMs. (from Kerry)

• I was once described (in my early 40s!) by a student as "elderly". I took no offence as it was clear from the context that she meant "older" (than she and her peers) rather that "aged", but it was clear to me that for some speakers of Singaporean English, "elderly" has different connotations from speakers of either British or American English.
       Confusion may arise because the noun "elder" is used to denote a person of rank or status -- sometimes, but not necessarily related to age. eg "An elder of the Church". Hence it would be natural to assume that the adjective "elderly" would carry the same connotation. (from Peter Stead)

Some of my colleagues fume with rage whenever they receive a reminder with the word gentle to qualify it. I think we have all received numerous notices with the cliché, "This is a gentle reminder ..."

What on earth, I wonder, is a gentle reminder? Is there a scale indicating degrees of gentleness or roughness/toughness, viz.

Gentle -------------------------- Rough/Tough Reminder?

I suppose a rough/tough reminder verges onto a threat or warning.

Is there a fear of offending the reader who might feel that the writer is implying that s/he has had a lapse of memory?

I suppose a note with the tag "Reminder" is the least offensive way of reminding staff of something.

I am sure you need no gentle reminder that today is the eve of the Chinese Lunar New Year. May I wish all who celebrate it a "Happy and Prosperous Lunar New Year".

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on "middle-aged".

• Interestingly, the government's definition of a "youth" is someone who is between 15 and 30 years of age. When I was with the People's Association some years back, the definition then actually included people in their mid-30s! (from Alvin)

• Dear Oliver, your wise comments about the words 'elderly' and 'elder' reminded me of a letter of reprimand that I sent to my supervisees.
       I thought it might interest you that I used the term 'respect for elders' in my letter (first line of paragraph 3). (from Wee Kiat)

Thanks Wee Kiat for sharing. "Elders" as a noun has high status and positive connotations. I believe it is an honour to be called an Elder of the Church. Turn it into an adjective and it becomes offensive. Long Fay just sent me this comment:

• I have come across newspaper articles that describe 50-year-old persons as "elderly". If they are elderly, then I must be "aged"! (from Long Fay)

Dear Prof Seet

Could you explain what "draw the curtains" means?

Adeline Foo

You have identified a truly ambiguous expression -- one that makes even native speakers of the language scratch their heads over. Strangely, it can mean both to "open" and "close" the curtains. So if the boss were to tell you to draw the curtains, check to see whether they are open or closed in the first place. You will then know what he wants you to do.

An alternative expression is to say "Open/Close the curtains". Is this Singlish, as one NUS lecturer writing for the NUS: Promotion of Standard English -- Email Consultancy claims it to be? I am afraid not. Both Macmillan and COBUILD support the use of the alternative expression. I would, however, avoid using "Shut the curtains".

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on "gentle reminder".

• Well said, Oliver. I think it has something of the force of: Look, I'm asking you nicely now, but I could ask less nicely later, if you push me to it. But maybe I'm just too suspicious. (from Bob)

• The word 'gentle' is, to many, redundant. But without it, it may be a bit offensive to some people -- a conflict between traditional courtesy and modern pragmatism perhaps! (from Tai Chee)

Dear Oliver

I thought you might be interested in the kind of writing our trainees use in emails. My colleague received the email appended below and forwarded it to me -- possibly to let off her frustration. I told her that as "teachers of teachers", we should point out to the trainee concerned that such communication is not acceptable. I believe she has replied to the trainee.

I have not seen such an extreme case as this email and thought I would share it with you.

Regards, Suat Khoh

Gd morning .....
But ........ i'm xtremeli sorri ...... but i jus woke up abt 20 mins ago at ard 9.30am ...... i wasnt feelin 2 well yst nite .... was on medication for fever. So i guess i overslept! Even if i were 2 leave mi house asap n catch a taxi 2 class, i dunch tink i wud be able 2 reach in time b4 e class ends as i live in ang mo kio ..... n i wunch be able 2 follow o catch anithing o gather much ....... I'm realli veri sorry abt it Mdm! But i wud definiteli join 2molo's tutorial class from 11.30am-1.30pm 2 make-up 4 2dae's if u dunch mind n permit me 2. I'll appreciate ur understanding n assistance on this matter. Thank You!
Urs sincerely,

Dear Suat

I was shocked and felt a little outraged to read this student's eMail. If one could claim that a piece of writing emitted a foul odour, I would give this one the prize!

It reveals a total lack of respect for

• the lecturer, and
• the conventions of good writing.

More disturbing, it shows

• a slovenly mind
• a slovenly attitude
• slovenly habits, and
• slovenly English.

It would seem that this student has a problem with the letter y: I am mystified by his/her spelling of the following words, for example,

• realli
• definiteli
• veri
• xtremeli sorri
• mi

I can almost hear him/her ending these words on a screechy /i/ vowel!

What on earth is the meaning of

• dunch tink
• dunch mind
• wunch?

This is a disfigurement of our beautiful language!

I find 2molo's sadly amusing.

The following phrases must be in a secret code, I suspect:

• 4 2dae's if u n permit me 2
• at ard 9.30am
• o catch anithing o gather much
• reach in time e class ends

The shorthand forms used: yst, I, 2, b4, n, wud, abt, ur are fine for taking private notes but certainly unsuitable for communication purposes. How much time does one really save in using these unrecognized forms? Is that time better invested in cultivating goodwill? Personally, I do feel irritated by these unseemly short-cuts, but perhaps the hackles on the nape of my neck are too sensitive.

The "most unkindest cut of all" (Shakespeare) comes at the very end with the concluding sentence:

I'll appreciate understanding n assistance on this matter.

How rude can a student get? (Sigh!!)

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on "draw the curtains".

• "Draw" also means the use of traction to pull -- as in a cart being "drawn" by a horse or when one "draws" water from a well by pulling up a bucket on a rope towards oneself. Thus one draws or pulls a curtain or curtains (usually along a rail) either to open or to close them. Adeline might well be puzzled since "draw" can also mean to trace a line across a piece of paper or delineate something [like to depict (or draw) on paper, curtains being drawn!] (from Koh Tai Ann)

Dear Oliver

Would you like to comment on the following two sentences?

1. I like to invite you to my birthday party.
2. You better see the Director.

Regards, AC

Dear AC

There is a missing particle in each sentence -- unnoticeable when spoken rapidly but visibly missing when penned. In both sentences, it is essential to have the particle -- 'd -- following the subject of the sentence, viz.

(1) I'd like to invite you to my birthday party.
(2) You'd better see the Director.

However, 'd is the contracted form for would in sentence 1, and for had in sentence 2, viz.

(1) I would like to invite you to my birthday party.
(2) You had better see the Director.

How confusing for second language learners, especially if the form is introduced before students are ready for it! I suspect many students never hear this unstressed syllable in speech and therefore, it does not exist for them in print. What's unheard is also unseen!

Some teachers propagate the myth that contracted forms like 'd or 'll are not allowed in written English. This is simply not true.

Contracted forms are signals of informality; they are legitimate in casual English such as in letters to close friends. They reflect spoken English where it is natural to use contracted forms. However, one would not use them in a formal report or letter as there would be a confusing mix of formality and informality.

I suspect that contracted forms originate from the laziness of the tongue and the preference for shortcuts in spoken English. We live in a fast-paced and impatient world and shortcuts fit into our frenzied lives.

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on "eMail English".

• Oliver, this is the most atrocious piece of writing I have ever come across in my career! Really shameful! Or should I say shameless? No lecturer should stomach such gibberish from their students -- and these are going to be our future teachers! How sad!
       Well I think the SMS generation is really going to the dogs where their language is concerned. How are they going to conduct "Spelling" lessons in school??!! Or will that become a thing of the past??
       I weep .... (from Angela)

• It is obviously wrong to write a formal message in this mode. It's also the case that the whole message would be instantly comprehensible to anyone under the age of 25 who has ever used IRC or SMS. It is a code, for sure, but not very secret. (from Stephen)

• Hi Dr Seet, in connected speech, two sounds from different words sometimes combine to become one (coalescence) e.g.'gotcha' (got you) and 'betcha' (bet you). But as you know this only applies to certain consonants. I sometimes hear "Can I help chew?", "I donch know" -- the speakers are overextending the feature of coalescence here -- a case of hypercorrection.
       Are "dunch think" and "dunch mind" examples of hypercorrection in speech creeping into written text? (from Christine)

• I think Christine has it right. "dunch" is from "don't you", so "dunch think" is from "don't you think". But then "I donch think" is incomprehensible. This suggests that this student is even illiterate in terms of this SMS-ese! (from David)

Dear Prof Seet

There is a tendency in our daily conversation to use forms such as the following:

• How bout that?
• Yeah, yup, yesh (instead of yes)
• Nope, nah (instead of no or not at all)
• Pris lah (instead of please or will you please, and sometimes they will add in lah, lor, leh, and mehs)

Could you please comment?

Thanks and regards!
Madeline Koh

Dear Madeline

Thank you for your interesting observations. Let me comment on each of these.

• The preference for shortened forms, for example, How bout that?

It is very natural in spoken English to use truncated forms; this tendency characterizes especially the speech of city-dwellers whose pace of life is frantic. Does that sound like Singaporeans? Our speech rhythm is choppy or staccato (to use a musical term) and reflects our pace of living. That's my theory.

I would, however, discourage students of English from using such forms as they tend to spell words in the same way as they pronounce them.

• Yeah, Yup, yesh (instead of yes); nope, nah (instead of no or not at all)

These alternatives are again very common in conversational English and reflect different degrees of informality. I don't think you would use yeah, yup or nope when speaking to Prof Leo Tan, unless you happen to be his buddy.

Yesh and nah carry with them some degree of intimacy with the speaker and have an emotive trace. Yesh has some element of cheek in it. A young lady might think you are being "fresh" with her if you keep saying yesh.

• Pris lah (instead of please)

Pris is dreadful and unacceptable because it is uneducated speech and sounds like Puah Chu Kang's English before he went for language upgrading.

• Sometimes they will add in lah, lor, leh and mehs

That's part of Singlish. These words lack elegance and have no place in formal English but they are solidarity builders. I actually used these in Indiana University many years ago when I wanted to gain acceptance among the Singaporean students studying there; they kept their distance at first because of the age differential but when I used Singlish with them, they relaxed their guard and some actually invited me to their flats for Indian curry and poh piah!

Regards, Oliver

I heard this strange use of the word "boring" on TV the other night. A young mother with a toddler in her arms was asked by the reporter why she was exposing her child to unnecessary risks at a crowded shopping centre. Her reply: "She (her child) is very BORING ... that's why I bring her". Are our children so boring that they have to be exposed to the risk of catching SARS?

Long Fay

Dear Long Fay

Thanks for drawing our attention to a common error made by a number of Singaporeans. I wonder whether the mother was trying to inflict her "boring" toddler on shoppers (spreading the misery?) or whether the risk of their contracting SARS was not as bad as the prospect of being bored by her toddler? It is, indeed, a strange utterance from any angle you view it.

I suppose this mother never learnt the difference between being boring and being bored: one could say, tongue-in-cheek, that being boring is a personality fault; being bored is a state of the mind. A boring speaker would make you feel bored; his boring speech could, however, be a good cure for insomnia. I would make a recording of such a speech to use on nights when I can't sleep! However, it's dreadful to describe a toddler as boring.

Another curious adjective is the word interesting/interested. A typical exchange in class might go as follows:

Teacher: Who is interested in going to the Zoo tomorrow?
Student: I am interesting.

When I first encountered it, I must admit that I was a little nonplused and shocked at the apparent lack of modesty on the part of the student. On reflection I realized that she meant that she was interested in going to the zoo and not that she was an interesting person.

I still wonder why second-language students prefer to use the +ing form rather than the +ed form. My theory is that the +ing form has the in-built concept of continuity or progression. In the murky understanding of such students boring or interesting might suggest that s/he is still interested or bored at the point of speaking. Have you any theory on this tendency?

Regards, Oliver

I had two interesting responses to my last GEM that I would like to share with you:

• Lee Ong Kim's humorous story:

There was this lady in a bus queue at Boon Lay bus station, who had her hands full with bags and other goods. I helped her carry some of her bags while boarding. When she was about to alight, she came up to me to tell me that I was very kind to have helped her and that she was so impressed. Her words, however, came out this way:
     "Thank you so much. You are very kind. I am so impressive!"

If you can describe an error as "lovely", I would think this one fits the bill.

• Suat Khoh's anecdote:

On words ending with "ing", I heard an episode where someone who was really mad at her boss told him "I'm revolting". Maybe "I'm staging a revolt" was considered too much of a mouthful and of less impact. However, I think his answer was "Yes, I agree".

How delicious to hear a rebel describe herself as "revolting"!

I'm sure these two accounts must have at least made you smile. Andrew Poh could not resist adding in this postscript:

Since you brought this word up, there is an accomplished Psychometrician by the name of Boring -- this is no joking matter -- this is a fact. If you don't believe me, go and check it out on the Internet or in some psychological dictionary.

Just fancy that! I think this man must have a hard time convincing his students that he had something interesting to teach them! Did he ever get married, I wonder? Which woman would agree to be called Mrs Boring!

Regards, Oliver

Dear Prof Seet

I heard this rather strange utterance from someone in the legal business on radio this morning: "Before signing the contract look at the small prints." Would you like to comment?

Regards, BH

Dear BH

What an amusing utterance! I believe this person is totally unaware of the difference between small print and small prints.

It is certainly good advice to look at the small print in a contract -- that part of a contract that contains the terms, reservations, restrictions and qualifications in obscure legal language -- before signing it. But it is advice we don't often follow because the contract is usually presented to us on the spot, the font size is too small to read comfortably (a ploy, I suspect, used deliberately by lawyers), and the language is prolix and infuriatingly complex. We sign the contract and discover later to our chagrin that we have walked into a legal trap.

Small prints usually refers to small designs or pictures that are printed on fabrics or gift wrapping paper. I wonder whether the latest legal documents are now decorated with small prints. That would be a wonderful and fanciful change indeed!

This person who was interviewed should have said: "Before signing the contract look at the small print."

Regards, Oliver

Dear Oliver

What has happened to Ms? Besides, it seems to have become standard practice in Singapore to address married women who prefer to use their maiden name as "Mdm". [The computer auto spell-check draws a red line under my old-fashioned properly-punctuated short-form!]

Regards, Tai Ann

Hi Prof Seet,

How about the use of Ms?

Regards, Fareed

Dear Tai Ann and Fareed

Thank you for reminding me about that very special word "Ms". Although it would seem to be perfectly fair to have an equivalent to "Mr" which conceals one's marital status, it is, I believe, a word with a built-in attitude -- a strong feminist connotation. The feminists have fought rightly (being a mere male, dare I say anything less!) for women's rights and I am truly glad that they have been winning their battles in male-dominated quarters.

Ms is a badge of victory but I guess it also puts those who use it unwittingly into the rank and file of the feminists. I personally would not presume to call a lady Ms if I did not know her marital status. Miss would seem to be a safer word to use. I would not dare to hold the door open for a Ms or give up my seat on the bus for her for fear of being told off; one could be regarded as being condescending and therefore, offensive. However, it is, alas, against the lessons on gallantry that my dear dad taught me.

With the passage of time, I believe Ms will lose its feminist connotations. Has it happened yet, I wonder?

Alexius has this interesting observation.

My wife chose to use my surname when we got married. To my son's teachers she's known as Mrs Beverly Chia. However, professionally, she's known as Ms Beverly Chia -- not Miss Beverly Chia nor Mrs Beverly Chia."

On the other hand, my daughter-in-law, who is a lawyer, calls herself Miss Low professionally.

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on "Madam".

• Madam used to be employed by Chinese-medium teachers. Today, other female teachers also use the term to suggest that they are married but are using their maiden name instead of their husband's. Thus: Mrs Tan Soon Huat (i.e. using the husband's name), Mdm Wee Ai Lian (using own maiden name). (from Anthony Seow)

• Thanks for the gems received. From the ladies' viewpoint -- it's a "forced choice" perspective! Ladies generally do not like to be addressed as Mdm. However, banks, the Immigration office, etc. print the word "Madame" before our name on official documents to indicate the marital status of a married lady using her maiden surname. (from Luan)

Dear Dr Seet

Why is "war" pronounced differently from "car" and "jar"? If the difference cannot be explained with reference to semi-vowels, is there nevertheless a pattern?

Regards, Cedric

Dear Cedric

I have asked one of our resident phoneticians, Dr Low Ee Ling, to respond to your question.

Ee Ling notes that "the simple answer to your question is that there is a key difference in English between spelling and pronunciation. In other words, spelling very often doesn't reflect pronunciation in English. Therefore, the examples you have raised below:

"war" vs "car" vs "jar"

reflects precisely this issue. While the vowels in both "car" and "jar" are exactly the same, ie, 'ah' /A;/, the vowel in "war" is different, ie, "or" /O;/. For this reason, English is not an easy language for foreigners as there is very often no consistency between how a word looks (its spelling) and how it is pronounced (its pronunciation).

One last point, how the vowel is produced has nothing to do with the consonant preceding it phonemically. The environment surrounding sounds can affect their phonetic realization (for example, if a consonant occurs before a rounded vowel, it can be more rounded than if it wasn't). However, it does not affect its phonemic properties, ie, once a vowel is an "ah", it remains as an "ah"."

Regards, Oliver

Hello Prof Seet

I need your advice. Which of the following would be correct:

• "The minutes of the last meeting were confirmed", or
• "The minute of the last meeting was confirmed"

Could you also explain why they are called "minutes"?

Novin

Dear Novin

Having once been a victim of Meetingnitis (a condition you suffer from when you have attended too many meetings), I used to wonder why Minutes were not called Hours instead! Many meetings seem to be interminably long; the Chairperson who can keep it short, deserves a good lager from the committee members!

The dictionaries do not tell us how from a measure of time, Minutes came to mean "a summary document; a note or memorandum." I suppose many committee meetings drag on to a point where you keep watching the minute hand of the clock anxiously especially if you have to catch the last bus home. Hence the number of minutes the meeting lasted or its length is the subject of the last sentence of the Minutes.

Originally Minutes referred to a rough draft of a document or letter or a note or memorandum giving instructions to an agent, servant, etc. Later Minutes referred to a record or brief summary of events or transactions. Today Minutes refer to the record of the proceedings at a meeting of an assembly, society, committee, etc. They have become the Secretary's nightmare!

To answer your first question:

• "The minutes of the last meeting were confirmed" is the correct answer.
• Minutes (of a meeting) is always plural and therefore should have a plural verb.

Regards, Oliver Seet

Hellp Prof Seet

Which is the correct form -- system or systems thinking? Is this the same as systemic or systematical thinking?

Chor Boon

Dear Chor Boon

Thanks for an interesting question.

The dictionaries do not tell us how from a measure of time, Minutes came to mean "a summary document; a note or memorandum." I suppose many committee meetings drag on to a point where you keep watching the minute hand of the clock anxiously especially if you have to catch the last bus home. Hence the number of minutes the meeting lasted or its length is the subject of the last sentence of the Minutes.

Originally Minutes referred to a rough draft of a document or letter or a note or memorandum giving instructions to an agent, servant, etc. Later Minutes referred to a record or brief summary of events or transactions. Today Minutes refer to the record of the proceedings at a meeting of an assembly, society, committee, etc. They have become the Secretary's nightmare!

To answer your first question:

• "The minutes of the last meeting were confirmed" is the correct answer.
• Minutes (of a meeting) is always plural and therefore should have a plural verb.

Regards, Oliver Seet

PS: More on "minutes".

Thanks for the many responses I received on the last GEM. May I append three that provide an alternative theory on the origins of the word "Minutes".

• As a lapsed Latin scholar who is always trying to retrospectively justify the years spent studying it, I suspect there is also a trace of the sense Minutiae -- "details"? (from Peter Freebody)

• This is just my view. I think it is called minutes because one has to attempt to record what goes on in a meeting by the minute. However, sometimes the minutes are more like hours when the one who records provide such brief accounts of the meeting. (from Jessie Ee)

• It was interesting pondering the email below. I went through the minute details and suddenly realised that the minute may not necessarily be a measurement of time but a description of something small. Thus meeting minutes are the small bits of the meeting and stretching it a bit it is like a minute of an hour. Hmmm ... wonder where hour came from ... Thanks for the interesting ponderabilia. (from Paul Doyle)