Dear Oliver

The word leverage comes from lever and I thought it was a noun which derived meaning from the physical principle of a lever where a less powerful force can produce greater than expected effect by use of a fulcrum point (Archimedes?). I am seeing it being used more and more in recent years as a verb as in "to leverage on" and I am not sure if the preposition "on" is appropriate as well. Please comment.

This expression was used several times during a major seminar on Education in Singapore. In the discussion document, one sentence goes like this: "Schools could leverage on certain media like CCAs to better cater to the diverse learning styles." A bit further on, there is the sentence "Schools could leverage more on platforms like CCA, Art or even drama to infuse NE.

Su Kee

Dear Su Kee

Thank you for the first question of this series.

I believe you have highlighted a use of the word leverage that is peculiar to Singapore English.

Leverage is used much more as a noun than as a verb, e.g.

Giving a lady fifty red roses on Valentine's Day rather than a box of chocolates would gain you immense leverage (noun) on her affections.

You would, I believe, gain greater strategic advantage (leverage) over a rival for a lady's affections with red roses rather than with anything else (unless you could afford diamonds, since diamonds are a girl's best friend, according to a popular song of my day!)

As a verb, leverage is usually never followed by a preposition like on, as it is essentially a transitive verb. You cannot say, for example,

We need to leverage on the resources that are already available at NIE.

You can say

We need to leverage the resources that are already available at NIE.

The "muddy" sentences you cited, Su Kee, would read better if the word leverage were used as a noun, viz.

Schools could obtain greater leverage on certain media like CCAs to better cater to the diverse learning styles. Schools could obtain more leverage on platforms like CCA, Art or even drama to infuse NE.

rather than

Schools could leverage on certain media like CCAs to better cater to the diverse learning styles. Schools could leverage more on platforms like CCA, Art or even drama to infuse NE.

I am not sure, however, if I have altered the writer's sense of the sentences. I would personally have preferred to use a more lucid phrase like take advantage of rather that leverage, for example:

Schools could take advantage of certain media like CCAs to better cater to the diverse learning styles.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Prof Seet

We received this circular a few days ago and I was amused with the error in the following line:

"With regards to all modules under the Foundation Programmes, the System is designed in such a way that ..."

Would you like to comment on the word "regards"?

Melissa

Dear Melissa

Thank you for drawing our attention to the misuse of the word "regards". It is indeed strange to send one's regards (a polite expression of desire for someone's welfare) to modules which can scarcely be expected to respond to such good wishes. This is carrying out the Courtesy Campaign too far.

One normally sends one's regards to a person or persons and not to things and it is common practice to end a message with "Regards". The correct word is therefore "regard" (concerning, considering):

"With regard to all modules under the Foundation Programmes, the System is designed in such a way that ..."

Regards, Oliver Seet

I have a query for the term 'email'. The word 'mail' doesn't have a plural form and since email is an abbreviation for electronic mail, it should not take on a plural form. So the term 'emails' is incorrect. Am I right?

Christian Chia

This is a question which you might have pondered over. Here is a good response from Adam Brown.

• Dictionaries mark "mail" as uncountable.
• However, dictionaries mark "email" as countable or variable.
• This is probably done on the basis of observed data from corpora, i.e. lots of people write "emails" nowadays (with or without a hyphen -- that is another question).
• Your spell-checker therefore accepts "emails". (It also accepts "mails" but that is because it can be a verb.)
• There is not the slightest ambiguity if someone writes "emails".

We live in such a whirlwind generation that anything slower than an email is considered as "snail mail". However, we should not despise the snail. Remember the story of the hare and the tortoise?

Those of us who have used email for some time may have experienced the danger of clicking the SEND button a little too soon -- sometimes with disastrous consequences! Trigger-quick fingers sometimes overtake the brain. This was the danger too with the John Wayne generation when "trigger-happy" cowboys fired first in the heat of the moment before thinking.

Wise men always advise us to count to ten before speaking out in anger. Snail mail allows one time to cool down and modify something written in anger before posting a reply, while email encourages a spontaneous and impulsive response which one might live to regret.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Prof Seet

Which is correct -- between you and I or between you and me?

Sandra

I recently heard two distinguished Singaporean public speakers say "between you and I" not once in their speeches but several times loudly and clearly. It jarred my linguistic eardrums and made me shift in my seat to hear such well-educated people making a basic error in grammar.

In the prepositional phrase "between (preposition) you and I" the use of the personal pronoun I sounds a little pompous and is certainly ungrammatical. The more modest form -- me -- is the correct form.

However, in the sentence

You and me (subject of the sentence) could see the Director together.

The pronoun me is ungrammatical and it is, in this case, false modesty to use me instead of I. To say, for example,

Me could see the Director

would sound like Tarzan learning to speak English from Jane. The correct sentence is

You and I could see the Director together.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Prof Seet

What are your comments on the following notices found in shops in Singapore?

• All shoplifting are handled by the Police in this shop.
• The Police is responsible for all the shoplifting in this shop.

Kam Ming

Dear Kam Ming

Thank you for sending me your collection of signs in Singlish. They are certainly good enough to raise a smile or two. Let me attempt to deal with these two signs.

(1) All shoplifting are handled by the Police in this shop.

There is a tendency to forget that the allusion here is to "all cases of shoplifting". In a fast-paced society like ours, the shorthand form is preferred; I suppose the cost of each additional letter of the alphabet is another consideration. It's strange too to learn that the shop employs policemen rather than security guards!

(2) The Police is responsible for all the shoplifting in this shop.

This second sign is even funnier! Let me correct the grammar error first. Nouns like "police" and "army" are normally followed by plural verbs, viz. the police/army are.

Grammar apart, look at the humour in the ambiguity! It is indeed a serious allegation to claim that the law enforcement officers are really the culprits -- the shoplifters. It could happen in some other country but not in squeaky-clean Singapore!

Regards, Oliver

Hi Oliver

I like the humorous examples! Thanks for sharing. Here is another sign I have seen: "Shop is close".

When referring to the business hours of an establishment, why is it correct to say open but not close? Or conversely, why is it correct to say closed but not opened? How do you explain this?

Cynthia Macknish

Dear Cynthia

Thanks for your question. I have also seen this sign:

CLOSE ON SUNDAYS

on many sliding glass doors in shopping centres in and around Singapore.

This is, for me, a very strange and candid confession -- that the sales personnel within are distant (not warm) on Mondays to Saturdays but on Sundays they are close (warm, near and dear to each other). The opposite of closed is, of course, open but the opposite of close is probably distant.

These two words are used as adjectives and the adjectival forms are open and closed. Opened would be normally be used as a verb, e.g.:

The Boutique will be opened (passive) by the Director next Sunday.

The sign should really read as follows:

CLOSED ON SUNDAYS

Regards, Oliver

Dear Prof Seet

Could you explain the use of the word "hair". When do we say "hair" and when "hairs"?

Hannah

"Hair" is a strange word and a strange commodity that often seems to violate the laws of logic and good taste these days. One sees hair in almost all imaginable colours and styles and it seems to be a new form of self-expression.

"Hair" is a problematic word to use. Consider the following sentences:

(1) She has plenty of hairs on her head.
(2) Men's hairs have grown grey in a single night.
(3) John's hairs are turning grey.

When you have plenty of it, or when you are referring to the entire stock of hair on your head, hair is used without the plural (+s) form. Hence Sentences 1 and 3 are ungrammatical. But strangely, when you are referring to individual strands of hair or to portions of hair on your head, the plural form is required. Sentence 2 is perfectly acceptable. It comes, in fact, from a poem written by the English poet, Lord Byron.

Sentences 1 and 3 should be rewritten as follows:

(1) She has plenty of hair on her head.
(3) John's hair is turning grey.

Oliver Seet

PS: More on "close".

• Hi Dr Seet, 7-11 used to have this catch-phrase ALWAYS CLOSE BUT NEVER CLOSED. (This has been replaced with ALWAYS A STORE AND MORE.) Thought you might be interested. (from Bee Geok)

Dear Prof Seet

I just heard on Radio this morning, a very prominent person saying, "We must deal with this disaster in a matured way". Is it "mature" or "matured" and what is the difference?

Janet

Nine out of ten Singaporeans seem to have problems using the right form of the word "mature". They will say or write:

"Margaret is very dependable and matured." or
"Margaret is a very dependable and matured person."

These are indeed strange observations to make about Margaret. 'Matured' is normally used to describe wine that has gone through the process of aging and to say a person is 'matured' is to imply rather humorously that the person is like a strong drink to be savoured. It suggests that the person is now ripe and sufficiently aged like good wine.

The right adjectival form to use when describing a person who has gone through a process of maturation is 'mature'. The right form then should be:

"Margaret is very dependable and mature." or
"Margaret is a very dependable and mature person."

The prominent person you heard should have said:

"We must deal with this disaster in a mature way."

Regards, Oliver

Dear Prof Seet

As a teacher, I find it very irritating to hear my colleagues using the tag "isn't it?" all the time. Here are some examples:

(1) They are very good, isn't it?
(2) She said she was coming to the party, isn't it?
(3) The lecture on Wednesday has been cancelled, isn't it?

Would you like to comment on this?

Regards, Josephine

Dear Josephine

These are typical examples of the misuse of the tag question in Singlish. There is a tendency to use "isn't it?" for all situations requiring a tag question in spoken Singaporean English. When you hear it misused in class by a teacher, however, it is particularly disturbing as the error becomes reinforced through habitual misuse. Like you, I find the constant and persistent misuse of "isn't it?" as grating as a stylus stuck in a groove on an old record.

In a neighbouring country (which shall be nameless) where I stayed for a few months, the equivalent tag question is, interestingly, "no?" In that country, the above sentences would have read as follows:

(1) They are very good, no?
(2) She said she was coming to the party, no?
(3) The lecture on Wednesday has been cancelled, no?

After a while, however, you almost feel like screaming aloud, "No no, no no!" Isn't it time we stopped using "isn't it" wrongly in Singapore? The correct form of the sentences should, of course, be:

(1) They are very good, aren't they?
(2) She said she was coming to the party, didn't she?
(3) The lecture on Wednesday has been cancelled, hasn't it?

Regards, Oliver

In the aftermath of the Tsunami, which I am sure left us all feeling stunned and distressed, a good friend of mine prayed at a gathering for the victims of the disaster. He prayed that God would send "aids" to those who had been left injured, shattered and destitute by this disaster.

I was absolutely shocked and upset by his prayer and had to chide him for praying for something I would not wish even on my worst enemies.

This confusion between "aids" (the dreaded disease) and "aid" (help) is apparently quite widespread. I have heard a TV announcer saying that the government is sending more "aids" to Sri Lanka and Phuket. He didn't realize, I am sure, that he could be sued for defamation for making such an announcement.

"Aid" (help) is an uncountable noun and has no plural form. So please send aid but not "aids" to those in need!

"Aids", however, could be used legitimately in a technical sense to refer to specific equipment, devices or techniques. Teachers need to use visual aids and many aids for the handicapped have been devised. In technical usage, it is quite in order to speak of breads, monies, waters, Englishes and behaviours although you might get non-educationists smiling wryly at you when you speak about a person's "behaviours".

Oliver Seet

Greetings Oliver

When and how did this form of speech evolve: "I was like shocked ... etc, etc ..." Why do people put in "like"? Do you think it is a short form for "as it were". I have not seen it in print but certainly a lot of young people use it in their normal day to day conversation. Have you?

When did people start to use "as it were" in their statements? This is used more by grownups and young people.

CK

Dear Kunalan

Thanks for the question.

Like and as it were are "stabilizers" or hesitation devices which become more necessary as you age, I suppose, and as you become more forgetful and inhibited. They characterize spoken English as it is more stressful to speak than to write, I think. When you write, your hesitations, regressions and corrections are concealed mercifully by the keyboard although a written first draft will reveal all this very embarrassingly!

In speaking, you have just moments to come up with the right words; long silences while you grope for words will terminate a conversation as your listener thinks you are not going to say anything more. It is, therefore, essential to signal to your listener that you are still "on line" by using such devices.

Like and as it were allow you that precious second or two while you search desperately through the lexicon in your memory bank for the appropriate word. If a speaker needs more time for the search, he might say:

I was uh ... like ... as it were ... well ... to tell the truth ... as a matter of fact ... shocked.

You might give up talking to such a person if he does this habitually. We generally can't stand people who hesitate too much.

I believe like is a relatively modern hesitation device. I am not sure what stabilizers our ancestors used as we only have written records (before the advent of tape recorders) of past utterances.

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on GEM 7.1.

• Dear Oliver, very interesting! With more money (or monies?) in school, we have to distinguish between buying teaching aids and employing teaching aides! (from Khoon Yoong)
  
  
• Hi my friend, I have AIDS meaning I'm tested HIV positive, also meaning Acquired Intelligence Deposited Securely and High In Virtue, positively. (from Poh)
  
  
• Dear Dr Seet, on a recent trip to China last month, I saw this sticker pasted on washbasins in a gents' toilet at Beijing Airport:
  
     AUTOMATIC FAUCET
     UNNECESSARY TOUCHING
  
  I doubt this is of any pedagogical value -- it isn't, in any case, of Singaporean origin -- but it might just provide light relief!
  
  I notice The Straits Times very often uses hypercorrect "whom" -- if I come across any examples, I'll send them to you. (from Ludwig)
  
  
• Your GEM column has been very entertaining and enlightening. (from Jacklyn)
  
  
• Thanks Oliver, for continuing with GEMs! You are such a gem yourself!! (from Angela)

Hi folks

Kunalan's interesting question has provoked other responses and I include these three comments from Karina, Antonia and JC which provide a fuller understanding of that ubiquitous word "like". Thank you for your valuable comments Karina, Antonia and JC.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Oliver

To add to your comment on 'like, as it were' and further answer Kunalan's question ...

The use of the word 'like' as a hesitation device might also derive from the practice of using similes (using 'like' or 'as') to add interest, create a better mental vision of the moment or thing the person is seeking to describe or point out, and thus to add emphasis.? However, the comparison to something else for emphasis is implied by intonal emphasis on the word 'like' and the pause that follows before the speaker continues.? Paris Hilton and friend use it all the time on The Simple Life on television, as an example.

It appears to have superseded the usage of the word?'just ...' which was popular some years ago.

Kind regards, Karina Churchill

------------------------------

Thank you, Oliver. It does sometimes get irritating to listen to people using "stallers" especially 'as it were'. So patronizing! (from Antonia)

------------------------------

Hello Oliver,

It seems to me that these fillers are best regarded as a kind of verbal cement containing too much sand intended to hold together a crumbling intellect. They are a sign of the widespread intellectual degradation of the last half century, which has now reached such depths of shamelessness that people happily espouse the notion that yes, they, along with most of the rest of the human race, are indeed 'dumbing down'. The attitude seems to be that demonstrating that one is linguistically challenged should be taken as evidence of membership of some chivalric order.

JC

Dear Dr Seet

I was taught in school that I should never end a sentence with a preposition. That was a long time ago. Is this rule still true for today's English?

Regards, Patricia

Dear Patricia

I am afraid you, your teacher and countless generations of students have been duped by a famous poet and playwright named John Dryden (1631-1700) who originated and perpetuated this enduring mythical rule. He decided strangely to make prescriptive pronouncements on English grammar based on his knowledge of another entirely different language -- Latin -- which had such "perfect" grammar that it is not surprising that it is now a perfectly dead language! Just imagine, he had the effrontery to find fault with no less a person than Shakespeare because he did not conform to this rule! Dryden should really not have stuck his big literary thumb into the English Grammar pie.

Is it really necessary to observe this rule? I suppose you could say that in formal or "proper" English (a term my students seem to like), it is expected that you should, but it would sound very strange to use it in informal or casual English.

Consider the following example:

Those are the beastly kids to whom I was referring.

Beastly and kids are words that belong to colloquial spoken English but they are embedded incongruously in formal (written) syntax. In informal English it is far more natural to say:

Those are the beastly kids I was referring to.

Try using the rule for the following questions and you will see how awkward they sound:

Where did they go to?
Where do you come from?

An editor once rewrote one of Winston Churchill's sentences to avoid ending it in a preposition, and the Prime Minister replied testily:

"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put!"

Finally, look at what too many prepositions can do to a sentence:

"Daddy, what did you bring that book I don't like to be read to out of down for?"

Regards, Oliver

Dear Dr Seet

Why do Singaporeans use lah, lor and other such words when speaking?

Marianne

Dear Marianne

Thanks for your question. These are words that one associates with Singlish. I can give you my own theories on why these words are so popular in Singaporean speech but other readers might also want to share their own perceptions.

While these words are quite appropriate in casual or intimate conversation among certain social cliques, you should not use them at MOE interviews, when making a speech or when speaking to Prof Leo Tan. They tend to debase one's speech, provide wrong signals of familiarity with the person/s you are speaking to and reduce your standing in the eyes of your listeners or interlocutors. I remember an English Honours graduate I interviewed years ago who could not speak Standard English for more than a minute before lapsing into Singlish. The Committee told her that she had three months to stop using lah and lor if she wanted to be a teacher!

Lah and lor, I believe, are an inheritance from Hokien and Cantonese; these languages use lah and lor liberally and speakers of these "dialects" tend to lace their spoken English with these words as well.

It is, however, more satisfying and emotionally emphatic to say "No, laaah" with the right tone of voice than to just say "No" which sounds bloodless and anemic. Try saying it with feeling and you will see what I mean. It's also a word to signal a relaxed style of speaking.

But the strongest reason for using it is that it is a solidarity builder. Years ago, I spent a sabbatical year in Indiana University. After a month at the university, I hankered for some Singaporean company. I attended a student gathering but the moment they saw me and my wife, I could sense a distancing taking place. So I mustered all the Singlish I knew and used it when speaking to them. It worked like a charm and in no time at all, we were accepted. Lah became the password that gave us access into the young world of the students there. It's not such a bad word after all, lah.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Dr Seet

Thanks for the comments on lah or lor.

Incidentally, we have deliberately used the name "Quantumlah" for our quantum information lab (www.quantumlah.org). Some people thought that we have incorrectly spelt "lab" as "lah" so we have inserted a section on singlish on our web site.

Is it possible to have your comments on the name of our web site? Thanks.

Kwek

Dear Dr Kwek

What a quantum-leap of courage and imagination to coin this new word! It is so new-fangled that some of your readers must have thought that it was a slip of the finger.

The marriage of two words of such disparate origin and function is like the marriage of a distinguished professor and a primary school dropout -- not wrong but unusual and unexpected. The social elite might frown on such a union.

"Quantum theory" is such a formidable and complex academic subject that most laymen would not even try to understand what it is all about. To use -lah as a suffix to form an unlikely word like quantumlah comes as surprise.

The new word suggests that you are attempting:

• to adopt an informal and chatty tone in your website.
• to give your website a local flavour -- as Singaporean as the word lah.
• To build some solidarity with your readers.

I am not sure if any or all of the above was at the back of your mind when you coined this word but the success of your website might establish the word as a new entry for the venerable and highly prestigious Oxford Dictionary.

May I wish your website all the best!

Regards, Oliver

PS: I had the following interesting comment based on last week's GEM:

• It is interesting to note that French speakers in Quebec also use "là" to punctuate their speech. Literally translated it means "there" but it is used without real meaning but rather as a filler to make the speech flow. (from Eric)

Dear Oliver

I hear many different MOE HQ officers using the phrase "go down to schools" during briefings and meetings.? On the other hand, NIE colleagues tend to say "go out to schools" when referring to practicum supervision or research visits. Having heard?the "go down" phrase so often, I am afraid of catching the habit?because I feel it?probably sounds offensive?to school personnel. Could?it be a legacy of MOE HQ being perched on Kay Siang Hill all those years??

If you think that the?preposition is being used widely and it is not just a case of MOE HQ people whom I happen to come into contact with or a case of me being over-sensitive, you may want to consider using the above for GEMS.

Regards, Susan

What an interesting observation, Susan!

Prepositions we are told are relational words and some of them are like arrows -- directional in nature. I am reminded of the road sign on the way into Mount Vernon Crematorium which reads -- ONE WAY ONLY. As if anyone needs to be reminded!

A psychoanalyst would gleefully do a knife job on the use of these prepositions, but I would resist the temptation to attempt such an analysis.

I guess if you have been perched on the top of Kay Siang Hill for "centuries" and then in a still higher tower in Buona Vista, you can't help but go down to the schools, can you -- at least physically, I mean? In NIE, most of us have never been placed in a really higher elevation and so it is quite normal for us to go out -- in a lateral sense, to school. Does working at a higher altitude breed a certain attitude after a season? Who's to say? The teachers? It does sound a little "superior" to use the preposition down.

Nevertheless, we tend to say that we are going downtown but that does not have a derogatory sense. After all, that's a "happening" place.

I wonder how people who come from down under feel about the two prepositions describing their great country. Do they feel put down by this idiomatic phrase? A lot of Singaporeans, I know, don't think so. They flock in large numbers to Perth particularly or even further down south to Auckland.

I would prefer to say that I'm going out to school, really.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Oliver

When does one use "that" instead of "which" when referring to a thing? When are they interchangeable and when are they not?

For example, we can say "This is the book that I borrowed", or "This is the book which I borrowed".

On the other hand, we say "This is all that I have", but not "This is all which I have".

Alternatively, when can they be used together? For example, "Being is that which is."

Regards, Diane ROZELLS

Dear Diane

Thank you for that interesting question.

I was taught that that as a relative pronoun is now used widely by those who can't remember the difference between who and which.

I have come to realize, however, that such a generalization is simplistic and inadequate. It is quite rude, actually, to use which to describe a person:

Janet is the person which I met at the store yesterday.

Such a statement dehumanizes Janet and reduces her to a thing since which carries a "thing-like" meaning. It¡¯s more acceptable to use that, viz.

Janet is the person that I met at the store yesterday.

although whom is the correct form. That's the reason why many people prefer to use the neutral and less confusing word -- that. This, however, is something that modern stylists still frown on claiming that who should be used for persons and which/that for things. However, if that is used exclusively, one would have bumble bee sentences such as the following:

He said that people that are taught by teachers that have only a perfunctory grasp of their subject are to be pitied.

Surely, it would be clearer to say:

He said that people who are taught by teachers who have only a perfunctory grasp of their subject are to be pitied.

Too many thats spoil the syntactical broth! I like your sentence which illustrates the complexity of it all, Diane: "Being is that which is."

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on GEM 7.7.

• Dear Oliver, I really enjoy reading your GEM series and always look forward to it.
  Your GEM 7.7 reminds me of the typical organization chart used by all government sectors where there is a top-down management hierarchy illustrated in graphic layout.? In the same way, under top-down management, we hear so often from people asking "who works under you?"? I, normally, would reply "I work with ..." with a funny idea as if there are people squatting below my pants.
      Some years ago, I was attached overseas as a management trainee.? Someone taught me about Centre-Management as an alternative to Top-down Management where the leader occupies the centre and from it, radiates different arms with groups of personnel, and from these groups radiates more sub-groups.? This way, nobody is really on top of each other.? It is like a network of blood vessels with the heart in the centre.? It sounds more friendly and cohesive. (from Jacques See)
  
  
• Dear Dr Seet, this is interesting -- it reminds me of the British referring to visits "up" to London even if they live in the far north (and would therefore technically be travelling "down" to the capital).? Many who do not live in the Home Counties resent this usage, of course.? I suppose the analogy to be drawn is that MOE HQ is the capital, so one can almost understand its officers feeling that schools are provinces they go "down" to. (Ludwig Tan)
  
  
• Dear Oliver, I've got a question for GEMS. I read this in the blurb of a book by Kenzaburo Oe. The book, Seventeen, is about a lonely seventeen year old who turns to a right-wing group to boost his self-esteem: "Seventeen's lost young man is in the throes of becoming a right wing activist and assassin. He feels his identity for the first time in the enervating rush of murderous violence." My question: How is it that some words -- "enervating" here -- come to mean exactly the opposite of what they mean? (from Wai Chew)
  
  Dear Wai Chew, thanks for the question. It's strange to associate "enervating" with "rush of murderous violence" but strangely, there is truth in paradox. I experienced it many years ago in a thermal pool in Gisborne in NZ. I was told to stay no more than 10 minutes in the pool to feel refreshed. If I stayed longer, I would be enervated, not energized. I guess the writer had this in mind -- that such violence enervates although initially, it might seem to energize. It's very Japanese in thinking! God bless, Oliver Seet

Dear Oliver

When referring to leaders in education, including principals of schools and directors of education, do we say "education" leaders or "educational" leaders? How do we explain the difference between the two?

Similarly, is it wrong to say "education leadership" instead of "educational leadership"?

Thank you.

Regards, Lee Ong Kim

Dear Ong Kim

Thank you for that interesting question.

The phrase "education leaders" (noun functioning as an adjective, in layman's language) conjures up for me an image of bureaucratic, self-important persons who make you conscious of their positional authority. Step a little out of line and they will throw the book at you. Meeting such an official from MOE or Education is really like an icy dehumanizing encounter of the third kind. You feel frost-bitten after that.

The term "educational leaders" (adjectival form) however suggests leaders who are warm-hearted and who are concerned more with the process of education rather than merely with its administration, execution and management. A meeting with such a person leaves you feeling affirmed; you take away from that educational encounter, a fresh perspective, understanding or new knowledge.

But this is just a tongue-in-cheek distinction. In reality the two terms are used interchangeably with a preference for the latter term - "educational leaders".

For "leadership", it would seem strange to me to use the term "education leadership" since leadership, like education is a process. I would think "educational leadership" is much more acceptable.

Regards, Oliver

The word opportunity which is, not surprisingly, a high-frequency word these days, is so often maligned and, I am tempted to say, "bad-mouthed" (mispronounced) that I think a comment is required.

Nine out of ten Singaporeans tend to pronounce the word in the following manner:

op-POR-chu-ni-ti
(where CAPS = stressed syllable)

It makes the pores on the nape of my neck tighten each time I hear the word mispronounced. (I guess that's where my language sensors reside.) It also disfigures a beautiful word and concept when it is stressed wrongly in that manner.

Opportunity, they say, knocks only once. Let it knock on the right syllable!

In Standard English, I believe the word is pronounced thus:

op-per-CHU-ni-ti

As a rule, the stress is on the syllable directly in front of words that end in -ity.

Regards, Oliver Seet

PS: I'd like to thank Adam Brown and Low Ee Ling for their assistance.

Another frequently used word that is often maligned is the word development. The majority of public speakers I have heard over the years tend to pronounce the word development as

DE-ve-lop-ment

rather than the standard

de-VE-lop-ment

I can't help thinking that there must be a DEVIL in it somewhere and that the "development" spoken of must have some DEVILry in it.

I would have second thoughts about purchasing a property that a housing agent pronounces as a good property 'DEvelopment' for fear that there might be some fiendish operative with dishonest motives hiding in the woodwork.

Why do some people stress the word in this non-standard manner? If you can stomach a technical explanation, please scroll down to the bottom of the page.

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on "opportunity".

• Dear Dr Seet, thank you very much for highlighting to us this commonly mispronounced word. It was a good reminder indeed. Hey, glad to learn that you are recovering from your so-called 'Lamps' illness! Probably many of us did not even realise we are suffering from this illness! We would probably be still left in the dark, if not for this 'Lamps', wondering why things (outside our job) seem to come to a halt during this period!
      I was just wondering is there a difference between a British way and an American way of pronouncing the word 'opportunity'. If I am not wrong, American has a 'tune' in it -- as in 'op-per-TUNE-nity'. One other word I noticed that has a similar tussle is 'Maths'. I also get to hear a lot of people pronouncing 'MATHS' as 'MATH' these days. The self-check WinWord dictionary will immediately give me a red alert if my default language setting is 'English (U.S)' (from Jason)
  
  
• Thanks Jason. Every malady or beast should have a name so that we can understand better what irks us!
      You are right about the American pronunciation. George Bernard Shaw could not bear it. You'll recall how he made Prof Higgins in My Fair Lady sing, "The Americans haven't spoken it (English) for years"! Of course the Americans might regard him as a bigot!
      On the word MATH/MATHS, I believe our colleagues specialising in that subject will have something to say. I'll put up your note and my comment for our MATH/MATHS colleagues to comment on.
      God bless, Oliver
  
  
• Hi Oliver, this is a GEM after my own heart!! I wince in my seat everytime I hear it mispronounced. I hope those who do are reading your email. (from Angel)
  
  
• Yes, Dr Seet, I feel and react in the same way as you. I would even venture to say that it could be 98 out of every 100 Singaporeans who malign the word. If people have all the opportunities to malign this word over the television (and sad to say from the pulpit and in the classrooms), shouldn't we expect this word to be mispronounced by more and more people? (from Guat Hua)
  
  
• Might I add another much bad-mouthed word: community, which always comes out as COMminity. Thanks for GEMS! (from Antonia)
  
  
• WHY SOME PEOPLE STRESS THE WRONG SYLLABLE IN 'OPPORTUNITY'
  
  I asked my favourite phonetician -- David Deterding -- for an explanation and this is the technical explanation David gave.
  
  "This word has the suffix '-ment' on it. Unlike some suffixes which determine where the stress should fall (-ic, -ity, -tion), '-ment' has no influence on stress. (Note, for example, that 'atTACH' and 'atTACHment' are both stressed on the second syllable, while 'PUNish' and 'PUNishment' are both stressed on the first syllable.) So we need to remove the suffix from 'development' and consider the stem of the word without its suffix.
      Now we have a three syllable word 'develop'. According to the rule I gave before, stress tends to fall on the second syllable of a word if this second syllable ends with two consonants: 'aGENda', 'reMAINder', 'diSASter' etc. But notice that the second syllable of 'develop' does not end with two consonants, so there is no reason to expect it to get stress. Under this analysis, 'DEvelop' is actually quite a reasonable guess at how to pronounce the word.
      Then add the suffix -- which as we have seen has no influence -- and we get 'DEvelopment'. Once more, Singaporeans who don't know the exceptions may be following the rules rather too enthusiastically!"

Dear Oliver

You might want to comment on the following bit of officialese

Would appreciate it if you could revert by 16 May.

David

Dear David

I have also encountered this strange and ugly bit of officialese: revert, I suppose, means reply. How much better to use the word reply which is precise and unpretentious! To most users of Standard English, the sentence you cited would be incomprehensible or perhaps even a little ludicrous.

Revert generally means to go back to a previous and often worse condition or way of life, or to talk again about something.

A legal definition would mean that you have to return to the former owner, his or her property or to start using your maiden surname again after a divorce.

Genetically, it is even stranger as it means to take on the traits of an ancestral type; if you believe in the theory of Evolution, you have been asked, David, to become a monkey by 16 May!

What exactly has this person asked you to do, David? Without any other context, I have some strong misgivings that you are being asked to do something very strange indeed!

A possible meaning, if it was an official letter you received could be:

I would appreciate it if you could give me a reply by 16 May.

Regards, Oliver

PS: On math/maths.

• If I am not mistaken, Maths is British and Math is American. So I just checked my dictionary and it says the same thing. Hope this helps. (from Joseph)

Dear Dr Seet

If the addresser sends out an official letter indicating an intention of saying 'thank you' but uses 'would' instead of 'will', will the addressee interpret the following as lacking sincerity, i.e, it is tentative in tone? Could you please comment on this?

Thanks and regards, Lawrence

Thanks for your question, Lawrence

The modal verb would is probably the most baffling auxiliary verb in English.

Would (in the examples below) is most frequently used to signal politeness and respect in English, which is a language that the French regard as being rather crude and sadly lacking in courtesy and respect, especially in the forms of address (the words or pronouns you use to address other people). The pronoun you, for instance, is used to address God, king and vagabond; there is no alternative. The Malay language, on the other hand, has a complex range of alternatives for you from awak to tuan.

I would like to thank you for ...
I would like to inform you that ...

are fixed expressions that are perfectly acceptable in the States, in UK or Down Under. Would in this context does not signal tentativeness or insincerity.

You cannot say:

I will like to thank you for ...
I will like to inform you that ...

I would refrain from using:

Kindly be informed that ...

This is probably the rudest expression one could use without being reprimanded for it. Kindly is, I believe, widely mistaken as an alternative for please but it is definitely not an alternative. The word kindly has an in-built attitude of condescension and is normally used for someone who is your inferior in status or age.

The passive form be informed, moreover, is distant, icy and not very friendly.

Would is also used in requests such as:

Would you please tell John that ...
Would you please pass me the salt ...

(although salt I'm told is not recommended for health reasons these days!)

Regards, Oliver

Dear Oliver

Would you like to comment on the use of would in two circulars I received recently:

• There would be a photo-taking session for new academic staff on ...
• I would need to collate a soft-copy of an up-to-date listing ...

Brian

Dear Brian

The functions of the modal verb would are indeed much misunderstood and it is worth revisiting the other uses or misuses of would. The two "errors" you spotted are typical.

Sentence 1: There would be a photo-taking session for new academic staff on ...

in Standard English is tantamount to an apology: one would use would in this context to indicate that there is actually not going to be a photo-taking session and that the "photo-taking session" is purely hypothetical or imaginary.

Similarly,

Sentence 2: I would need to collate a soft-copy of an up-to-date listing ...

implies that the writer does not really need to do this unless s/he is asked to take on an imaginary task that requires collation of soft-copies.

What a strange word would is!

I suspect that the writers of both sentences use the word would believing that it makes them sound more polite and respectful. Unfortunately, it serves only to confuse users of Standard English.

The corrected sentences should read:

• There will be a photo-taking session for new academic staff on ...
• I need to collate a soft-copy of an up-to-date listing ...

If there is a moral to be drawn from this, I suggest that one should never say:

I would like to help you ...

to mean "I can help you" because that clause really means "I'm sorry, I can't".

Regards, Oliver

Dear Oliver

Please, can you explain to me what the difference is between "doing right things" and "doing things right"?

Jacques

That's a lovely question Jacques. It illustrates clearly the importance of word order in English. A famous grammarian once identified word order as the most important characteristic of English.

Let me illustrate this with a couple of examples before I deal with your sentences. Consider the following:

Sentence 1: Sam trains seals.
Sentence 2: Sam seals trains.

They both contain exactly the same words but the meaning is entirely different. The Sam in Sentence 1 is the man behind the entertainment: he trains the performing seals you see at a circus, zoo or water world.

The Sam in Sentence 2 works for a railway company in a frosty country. You appreciate his work when you commute in a train in winter as he ensures that the gaps where cold wind can filter through are sealed.

I think we all know the difference between:

Sentence 3: He knocked a man silly, and
Sentence 4: He knocked a silly man.

This age old truth becomes more evident as you approach old age!

Now for your question.

"Doing right things" may not always please everybody but it will appease your conscience. If you check a person because you saw him spitting, you are doing the right thing although you run the risk of a black-eye if he is as violent as he is barbaric.

"Doing things right" is something you always do, Jacques, as long as I have known you. I have no complaints about your organizational skills.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Oliver

I know that "lesser" is a legitimate word, but I notice that many people use the word "lesser" incorrectly -- i.e. using it to mean "less". For example, Tom has lesser hair that John.

Could you elaborate on when "lesser" can be used, and when "less" should be used?

Angela Wong

Thanks for your question Angela.

We all reach an age when diminishing hair quantity becomes an agonising fact of life; some people might even take a perverse pleasure in assessing how much more hair they have in comparison with others. Is there a balding index, I wonder?

"Tom has lesser hair than John" is indeed an erroneous utterance. Less is, of course, opposed to more. Hence one would say:

John has more hair than Tom, or
Tom has less hair than John.

Lesser however is used as a comparative of less. For example:

Which is the lesser of the two evils -- smoking or drinking? When you smoke, you burn a hole in your lungs and in your pocket but when you drink, you could kill people if you are behind a wheel.

"God made the lesser light to rule the night" is a well-known quotation from Genesis.

Regards, Oliver

Dear Oliver

I have often been upset by the pronunciation of "awry". I think this is the result of Singaporeans pronouncing words the way they are spelt. Can you please comment on this?

BH

I have often heard the word "awry", as in the sentence:

"The wedding plans almost went awry (wrong, amiss) when the bridegroom was kidnapped the day before his wedding."

-- pronounced as if it rhymed with "sorry" or "glory" and I must admit that I have had some difficulty recognizing it. It's truly a word that has been maligned time and again.

"Awry" (a-wry) should rhyme with "a cry" or "a sigh". You could make a wry joke out of that!

English words are not always pronounced the way they are spelt. Try pronouncing ghoti, for example. (George Bernard Shaw gives this as an example of the strangeness of English orthography.)

Believe it or not, ghoti is pronounced as fish. How on earth can one explain this? Well, here is the key:

"gh" is pronounced as /f/ as in "enou-gh"
"o" is pronounced as /i/ as in "w-o-men"
"ti" is pronounced as /sh/ as in "atten-ti-on"

What a strange sounding linguistic fish to swallow.

Regards, Oliver

PS: More on "less" and "lesser". Jacques and Ludwig have pointed out other uses of "lesser".

• Dear A/P Oliver, names of birds occur to me when I read this. I remember names like "Lesser Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo", "Greater Hill Mynah", and of course birds of paradise -- "Greater Bird of Paradise" and "Lesser Bird of Paradise". I assume that the use of "Greater" or "Lesser" is in status (qualitative terms) while we would use "More" or "Less" in measurement (quantitative terms)? Biologists name them by size basically. The other criterion is colour of plumes amongst "Greater" species and "Lesser" species. These are the facts I learned when I was working as a curator at Jurong Birdpark (1986-1990).