Know your English

How is the word ‘myriad’ pronounced?
(J Karthik, Madurai)
One simple way of pronouncing this word is to pronounce the ‘y’ and the ‘i’ like the ‘i’ in ‘sit’, ‘bit’ and ‘chit’, and the following ‘a’ like the ‘a’ in ‘china’. This rather formal word is pronounced ‘MI-ri-ed’ with the stress on the first syllable. It comes from the Greek ‘myrias’ meaning ‘ten thousand’. In English, the word is used both as a noun and an adjective to mean ‘countless’ or ‘a large number of’.
*Her myriad of admirers cheered Mithali as she rose to speak.
*For someone who has myriad problems, Jai looks pretty relaxed.
Is it okay to say ‘get off of the chair’?
(CV Geetha, Hyderabad)
There are many people today who squirm when they hear someone say ‘get off of the chair’! It is interesting to note, however, that in the 15th and 16th centuries, the expression ‘get off of’ was acceptable; it was considered standard. Nowadays, of course, most people are likely to say, ‘get off the chair/table’ rather than ‘get off of the table/chair’. But the use of ‘get off of’ has not completely disappeared; it continues to be used today in informal contexts in American English. Dictionaries label such use as ‘colloquial’ and ‘non-standard’. You may be able to get away with ‘get off of’ in speech, but not in formal styles of writing.
What is the difference between ‘exemplar’ and ‘example’?
(L Jayanth, Kancheepuram)
First, let us deal with the pronunciation of ‘exemplar’. The first vowel is pronounced like the ‘i’ in ‘sit’, ‘bit’ and ‘kit’, while the vowel in the second syllable sounds like the ‘e’ in ‘set’, ‘bet’ and ‘wet’. The final ‘ar’ can be pronounced like the ‘ar’ in ‘car’, ‘far’ and ‘par’. One way of pronouncing this word of Latin origin is ‘ig-ZEM-plaa’, with the stress on the second syllable. When you refer to someone as being an exemplar of courage, you are suggesting that he is a very courageous person; he is someone that others can do well to imitate. The word literally means worthy of being copied. An ‘example’, on the other hand, can be either good or bad. It may or may not be worthy of imitation. ‘Exemplar’ suggests perfection; it is related to ‘exemplary’.
*Rishi is an exemplar of hard work.
*That shot is a good example of the importance of footwork.
What is the meaning and origin of ‘in full cry’?
(Kalamkar, Pune)
When you are in ‘full cry’ over someone or something, you are continuously talking about the person or thing — and that too in a loud and enthusiastic manner. The expression usually suggests that a lot of noise is involved. It can also be used to mean to criticise someone or something; you express your thoughts/feelings rather forcefully and loudly.
*The students were in full cry over the proposed hike in fees.
The expression comes from the world of hunting, and therefore the word ‘cry’ has nothing to do with the tears that come out of one’s eyes. In this context, it refers to the loud barking sounds that a pack of dogs make when they are in hot pursuit of another animal.
******
“If you must hold yourself up to your children as an object lesson, hold yourself up as a warning and not as an example.” — G. B. Shaw

Courtesy:the hindu

Download monthly pdf of April

Know your English

What is the meaning of ‘swashbuckler’?
(SA Faizal, Kottayam)
This is an example of how the meaning of a word has changed over the years. Nowadays, when we think of a ‘swashbuckler’, the person that immediately comes to mind is Captain Jack Sparrow — a character in the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ film series. ‘Swashbuckler’ is mostly used now to refer to someone who is cocky and is always on the lookout for adventure. He is skilled at using weapons and travels the world looking for hidden treasure. Originally, the word was used to refer to a loud bully. The word ‘swash’ meant to move about in an arrogant manner, and ‘buckler’ referred to the small shield that a fighter held in one hand to protect himself. The original swashbuckler was a bully who made a lot noise by banging his sword against his ‘buckler’. But thanks to Hollywood and Bollywood movies, our notion of a ‘swashbuckler’ has changed completely.
*In many of his movies, he played the role of a dashing swashbuckler.
How is the word ‘disparate’ pronounced?
(K Laxmikanth, Erode)
The vowel in the first syllable is like the ‘i’ in ‘bit’, ‘sit’ and ‘kit’, while the ‘a’ in the next two syllables sounds like the ‘a’ in ‘china’. The final ‘e’ is silent. The word is pronounced DIS-pe-ret with the stress on the first syllable. Some people tend to drop the vowel in the second syllable and pronounce the word ‘DIS-pret’. The word comes from the Latin ‘disparatus’ meaning ‘to divide or separate’. In English, ‘disparate’ is mostly used to mean ‘very different’. When you say that two objects are disparate, you are suggesting that it will be impossible to compare them for they are very different from each other — they belong to different groups, and are very dissimilar.
*Getting the disparate groups to work together is proving to be impossible.
What is the meaning and origin of ‘to chomp at the bit’?
(RV Seetha, Chennai)
Most of us get rather restless when we are made to wait for someone or something. To become impatient is one of the meanings of the expression ‘chomp at the bit’. It can also be used to mean to be anxious to do something.
*The players were chomping at the bit to enter the field.
It is possible to say ‘champ at the bit’ as well. The expression comes from the world of horses. The ‘bit’ refers to a horse’s mouthpiece; the metal piece that a rider puts in the mouth of the animal in order to direct and control it. When you ‘chomp’ or ‘champ’ on something, you chew or munch on it rather nosily. When a horse gets restless or impatient, it begins to ‘chomp’ on the ‘bit’.
Which is correct: Geetha went for a swim or Geetha took a swim?
(K Nandini, Chennai)
Both are acceptable. In the case of certain activities like swimming and walking, Americans tend to say ‘take’, while the British use ‘go’.
*She goes for a walk/swim in the morning.
*I took a swim/walk in the evening.
******

Courtesy:the hindu

Download monthly pdf of April

Daily English Vocabulary 3-May-2016

Increase English Vocabulary for SSC, IBPS & Others



3-May-2016 English Vocabulary



Hullabaloo [n]

Clamour, fuss, commotion, uproar, कोलाहल, हल्लागुल्ला
There was a terrific hullabaloo over the by-election.

Demonstrate [v]

Reveal, bespeak, indicate, show, protest, rally, प्रमाणित करना, दिखाना, जलूस में हिस्सा लेना
Let me demonstrate to you the truth of what he is saying.

Gallant [n,v,adj

Daily English Vocabulary 2-May-2016

English Vocabulary for SSC, IBPS & Others



2-May-2016 English Vocabulary



Vogue [n,adj,v]

Fashion, style, up to the minute, modern, popular, फैशन, प्रचलन, रिवाज़, प्रसिद्धि
Leather shoes are the latest vogue.

Triumph [n,v]

Victory, win, success, tour de force, delight, joy, सफलता, खुशी से पागल होना, जीतना
Ramesh triumphed over his partner in the chess.

Clumsy [adj]

Awkward,

How to teach Sanskrit

Human Resource Development Minister Smriti Irani’s written reply in the Lok Sabha recently on teaching Sanskrit in the Indian Institutes of Technology has come in for criticism, with the Aam Aadmi Party asking her to choose between Java and Sanskrit, and so on. This is another case where the kernel of good intention (supporting serious scholarship on Sanskrit) has been lost in an ill-designed formulation.

The state of Sanskrit scholarship in the country — in proportion to how important Sanskrit is to our intellectual heritage — is truly abysmal[u'biz-mu(very bad,बहुत ख़राब)]. While there are of course, individually, a few good scholars, there is very little by way of sustained intellectual achievement that would meet international standards. Unfortunately, people get to be defensive around scholarship in the culture and the humanities — no one will dispute that very little Nobel-quality physics is done in India, but anything to do with culture immediately has as its reflex an outpouring of claims as to India’s special spiritual genius.

No serious scholarship can know in advance what it seeks to achieve. If we already knew how great Sanskrit’s achievement was, what would be the need to simply confirm it? Serious scholarship will be able to discover both Sanskrit’s achievements and its blind spots. Beyond greatness, even the fact of pigeonholing Sanskrit to science and engineering is baffling[ba-fu-ling(difficult,कठिन)] — science in India, like anywhere in the world till the rise of the modern West — was never the centre of research or scholarly endeavour[in'de-vu(effort,प्रयत्न)] . Sanskrit, as an intellectual idiom, would not be able to disentangle “scientific” texts entirely from metaphysical, philosophical, literary or ethical traditions. One is fundamentally missing the point in looking for scattered[ska-tud(distributed,बिखरा)] scientific information, or thinking that one can simply excise the non-scientific parts from the scientific parts of a text. One risks misunderstanding both science and “non-science” (religion/philosophy/literature, etc), when, instead, one should look for a new meaning in both that should serve as new ways of negotiating contemporary dilemmas[dI'le-mu(confusion,दुविधा)]. It is only in this sense that the Sanskrit intellectual tradition can be a living, rather than dead history. Perhaps the concentration on Sanskrit science is to move away from the more controversial social aspects of the Sanskrit world (questions of gender, caste, etc). But this is foolhardy[fool,haa-dee(bold,दुःसाहसी)] as there is no way science can be separated from the social, and there should be confidence that the study of Sanskrit can take into account the weaknesses of that world view, even as it celebrates Sanskrit’s great achievements.

Rekindling interest

But the problem is deeper still. How does one get an average student (in today’s app-dominated world) who may be interested in science fiction, to be interested in Sanskrit culture too? The way Sanskrit is taught institutionally in India is essentially through syllabi that have been frozen for decades, and in an examination format that kills innovative thinking. To really make Sanskrit come alive, one has to ask questions that feed into contemporary intellectual questions — how might the sophisticated systematisations of doubt in Indian philosophy feed into similar questions being asked in Western analytic philosophy? How might the idea of mood developed so eloquently[e-lu-kwunt-lee(meaningful way,अर्थपूर्ण ढंग से)] by Bhavabhuti relate to ideas of self in modern Telugu literature? What was the relationship between science, ethics and politics then, and how might this conjuncture relate to present dilemmas? While, ironically, scientists might be terrified at how to translate thermodynamics into Sanskrit, it is the humanities that can relate most meaningfully to the set of concerns that have been so ably articulated in Sanskritic formulations of the ethical life. Far from finding some ancient, obscure[ub'skyûr(unclear,अस्पष्ठ)] text that might have some misty relation to a European mathematical concept, the humanities can best treat Sanskrit as a contemporary language with the vital resources available for today’s world.

We are far from any of this happening, because we have failed to separate the wheat from the chaff. The aim is to teach Sanskrit not out of a mindless patriotism, but as it speaks to other disciplines — literature, or historiography, or science. This is by no means an easy task. To many, for example, Sanskrit literature is too ornate, and does not have the easy identification that, say, reading Greek dramatists might have. The aesthetics are difficult to appreciate — how many things can be endlessly and tediously[tee-dee-us-lee(boringly,उबाऊ)] compared to the lotus or the moon? The challenge of pedagogy is to be able to make this Sanskritic world interesting — and only those who have tried hard to teach it know how difficult this is.

Further, Sanskrit is reduced to a language — as if all ideas can be reduced to language. To teach Sanskrit in a civilisational sense is not to have to learn Sanskrit (a difficult language for most to learn, with its endless tables), at least in the early stages. Why would one be motivated to learn at all unless one has glimpsed at least some of its treasures by translation? But for this sense of wonder at that world, one must be able to have clearly experienced that world — translation itself may not suffice, and there would need to be a whole range of pedagogical and intermediate material explaining the special significance of Sanskrit ideas — be they in science or any other field. This is the work the government would do well to support and encourage — but, unfortunately, we do not yet have indication that their thoughts have travelled that far ahead.

Pride in our culture might be a necessary first step, but the real work (for scholars, government, private patrons, lay intellectuals) begins afterwards.

Courtesy:the hindu

Download monthly pdf of April

EU needs a reality check

Rumours of the death of the European project are, as Mark Twain would have put it, vastly exaggerated[ig'za-ju,rey-tid(overstated,बढ़ा चढ़ा कर कहना)]. The importance of European powers and the contribution of the European Union (EU) in recent years are indelible[in'de-lu-bul(unerasable,अमिट)]. It was evident that even as the United States and Iran took binary positions, it was the EU’s outreach to Iran that paved the way for a diplomatic breakthrough. Its contested, yet continuing and valiant[va-lee-unt(brave,साहसी)] efforts to absorb Syrian war refugees are seminal. And, its clever, geo-economic manoeuvres[mu'noo-vu(tactics,युक्ति)] have succeeded in effectively containing Russia’s sphere of influence across central and eastern Europe. These are all examples of the contemporary impact of that geography to world affairs. However, it is undeniable that Brand EU is taking a beating. It is time to unpack where the scepticism['skep-ti,si-zum(disbelief,संशयवाद)] and perceived frailty[frey(-u)l-tee(weak,कमज़ोर)] stems from.

Patchy[pa-chee(incomplete,अपूर्ण)] integration

The first of the two most visible weaknesses of the project has to be that this strong collective of European nations has achieved only patchy social integration within its members. The states have been open to economic migrants and welcoming distressed populations from across the world’s conflict zones in the past (most recently from West Asia). The Gastarbeiter model adopted by several of them in the 1960s and 1970s may have addressed short-run labour problems but may not have been as efficient in assimilating[u'si-mu,ley-ting(absorb,समावेश)] newcomers into their society. Arguably, an immediate consequence[kón-si-kwun(t)s(result,परिणाम)] of this is the emergence and consolidation[kun,só-li'dey-shun(integration,सुदृढ़ीकरण)] of radical Islamism and its twin, racist-right-wing politics. As such, liberal EU is now grappling[grap-ling(fight,लड़ना)] with two illiberal ideologies.

The second is in the economic sphere — the touchstone of the European integration project. The EU finds itself caught in the inevitable[i'ne-vi-tu-bul(necessary,आवश्यक)] confusion that comes from being a monetary union without being a fiscal union. The periodic eruption of the Greek tragedy fundamentally arises from this cleavage.

But besides these, there are essentially four issues that dilute what the EU could potentially offer. To begin with, as a brand, it is behind its time. While smaller countries and developing regions of the world are seeking new collectives and the weight of these larger aggregations to reform the global order, the EU and the European project are seen and presented as status quo-ist, primarily concerned with perpetuating[pu'pe-choo,eyt(cause to continue,बनाये रखना)] entrenched[in'trencht(established,स्थापित)] interests. From reforms of key Bretton Woods institutions like the International Monetary Fund to that of the UN Security Council, European powers are seen to want more of the same. While some European powers do realise that this posture[pós-chu(attitude,रुख)] may not be sustainable in the long run — witness their enthusiasm for the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank — they are either unwilling or unable to upend the existing global governance order and allow it to be refashioned according to the realities of the 21st century.

Too Atlantic-centric

The second issue seems to be Europe’s conception of the map — and its place in the extant geography of the world. Europe must realise that its future is to a large extent coupled to that of Asia’s and Africa’s. Instead of a serious institutional push towards building a common future with the powers that will shape these two regions, Europe and the EU have functionally de-hyphenated themselves from both. For example, Paris consults Washington for guidance on its Syria policy, but not New Delhi, from which it may have obtained more sage advice. It is not hard to get an impression that Europe’s penchant[penchnt(preference,झुकाव)] with trans-Atlanticism is a sentimental anachronism. Such attitudes also reinforce[ree-in'fors(strengthen,मजबूत)] the impression that Europe is too busy consolidating the old boys’ club to realise that the geopolitical centre of gravity is inexorably[in'ek-s(u-)ru-blee(continuously,बिना रुके)] moving eastwards. Obsessed with the Atlantic Order, Europe is near absent in the great debates of the Indo-Pacific.

Europeans could, defensively, justify this trans-Atlantic orientation in the name of values, except that the tyranny of values — whether it is as self-proclaimed champions of human rights, or of liberal non-invasive multiculturalism — has cost Europe tremendously in recent years in real political terms. Europe’s promotion of norms was driven by self-interest in the past. A world remade in its own image was a self-serving agenda from the colonial era to the Cold War, with tangible[tan-ju-bu(real,वास्तविक)] material benefits. What Europe has engaged in since is promotion of self-determined values and norms divorced from immediate political interests. This has led to the establishment of a tremendously inelastic value system that seeks to enforce conformity on those who see the world differently. Arguably Europe's problems with integrating minorities in its national mainstream are one though not the only consequence of this social inelasticity.

All of these problems are compounded by the fact that Brand EU has a serious marketing problem. Brussels has made very little effort to engage the world beyond the borders of Europe in any meaningful way, and to great consequence. At a meeting between European and Indian scholars last year, both sides bemoaned the lack of communication initiated by the European side. EU public diplomacy has been fairly ineffective in large parts of Asia and Africa, with the consequence that the many positive messages that the EU could communicate to countries and regions to its east have been muted, to be crowded out by narratives emerging from eurosceptics in Britain and the U.S. instead. Therefore, the EU in India seems to be in the news mostly for the wrong reasons. It is time Europe took a hard look at its messaging, the medium, and at the concrete steps it needs to take to establish and reinvent itself among people it would need the most in the coming years.

Courtesy:the hindu

Download monthly pdf of April

A star in a strange role

Is Salman Khan qualified to be goodwill ambassador of the Indian contingent at the 2016 Rio Olympics? His father Salim Khan certainly seems to think so. In a tweet battle with Milkha Singh, who objected strenuously[stren-yoo-us-lee(strictly,सख्ती से)] to the appointment, Khan Sr. declared — with disturbing disregard for punctuation given his reputation as a famed screenwriter — “Salman khan may not have competed but is an A level swimmer cyclist and weight lifter.” Well, that. And the fact that Khan Jr. looks like a wrestler (indeed, he plays one in his upcoming film, Sultan), and appears to be an ace gymnast as well, given his preternatural ability to slip between the front and rear seats of a Toyota Land Cruiser. Khan carried that little girl for a good part of Bajrangi Bhaijaan, so one supposes he’s something of a weightlifter too. Heck, given his clothing-optional stance in his films, a strong case could be made for Khan’s connection to the Olympics: after all, at one time, competitors were required to be nude.

But the backlash is understandable — even necessary. And not just from sports fans. Salim Khan objected to his son being labelled a Bollywood star. (“Milkhaji it is not Bollywood it is the Indian Film Industry and that too the largest in the world.”) But one rarely finds representatives from the regional film industries in these events. It’s either Amitabh Bachchan singing the national anthem before a Twenty20 World Cup match, or Aishwarya Rai attending the opening ceremony of the 20th Commonwealth Games in Scotland (“her lustrous[lús-trus(glorious,चमकीला)] locks tied in a high bun,” ran the breathless PR prose). Adding to the giddy Bollywood-ness of it all, Rai has come out in support of Khan. She said: “Anybody who is doing good to represent the country and anybody who is working or seeking or standing out for whatever vocation we have in the country, be it sports, arts or music, I think that’s wonderful and needs to be recognised.”

But who exactly is the recognition for? Given our celebrity-crazed times, the latest Salman Khan controversy has already grabbed more attention than Dipa Karmakar, the first Indian woman gymnast to qualify for the Olympics, and Dattu Bhokanal, who qualified for the sculling event. How dispiriting that representing India at the highest level of international sport is still going to get you fewer headlines than if you are a big star who needs no more headlines to further your career. No wonder cricketer Gautam Gambhir was so outraged[awt,reyjd(angry,गुस्सा)], saying he’d have been happy if someone like shooter Abhinav Bindra, India’s only individual winner of an Olympic gold medal, had been picked for the post. “There are a lot of sportspersons who have done a lot for sport,” Gambhir said. “Ideally, one among them should have been given that responsibility.”

There are those who feel that star power works, because stars bring attention to sports. But what sport are we talking about? It’s not as though Khan has sponsored a kho-kho team, directing the nation’s eyes to the small sport, the way, say, Aamir Khan drew our attention to dyslexia with Taare Zameen Par. It’s not as though he has agreed to take on even a fraction of the training costs for Karmakar or Bhokanal, as they consider going abroad to hone their technique. Of course, Khan isn’t required to do this. The expectation comes up only because of the question: What has Salman Khan done to deserve this honour? Khan said in a recent interview that more people have begun to watch cricket after film stars got involved in the sport, and that his role as goodwill ambassador will draw new viewers to the Olympics coverage on TV. But will these viewers be tuning in to watch the sports or Khan?

It’s nothing new to have a celebrity lend his or her name to hard-sell topics. (Let us assume, for just an incredulous[in'kred-yu-lus(unbelievable,अविश्वासपूर्ण)] second, that the Olympics are a little-known undertaking that we’d never tune into were it not for Salman Khan.) George Clooney, for instance, speaks about Darfur. But has he made a difference? In December 2014, The Guardian, in a story titled “What happened to Darfur after George Clooney came to town?”, asked locals whether Darfur needed another global campaign. A North Darfuri said, “Yes, for sure, but not just a media or celebrity campaign. It should be led by the major powers in the UN Security Council to pressure conflicting parties to reach a comprehensive and just peace.” In other words, star power can only do so much. If more people watch cricket today, is it because of the excitement around IPL and T20 or because the camera keeps cutting to Preity Zinta? And we were already a cricket-crazy nation. How much have stars helped in the case of pro-Kabaddi?

At the end, people look at stars because they like looking at stars. If they ended up doing what stars asked them to do, then no one would be smoking, literacy levels would be at an all-time high, and everyone looking for a vacation would be boarding a flight to Gujarat. And to have such a polemical[pu'le-mi-kul(controversial,विवादस्पद)] actor at the centre of India’s Olympic campaign not only detracts attention from the sportsmen and sportswomen who are the rightful stars, it demeans their contribution, their individual ability to make us care about their winning or losing. But India being India, we have not seen the last of Bollywood being called on to awaken our benighted selves to other less popular aspects of Incredible India. Here’s an appeal to Priyanka Chopra to revive Gond art, Alia Bhatt to tell us why the Indian Space Research Organisation is so awesome, Akshay Kumar to take Carnatic music to the North, Shah Rukh Khan to crack open a book of Upanishads…

Courtesy:the hindu

Download monthly pdf of April