Thursday December 1, 2011

Writing dates

Your Questions Answered by FADZILAH AMIN

I WOULD like to know which is correct:

26 November 2011

26 November, 2011 – Yap Sing Yeong

The British style is to write 26 November 2011, while the US style is to write November 26, 2011.

I just had a look to see how the online editions of three main British newspapers write their dates. Since today (as I am writing) is still the 25th of November, all three newspapers (The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Independent) write 25 November 2011.

The online editions of three US newspapers that I looked at (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times), however, all write November 25, 2011.

Some of the above newspapers write the day (Friday) before the date. The two British newspapers that do this do not put a comma after the day, while the two US newspapers that do this have a comma after the day.

Flood and flooding

1. Could you let me know how to use “flood” and “flooding”? What is the difference between the words?

2. Which of the following is correct?

a) The meeting was adjourned at 9.00pm.

b) The meeting adjourned at 9.00pm.

I understand both these sentences are grammatically correct. However, what is the difference in terms of meaning? – Chang

1. “Flood” means the actual water and is defined by the online Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as “a large amount of water covering an area that is usually dry” whereas “flooding” means the situation in which there is a flood, or as defined by the online Macmillan Dictionary, “a situation in which water from a river or from rain covers large areas of land.”

We can say that “a flood has receded”, i.e. the water has gone, but we can’t say that of “flooding”. At the end of a flood, we can say that “the flooding is over.” Here are some sentences from the Internet to illustrate how the words are used:

“Covers on air bricks should be removed once the flood has receded to allow air to circulate and any trapped water to escape.”

(help.aviva.co.uk/risksolutions/pp-other/REF_HF1046)

“The Environment Agency believes the worst of the flooding is over.”

(news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7883690.stm)

2. “Adjourn”can be a transitive verb, when “to adjourn a meeting” means to stop it for a period of time. As a transitive verb, “adjourn” is often used passively, e.g. as in your sentence a): “The meeting was adjourned at 9.00pm.” Here, the person adjourning the meeting (the Chairman) is not mentioned, but it is implied that somebody did the adjourning.

But “adjourn” can also be an intransitive verb, where “adjourn” means to stop for a period of time. Your sentence b): “The meeting adjourned at 9.00pm.” is an example of a sentence using “adjourn” intransitively. This sentence is also correct, although the idea of someone adjourning the meeting is not there.

This is because what is important is the fact that the meeting was adjourned, as well as the time it was adjourned, not the person adjourning it. It is similar to a sentence like: “The seminar ended at midnight.” The chairman must have declared its ending, but there’s no reason to say so.

By or with?

I would appreciate it if you could tell me the difference, if any, between using “by” or “with” in this sentence: “Almost all of the 50,000 odd spectators that turned out at Putrajaya were impressed with/by the colour and grandeur of the floral parade”. – Liew CT

Whether you use “impressed with” or “impressed by” in the above sentence makes no difference to its meaning. “With” and “by” are just alternative prepositions that can be used after “impressed”.

Who are the Indians?

1. In this item from Yahoo!, what could the writer be referring to with the sentence in bold and what is the origin of the phrase?

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book “Fool Me Twice” that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. “Now he’s considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn’t about data or fact. It’s about team sports. He’s been traded to the Indians. He’s playing for the wrong team now.”

(news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html)

2. A news article in The Star (Oct 27, 2011) had the headline, “Deal ‘not fair but reasonable’”.

I’d always thought that a deal that’s reasonable would also be fair but this headline seems to suggest a difference in the two words. – sm

1. The immediate reference of “He’s been traded to the Indians.” is to baseball. Muller is being compared to a baseball player who has been sold to the team called the Cleveland Indians (Indians for short).

Hence his former fellow-sceptics consider that “He’s playing for the wrong team now.” There is a weakness in this analogy, though. The passive voice is used in “he’s been traded”, thus suggesting that he was acted upon rather than acting. According to the article, Muller changed his mind about global warming not due to any pressure, but on his own, after much research and thought, rather like a player who handed in a request for transfer (to a team he prefers and that wants him).

I suspect that the expression “traded to the Indians” has another layer of meaning residing in US history, but I could find no confirmation of that in all my Internet trawling. It would be interesting to hear from any reader who can confirm my suspicion.

2. As for the puzzling expression “not fair but reasonable”, I looked up a few dictionaries to ascertain the meanings of “reasonable”. Many of the definitions contain the word “fair”, but one in OALD says “acceptable and appropriate in a particular situation” and another in CALD just says “acceptable”.

I can understand how under certain circumstances, one can be willing to accept something one considers unfair, because of other considerations.

Mind Our English

Thursday December 1, 2011

Writing dates

Your Questions Answered by FADZILAH AMIN

Latest Jobs from Star-Jobs