THE story from AFP, “German cow-on-the-run caught” (The Star, Sept 3), talked about a cow in Bavaria “who escaped from a farm”.

Nowadays, people include animals, particularly pets, more and more in the family, to the extent of giving them human status. But the cow in the newspaper article is a run-of-the-mill farm cow. Since the “who” pronoun was used by an international press agency, it seems that there is universal acceptance of this practice of humanising animals in print.

Isn’t there any resistance and protest towards this trend, at least to the extent of saying that it is being overdone at times? – I.Ho

I agree that the reporting on this runaway cow does humanise that cow. Not only was “who” used to refer to it, but “she” and “her” as well. However, having read different reports of the story, I came to the conclusion that the journalists involved were exercising their sense of humour more than anything else. I must say I had a huge laugh when I read the reports, and that made a change from reading current reports about human deaths due to fighting, famine and the forces of nature.

The farm cow in the story doesn’t seem to be “a run-of-the-mill farm cow” at all. To begin with, she ... er ... it has a human name, Yvonne, and a sister with the name Waltraut. There is also a bull named Ernst. Who wouldn’t be tempted to humanise this story? Yvonne also seems unusually spirited, since this is the second time she’s run away.

What I find chilling in the story is how hunters were encouraged to shoot Yvonne on sight, with a promise of a huge reward, and how a lot of people were driven by greed to try to catch the poor cow.

Humanising animals is not a new phenomenon, though it takes different forms. There is also serious opposition to it, as can be seen in the following webpages, among others:

jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2009/11/humanising-animals.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy

Scrumptious or sumptuous?

The article “Next stop – Gurney Plaza” (StarMetro, The Star, Aug 26) starts with this line: “There’s a bright red bus in town, and it serves up sumptuous seafood set meals in a jiffy.”

Do you think it is more appropriate to use the word “scrumptious” instead of “sumptuous”? – Han

“Sumptuous” is an adjective that is used to describe not just meals, but also buildings, clothes, etc that are magnificent and expensive. For example, a formal meal in a dining room of a five-star hotel can be described as “sumptuous.” Here is a quotation from the Oxford English Dictionary where the word describes a banquet:

“ He sees ... No costly lord the sumptuous banquet deal / To make him loath his vegetable meal.” (Oliver Goldsmith, The Traveller 1764)

The “seafood set meals” in the food outlet in the article do not seem to be expensive at RM5 each, or eaten in magnificent surroundings. The ambience described sounds interesting rather than luxurious.

I therefore agree with you that the word “scrumptious” would describe such meals better. “Scrumptious” is a word that is now especially used to describe food, and it means “delicious”. It is an informal word, but the tone of the article is generally informal, with phrases like “exciting promo” and “yummy bites”. Here is a quotation from the OED with the word in it, describing a home-cooked meal:

“1976 A. L. Rowse Cornishman Abroad 14 The scrumptious meal she cooked, Cornish duck and Californian avocado stuffed with shrimp, our own cream from the farm with the delicious sweet.”

Is it ‘a’ or ‘the’?

1. Which article do we use here: A/The crocodile is a fierce animal? From what I understand, either can be used. “A crocodile” is used as a singular noun to typify a whole class while “The crocodile” is used as a general reference to all the individuals that make up that class. If a picture of a crocodile is given, how does one make a sentence with the words “crocodile” and “fierce”?

What about “A/The mangosteen is a local fruit” and “A/The cheetah can run faster than a/the giraffe”?

2. Which is the correct word to use?

a) It is dangerous to play in/on the road.

b) She was scolded for jumping/cutting the queue.

3. We usually say “Christians go to church every Sunday” but “Muslims go to the mosque every Friday”. Can we leave out ‘the’ before mosque? – CT

1. You are right: either “a” or “the” can be used in a sentence like “A/The crocodile is a fierce animal.” If you write “a crocodile” in the sentence, you mean “each or every crocodile”. But if you write “the crocodile” in the sentence, you mean crocodiles “in general rather than a particular example” (see Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, meaning 4 of “the”).

If a picture of a crocodile is given, and you have to make a sentence using “crocodile” and “fierce”, you could write a number of sentences. You could write general sentences about a/the crocodile being a fierce animal, like your sentences above, or you could write a more specific one. The crocodile in the picture could be regarded as a particular crocodile, for example one in a zoo, and the sentence could therefore read: “This crocodile is fierce.”

In the case of the “mangosteen” sentence, you should write: “The mangosteen is a local fruit.”, because here you are writing about mangosteens in general.

In the “cheetah” sentence, however, it is better to write: “A cheetah can run faster than a giraffe.”, which means “Any cheetah can run faster than any giraffe.” Here we are comparing the running speeds of two kinds of animals, and it is better to think of two animals running a race, rather than two groups of animals doing that.

2. a) In British English, you can say EITHER “It is dangerous to play in the road.” OR “It is dangerous to play on the road.” Here are some examples of usage from the Internet:

“KIDS playing in the road in Fifth Avenue, Grantham, are accidents waiting to happen, according to a concerned motorist.” (From The Grantham Journal, Feb 13, 2008)

“Headteacher Janet Felkin said she ... has warned her pupils of the dangers of playing in the road, at an assembly.” (From The Argus, a Brighton newspaper)

“Never let children play on or near a road.” (One of the road safety messages of The Children’s Traffic Club, UK)

“This is usually a quiet place, the only noise you get is from kids playing on the road. It beggars belief that there should be a stabbing on the doorstep like this.”

b) You always “jump a queue” – never cut it.

3. We don’t usually leave out “the” in “Muslims go to the mosque every Friday.” “Go to church” is a natural English expression, which originated from native English speakers who went to church. But I think that Arabic uses “al” (the) before “masjid” in the phrase which is equivalent to “go to the mosque”, and that may be the origin of the use of “go to the mosque” in English. In BM, we just say “pergi ke masjid”, because BM doesn’t have the equivalent of “the” in speaking about things in general.

Which pronoun?

What would be the best answer to the sentence, “Each child is choosing a toy for (himself, itself, themselves)? – Yan

You should not use “itself”, because a child is a person, and “itself” refers to a non-human, or a baby whose sex is not known. The older practice is to use the masculine form of a pronoun for a person whose sex is unknown, and so your sentence would have been written as: “Each child is choosing a toy for himself.” Here, “himself” would also include the girls. In recent times, however, due to the influence of feminists, the plural form is used instead of the masculine, and so it is correct now to write: “Each child is choosing a toy for themselves.” Both forms are acceptable.

• Survey: Britons love tea more than coffee
• New York City relies on automation technologies to face challenges of urbanisation
• Oil palm firms team up with Sabah to protect Malua Forest Reserve
• Powering the Big Apple
• Build robust cities
• Fun with words
• Rail marvel in New York
• Fun with synonyms
• Carnegie Hall gets green facelift
• Win The Good Food Cook Book!

Latest Jobs from Star-Jobs