Is my command of English poor or is it our Ministers'?

[kingrant]

Competencies and competence...are just managementspeak coined by management gurus like Michael Porter and Hairy Camel, oops, I mean Gary Hamel, and Prahalad. When applied correctly, they make sense, but in the hands of these hare-brained pretenders, the English language is just being murdered in cold blood.

 

[Annoyed]

Between "competency" and "irregardless", I'll rate the first annoying and the second, balderdash. That probably has to do with the fact that I spent some time in the US and got sloppy along the way. Case in point: it took me a while to figure why "where are you at" is problematic. :o Still, I hate the way Yanks say "different than" instead of "different from".

The one that really gets me boiling each and every time is "revert". REPLY, damnit, not revert! Thankfully, the (wrong) usage is, in this case, restricted to Singaporeans. I dread to see the day when "revert" actually becomes an acceptable synonym for "reply".

I on the other am just irritated by the use of the word 'competency', which to me is a redundant derivative of the noun 'competence', an example of American technical jargon that has spilled over into everyday English. I'd place it on par with 'irregardless' and 'where are you at' for its annoyance quotient.

 

[HedgeTrader]

Whats the diff between flammable and inflammable

 

[groinroot]

Whats the diff between flammable and inflammable

Both mean the same thing, can easily catch fire. According to Merriam Websters the word INFLAMMABLE is French, "from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare" First known use was in 1605.

I believe the word inflammable must have been interpreted by some people as being non-combustible because the prefix "in" usually denotes an antonym like "ability" vs "inability"; "action" vs "inaction". As the oil and gas industries were highly dependent on the word "inflammable" to denote potent dangers, they must have felt that it would be more prudent to use "flammable" than "inflammable".

 

[Fook Seng]

Between "competency" and "irregardless", I'll rate the first annoying and the second, balderdash. That probably has to do with the fact that I spent some time in the US and got sloppy along the way. Case in point: it took me a while to figure why "where are you at" is problematic. :o Still, I hate the way Yanks say "different than" instead of "different from".

The one that really gets me boiling each and every time is "revert". REPLY, damnit, not revert! Thankfully, the (wrong) usage is, in this case, restricted to Singaporeans. I dread to see the day when "revert" actually becomes an acceptable synonym for "reply".

If you don't like "revert", how about "revert back"?

 

[yellowarse]

The one that really gets me boiling each and every time is "revert". REPLY, damnit, not revert! Thankfully, the (wrong) usage is, in this case, restricted to Singaporeans. I dread to see the day when "revert" actually becomes an acceptable synonym for "reply".

Ha ha! 'Revert' for 'reply' – another of my pet peeves. But it's a lost cause. It's not just Singaporeans who use it this way; my Australian and British friends use 'revert' to mean 'get back to you' too.

Another one is the (very Singaporean) use of 'send' to mean 'ferry' or 'drive': I 'send' my children to school every day.

 

[yellowarse]

Whats the diff between flammable and inflammable

No difference. Some say that 'inflammable' connotes a stronger notion of flammability than 'flammable'. In practical usage 'inflammable' is used more often in scientific jargon (e.g. inflammable gases) while 'flammable' is used in more informal situations.

 

[Annoyed]

No difference; in fact, "revert back" is worse. Many people use revert sloppily, thinking that it connotes "getting back to you", as yellowarse pointed out. But that's not what it means at all. The definition of "revert" is to return to an original state (of being), for instance, if the restaurant staff changes its menu from type A to type B, then to type A again. The addition of "back" is a typically Singaporean way of emphasising the process of moving backwards, which is completely unnecessary. By the same token, the "on" in "emphasize on" is also quite unnecessary - that's my second English pet peeve, btw.

If you don't like "revert", how about "revert back"?

@#$%^&*! I didn't know the Brits and Aussies use it as well! And I deal with both in official correspondence on a fairly regular basis too. Maybe they aren't as blatant about using it in official emails as we are, or I just got lucky meeting sticklers like myself.

"Send my children to school" is a good example of Mandarin corruption, because one will say, "我送我孩子上学" (wo song wo hai zi shang xue) where the character 送 (song) connotes "to send, to deliver".

Ha ha! 'Revert' for 'reply' – another of my pet peeves. But it's a lost cause. It's not just Singaporeans who use it this way; my Australian and British friends use 'revert' to mean 'get back to you' too.

Another one is the (very Singaporean) use of 'send' to mean 'ferry' or 'drive': I 'send' my children to school every day.

 

[yellowarse]

"Send my children to school" is a good example of Mandarin corruption, because one will say, "我送我孩子上学" (wo song wo hai zi shang xue) where the character 送 (song) connotes "to send, to deliver".

You're right: in Mandarin 送 can mean 'to send' (you do not accompany the thing or person being sent), or 'to deliver' (where you bring the thing or person along with you).

Same with the use of 'fetch' locally in the same context: I fetch my children to school. It's a mistaken translation from the Chinese 载， meaning "to bring, to carry, to bring". 'Fetch' in English has a totally different connotation – 'to go and bring something/someone back'.

 

[yellowarse]

@#$%^&*! I didn't know the Brits and Aussies use it as well! And I deal with both in official correspondence on a fairly regular basis too. Maybe they aren't as blatant about using it in official emails as we are, or I just got lucky meeting sticklers like myself.

Even the Americans are getting in on the act: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06FOB-onlanguage-t.html

 

[Annoyed]

I was going to discuss the use of "fetch" as well, but you beat me to it.

Another common mistake: "bring it there" instead of "take it there". My English teacher in primary school used to give me and my classmates grief over this one. Even when we visited her years after graduation, when she was undergoing chemotherapy, she would correct us, "bring it here, take it there."

You're right: in Mandarin 送 can mean 'to send' (you do not accompany the thing or person being sent), or 'to deliver' (where you bring the thing or person along with you).

Same with the use of 'fetch' locally in the same context: I fetch my children to school. It's a mistaken translation from the Chinese 载， meaning "to bring, to carry, to bring". 'Fetch' in English has a totally different connotation – 'to go and bring something/someone back'.

 

[yellowarse]

Another common mistake: "bring it there" instead of "take it there". My English teacher in primary school used to give me and my classmates grief over this one. Even when we visited her years after graduation, when she was undergoing chemotherapy, she would correct us, "bring it here, take it there."

Yes, 'take it there', 'bring it here'... those were the days.

But English is funny; for every rule there are quite a few exceptions. If I were talking to someone on the phone and telling him I was going to take something to his place, I'd say, "I'll bring it to you." Not "I'll take it to you." Because in this instance I'd be assuming the direction in which the object is brought/taken from his vantage point.

That's why English is such a minefield for non-native learners.

 

[Conqueror]

Hear Only The Good Things For Stupid Sinkies

This happens because he was trying to speak from two corners of his mouth which were each saying different things.

One side says "ya, actually, we are really so divided, as in after our last GE" and the other says, "ya, we cant say we are divided otherwise you will really believe it; but since it's so, we're trying our best to undivide it, comprenez?"

Speaking with forked tongues is also the speciality of politicians in general, and S'pore Ministers in particular. The age old maxim: If you cannot convince, confuse; if you cannot confuse, confound!

This kind of speech will go down very well with the useless old folks here. The speech will make them go high like booze or weed. You can tell that the old folks are non-confrontational type that hate words that are considered as rude but true. Their brains have been in cocoons since the 60s or 70s.

If you are a pro-oppo then this is not the message for you because you are skeptical with anything they say. This message is for them because they are STUPID. Those words are supposed to tickle them a little and make them feel good.

 

[neddy]

wow ... I feel ... feel, so empowered by the speech.

one tiny sniff at the words and you know that it has been heavily backspaced and retyped to pass the party censor. 10 out of 10 for effort!

The speech's power cum from ....

the effort to use an acronym that will make mothers cry in pride. and cult leaders fuming in envy. C-A-R-E that carries a meaning of its own.

Using sets is always a winner, doubly so when backed by numbers, and mixed into an orgy of mass generalisation like expressive and arts. Makes even the 3rd rate AV producer OUT-REACH for an Oscar.

Score: PASS with flying competence. (translated from this English word, Fail)