Dereliction of Fiduciary Duty

I often wonder how many more new words should I put into my vocabulary chest so that I can write better and deliver a more precise meaning of the concept or train of thoughts I want to express. Maybe a few hundred more.

Three of the words must be dereliction, fiduciary and omnious which I come across countless of time -- the latest being today -- but have not really use them in any of my articles.

There's a saying that goes, "use a word twice and it will be yours forever." SO, here goes:

"Dereliction" is the act of willfully neglecting duties and principles. Its Malay equivalent is "sengaja mengabaikan tugas".

"Fiduciary" is the trust "entrusted" to someone, a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal or "amanah" in Malay.

"Ominous" is a situation exhitibing the quality of being "omen", for instance "ominous chain of event." In Malay, ominous is "beralamat buruk".

Trite Nugatory

... the entire trial would become nugatory. Nugatory:

1. Of no real value

2. Trivial, trifling or of little importance; Ineffective, invalid or futile; Having no force, inoperative, ineffectual; Removable from a computer program with safety, but harmless if retained

3. Of little or no importance, trifling, worthless, not operative, invalid

... it was trite law that the court had absolute discretion whether to grant a stay or not. Trite:

1. Banal: repeated too often; overfamiliar through overuse

2. Unoriginality as a result of being dull and hackneyed

English Words, Phrases and Expressions

I learn not a small measure of knowledge from reading this New York Times articles alone, titled "Obama, in His New Role, Calls for Stimulus Package". The article is a report from US President-elect Barack Obama's news conference.

1. "...approached the lectern. (I would have written "approached the rostrum" because I just came to know of the word "lectern" today)

2. "He smiled as he looked out at a large retinue assembled from around the world." (retinue -- a group of people who travel with someone important, eg a huge retinue of servants)

3. "... seen only in faraway shots as he dashed from the gym." (Non-native English speaker might have written "... as he hurried from the gym.")

4. "I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances." (seance -- a meeting where people try to communicate with the spirits of dead people)

5. "careless and offhanded remark. (I should start using "offhanded remarks" in the translation of the Malay word "terlepas kata")

6. "...a warm conversation." (I should really learn to use the word "warm" other than in connection to the weather)

7. "an array of economic advisers." (another way of saying "a team of economic advisers")

8. "...offered no new specifics about what he intended to do to."

9. "But the stagecraft of the news conference, held after a closed-door meeting of Mr. Obama’s economic advisers, was intended to show that he was hard at work in search of solutions." (I just love the chemistry of the two concepts)

10. "The session carried the trappings of an official event, with eight American flags lined against blue drapes."

11. "...to get a brief respite after a 22-month campaign."

Toadying, apple polishing, sycophant

is the english translation for the Malay word ampu-mengampu, suka membodek and mengipas.

New Words: Tatter, Detritus, Clamber, Buck Teeth, Epigraph

... and scraped, fester, hears, lionize. Now that's a lot of new words in just one article, ain't it?

The sad thing is, that is the fact as far as I'm concern. These words are from an article written by Roy Clark of Poynter Institute, titled "What Happens to a Verb Deferred?"

Okay, let's see the meaning of each word:

Tatter, Detritus, Clamber, Buck Teeth, Epigraph, Scraped, Fester, Prophetic, Hearse, Lionize... to be continued; too sleepy to be productive...

New Words, Use It Twice And It Is Yours

Well, some are not exactly new words to me. It's just that I seldom use them.

From the article "Obama surges ahead of McCain":

"...John McCain fumbled his response to a looming US economic cataclysm - one that threatened to match the financial catastrophe of the 1930s Great Depression."

1. Fumble:

• 
  
• grope: feel about uncertainly or blindly; "She groped for her glasses in the darkness of the bedroom"
• make one's way clumsily or blindly; "He fumbled towards the door"
• handle clumsily

2. Cataclysm:

• calamity: an event resulting in great loss and misfortune; "the whole city was affected by the irremediable calamity";
• "the earthquake was a ...

3. Catastrophe:

• calamity: an event resulting in great loss and misfortune; "the whole city was affected by the irremediable calamity"; "the earthquake was a ...
• a state of extreme (usually irremediable) ruin and misfortune; "lack of funds has resulted in a catastrophe for our school system"; "his policies were a disaster"
• a sudden violent change in the earth's surface

My Common Grammatical Errors

I'm as guilty as others in committing many of the grammatical errors stated here, including the one on whether to use who or whom. Thankfully there is an explanation to that:

Whom will succeed?	Who will succeed?	A simple rule-of-thumb is to use "who" when "he" would also make sense; and use "whom" when "him" would also make sense (e.g. "Him will succeed" does not sound right, while "he will succeed" does).
Who did you give it to?	Whom did you give it to?	As above. "You gave it to he" does not sound right, while "you gave it to him" does. Thus, use "whom".

Subjunctive: Is It Possible To Say "He Do" And Not "He Does"?

I have had trouble trying to figure out whether I can use "he do" in certain situation and not "he does" as the situation commonly requires it.

I'm so glad that I've found the solution to the problem. Thus, the sentence "he does this everyday" is correct but not "he do this everyday." However, "I insist that he do this everyday" is correct but not "I insist that he does this everyday."

Then there are also the problems of "I were, he were, she were". For instance, in the sentence "If I were the King of England", shouldn't it be written as "If I was the King of England"?

Bartleby.com says:

"According to traditional rules, you use the subjunctive to describe an occurrence that you have presupposed to be contrary to fact: if I were ten years younger, if America were still a British Colony.

"When the situation described by the if clause is not presupposed to be false, however, that clause must contain an indicative verb.

The form of verb in the main clause will depend on your intended meaning: If Hamlet was really written by Marlowe, as many have argued, then we have underestimated Marlowe’s genius. If Kevin was out all day, then it makes sense that he couldn’t answer the phone."

The key words here are "presupposed to be false". Simply put, if you have presupposed something to be false, use "were". If it's just a probability, use "was".

But, Bartleby.com says:

Remember, just because the modal verb would appears in the main clause, this doesn’t mean that the verb in the if clause must be in the subjunctive if the content of that clause is not presupposed to be false: If I was (not were) to accept their offer—which I’m still considering—I would have to start the new job on May 2. He would always call her from the office if he was (not were) going to be late for dinner.

Can I Use "Would" In Present Tense?

Ya, can I? Some say I can, some say I can only use "would" in past tense. I need answer!

Note to self: must research this one. In the meantime, I may able to find the answer here. Speaking of "may", can I use its past tense "might" in the present tense as well?

Are They Caught Driving Without A Licence?

... or are they caught driving without licences?

Not to self: find out how to shift between singular or plural.

Donkey Comes Second

Which one is the correct expression, I and my friend or my friend and I? If you ever come across this dilemma in your writing, just remember that the donkey comes second.

Who is the donkey? I'm afraid that's you. So, you must come second. It's my friend and I.

Is Research Singular Or Plural?

Research is singular. It's plural is researches. Hence the sentence "Research debunks 'out of Taiwan' migration theory".

How do I know this? Because the New York Times says so. If NY Times says researches, then it must be the plural of research. The Times can't be wrong.

Should The Noun That Follows The Word "Some" Be Plural?

I've heard people use the expression "some people" in reference to a particular person. So, on the same note, can I say "some bloggers" in reference to only one person?

And another thing, should the noun after the word "all" must always be plural? If that is so, then the phrase "people are advised to postpone all travel" will be wrong? Should it be "all travels" instead?

How Pure Is The English Language?

Here's how it is not:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

By James D. Nicoll.

Uniformised vs Standardised

Ok, nevermind the spelling. It's British. The American spelling is "uniformized and standardized".

I've had a sleepless night over the word "uniformised" which I've used to translate the Malay word "diseragamkan". Seragam in Malay is "uniform", so diseragamkan is to make create a uniformity of someting, hence my translation "uniformised".

The Malay phrase in question is... "harga akan diseragamkan di semua kawasan", which I translated "the price of goods will be uniformised in all areas".

But my superior said the correct translation should be "standardised". So the correct translation should be "the price of goods will be standardised in all areas". I kind of agreeing with him. The term is definitely more commonly used, at least in Malaysia.

But to me, standardised has the meaning of having achieve a certain level of quality while uniformised is just about making things looking the same. Had my English was better, I would have argued with him.

But no. I had better learn first.

When In Doubt, Don't Simply Leave It Out

Consult thesaurus.com or Merriam-Webster. Both online.

Phasal Verbs

I find this installment of BBC Learning English, very enlightening. It's about Phrasal Verbs, titled "Face Up To Phrasal".

It has 12 episodes of Fred and Betty battling it our with their "phrasal" ammunition.

Word Has It That...

In not too distant future, I'm going to see a movement, a vertical movement as well as a horizontal one.

A vertical movement because I'll be moving up the rank and vertical movement because I'll be moving from where I sit at the moment to another section of the office.

I've heard about this long ago and in fact, had made known my reluctance to take up the position. So the management knows my stand on the matter but if they decide to proceed with the appointment, I think I'm going to accept it and stick my neck out.

I mean, I can't be writing a letter to reject the appointment. Can I? That would be preposterous.

You might wonder why I'm reluctant to take up the post. Well, because it has something to do with English. Anyone who take up the position must be competent in the language first, and have a good management skills second.

I know I can learn fast and improve my command of the language up to the level required for the post, but not this fast. Not within the next few weeks.

I need at least one full year of intensive learning to be able to become competent in the language.

But I think if the letter is out, like I said, I'm going to accept the post, and then from there, I'm going to learn as fast and as intensive as I can.

I might as well jump into the pond and learn how to swim.

If Feet Is The Plural Of Foot, Why Must They Set Their Foot And Not Their Feet?

Here is the answer. It's call plural noun forms. And set their foot is wrong. It should be set their feet. They've never set their feet on land.

Sixty Per Cent Knowledge, The Rest Is Guesswork And Research

Sixty per cent knowledge, 10 per cent guesswork, another 30 per cent research. That's the amount of competency I could muster when I do translation job.

The ratio needed for good English translators would be 90, 0, 10. Guesswork must be set at zero because you must never allow second-guessing to creep in the translated copy. You must be very sure of the grammar and the choice of words.