It's not Im > it's I'm !

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 04 Mar 2007, 05:03

While I now have learnt to suffer thru Its (where it should be It's), Im instead of I'm is a bit too much!
C'mon guys, let's get our English basics right, esp when we often discuss estoeric points of Sanskrit, Tamil, etc. sahityam here!

meena · Post by **meena** » 04 Mar 2007, 06:08

There are ton of "online English grammar tutorial" and forums dedicated to this subject. I feel, its a waste of forum space. thanks

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 04 Mar 2007, 08:49

It is actually 'Come on guys' and not 'C'mon guys'

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 04 Mar 2007, 09:24

jayaram
its is correct! no apostrophe. Just like yours, hers, theirs etc (personal pronouns). see
http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/posscase.html
In my (olden days) the teacher's stick (not meena's

will be ready in case you apostrophize

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 04 Mar 2007, 09:39

CML
My Dads English teacher -one Sheshagiri Rao, also a Grand Uncle-specialsed in Shunthi Kombu-A Kind of a Pinch that left a spiral shaped Impression for 24 hours, for such mistakes.

Anyway Here is another favourite of mine.
The Lord heard a knock at the pearly gates and enquired
"Now who is that ?"

Came the reply : "It Is I , My Lord !'

"Ah ! "groaned , the Lord.
"One more English Teacher ,for the day" .

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 04 Mar 2007, 09:46

Cool,
I was born a little later than the shunti kombu days, but my math teacher in middle school would give more than a gentle tap on our heads with her long ruler and cry out, 'front row dunces'!
My grammar ain't that good either!
Ah, the tyranny that was school, Jayaram!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 04 Mar 2007, 10:17

Ha ha!
That is a nice one coolkarni. When some of us get there hopefully Lord will exclaim:
svAgataM vyAkaraNahantA |

(which is why he had PaNini eaten by a Tiger

By the by as a palmist let me let you in on the secret. If those spiral twirls were valampuri (anticlockwise?) then they bode goodluck and iDampuri (clockwise) they bode disaster

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 04 Mar 2007, 12:37

My internet English is strictly colloquial.

But I have problems with unnecessary abreviation (Jayaram, you rather shot yourself in the foot with that c'mon

) and, dudes, I loathe d gangsta SMS talk that is invading this medium. Thankfully most of us are a shade too old for it here!

My spelling is atrocious, so I don't dare criticize that of others.

cmlover... isn't Panini a kind of pasta?

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 04 Mar 2007, 13:31

Panini is actually a sandwich - between the Vedas and Kalidasa, I mean!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 04 Mar 2007, 14:04

good one, Vijay.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 04 Mar 2007, 15:00

I'm aware we all use informal colloquialisms on a forum like this, and that's ok. But when we use shortened versions, let's make sure they are the correct ones!

It is > It's (not Its - Its is the possessive form of It)
I am > I'm
Let us > Let's
Do not > Don't
etc.

"My Dads English teacher" > "My Dad's English teacher"
"I feel, its a waste of forum space." > "I feel it's a waste of forum space."

By the way, C'mon is a valid shortened version of Come on.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c'mon

And I don't agree one needs to be an English teacher to write correctly. It just requires a bit of extra attention to detail. A revised version of the Pearly Gates story would go something like this:
Peter says: Who is there? And write down your answer on a piece of paper and slip it under the gate.
(and the poor guy writes: Its me)
Peter says: Sorry, go back to rasikas.org forum and re-learn the correct form, then come back.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 04 Mar 2007, 15:04

Nick,
He was actually a grammarian. Unlike the tiger, I prefer to make a meal of a panini (little bread) smeared with pesto sauce, than devour the above mentioned scholar! I do not know about Chennai. Here in Bangalore you can get some good panini which I turn into little home made pizzas.
Vijay,
Your post made me want to share some with you.
VK,
You are welcome too, the next time you are in India--but secret agent man? I don't know if he would care to join...

Time to go back to Ahiri thread?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 04 Mar 2007, 19:47

Jayaram
The colloquial abbreviation for 'it is is 'tis ' Shakespeare uses it. Polonius uses it liberally addressing the Queen in Hamlet:

Madam, I swear I use no art at all.
That he is mad â€˜tis true; â€˜tis true â€˜tis pity;
And pity â€˜tis â€˜tis true. A foolish figure-
But farewell it, for I will use no art.

'Tis claimed that Panini killed Sanskrit through his aShTAdhyAyI, it would appear he is doing it in reality at B'lore (apologies karNATakites

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 04 Mar 2007, 21:07

Jayaram,
If we have to put up with the tyranny of 'sAhityam' by which many a humble slave can morph into fruits, then 'I'm' versus 'Im' and many of the other iterations cited above pale into insignificance!:lol:
After all, the pronuncitaion remains the same! In technical jargon, these are issues with 'writing mechanics' and not 'language expression' per se, and while troubling to the eye, usually do not change the import of the statement. So, I'm with Meena!:P

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 04 Mar 2007, 21:50

cmlover wrote:Jayaram
The colloquial abbreviation for 'it is is 'tis ' Shakespeare uses it. Polonius uses it liberally addressing the Queen in Hamlet:
Madam, I swear I use no art at all.
That he is mad â€˜tis true; â€˜tis true â€˜tis pity;
And pity â€˜tis â€˜tis true. A foolish figure-
But farewell it, for I will use no art.
'Tis claimed that Panini killed Sanskrit through his aShTAdhyAyI, it would appear he is doing it in reality at B'lore (apologies karNATakites

I can vouch for what cmlover says. The sequel to "Angela's Ashes" (by Frank McCourt?) was called 'Tis.
In case you are wondering, in Angela's Ashes McCourt ends it with a question and the short answer, "It is", is then used as the title for the second book.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 04 Mar 2007, 22:07

Let's not mix up Shakespearean (and other poetic) usages with modern writing.
Chambers dictionary has this note on Its vs It's:
Confusion between its and it's is still the most common error in the English language. Its = belonging to it, it's = 'it is' or in informal use, 'it has'.
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chamber ... ery=it%27s
Obviously people are not checking the online tutorials that have been mentioned here.

As rasikas, we express ourselves thru language when we discuss matters related to music. The musical analogies of these writing errors are apa-swaram and apa-layam. What we don't tolerate in the music we discuss applies to our writing as well.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 04 Mar 2007, 22:08

'Tis so.
Now, is it our turn to bash another man from Erin--Mr. Joyce?

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 04 Mar 2007, 22:22

After all, the pronuncitaion remains the same!

Hmm, that's a strange comment. Are you saying then it's ok to write "Their is nothing in this box" when you meant "There is nothing in this box"? - just because the two words sound the same?? (people do make such mistakes, by the way)

Let's not then criticise artistes' incorrect pronunciations in their renditions. Anything goes, right?

We rasikas have a responsibility in how well we express ourselves. (And I am not talking about 'Vijay-like' colourful writing here!

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 04 Mar 2007, 22:32

Me don't know nothing about whats going on here! Me ain't a party to grammar lessons here!

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 04 Mar 2007, 22:42

better still:
Mee dont no nuthing abowt vats goyng onn hear! Mee aint ai parti too grammer lesons hear!

(it was difficult to get every word wrong - a great musician once said he found it difficult to get apa-swarams even if he tried!)

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 04 Mar 2007, 22:47

I am not totally rustic, yet! Perhaps one might be converted in due course with a little training from Eliza Doolittle and the like.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 04 Mar 2007, 23:41

It is grammar raining in plain exchange of musical matters. Now, take over, Miss. Dolittle...

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 04 Mar 2007, 23:47

Oh... pronunciation and spelling in English

But I'd say that Im is pronounced to rhyme with Him, quite different to I'm, which rhymes with ..... um, rhyme?

My native language is awful: I'm still confused between week and weak; dear and deer, double or single Ps, Ts etc.

But I look back fondly on the days when the BBC newsreaders could be relied upon to give good and correct example to the rest of us, not dumbed down sloppiness and mixed metaphor.

meena · Post by **meena** » 05 Mar 2007, 00:58

jayaram wrote:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chamber â€¦ ery=it%27s
Obviously people are not checking the online tutorials that have been mentioned here.

IF ONLY u took the time to read my post. (post #2)

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 05 Mar 2007, 13:27

I did. Obviously YOU didn't read my posting #11 carefully enough.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 05 Mar 2007, 14:08

arasi said:

It is grammar raining in plain exchange of musical matters.

Surely you meant reining in??
Grammar (and spelling etc.) only helps us to express clearly. Surely you as a composer should know this!

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 05 Mar 2007, 14:17

jayaram wrote:arasi said:
It is grammar raining in plain exchange of musical matters.
Surely you meant reining in??

It should be "Reigning"

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 05 Mar 2007, 15:29

DRS, that's a beauty! Can only come from a vaggeyakara!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 05 Mar 2007, 15:49

Adi mUlamE, vAggEyakAra DRS, thanks!

Jayaram,
So, vAggEyakAri is a p(l)easant enough name for me. After all, I am singing the words of Eliza about 'raining' in the 'plains'...
By the way, I like the word 'reining' of yours as well

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 05 Mar 2007, 16:18

By the way, I like the word 'reining' of yours as well

Touche - classic case of 'nazhuval' indeed.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 05 Mar 2007, 18:23

Jayaram,
Assuming it is a typo, 'vazhuval' means: to err, to lean, or the sweet tender solid part of a young coconut. There could be other meanings too, I don't deny. Dependent on the meaning, I would say,

, :/ or

If you meant 'nazhuval', I don't get it. You didn't mean, nayam, did you?

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 05 Mar 2007, 19:34

Me don't follow the ruckus that is going on here.
When arasi wrote "grammar raining in..", I understood she meant the Eliza Doolittle episode in My Fair Lady when Higgins tries to rectify her speech by making her repeat, "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains". Without understanding the background of somebody's post, casting innuendos is not fair.

It is high time it stopped raining cats, dogs and other animals here!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 05 Mar 2007, 20:43

Jayaram
from your location and penchant I expected 'roining' (phonetic) with which you can escape all these other interpretations. The Queen of course has to use the 'Queen's English' and modesty being her virtue

I do hope Nick is not offended

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 06 Mar 2007, 21:49

I give up.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 06 Mar 2007, 23:48

Jayaram,
I actually expected a comment from you on the use of an incorrecct homophone in Aishwarya's Venkataraman's home page (under the section - My Guru)!

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 07 Mar 2007, 03:04

Ravi, I think you are referring to the 'role/roll' - yes, I spotted that (and many more) at that site, but as I said before, I have given up.

Read this quote from the intro to the book 'Eats, Shoots & Leaves' by Lynne Truss (in my opinion, every house should have a copy of this book):

Either this will ring bells for you, or it won't. A printed banner has appeared on the concourse of a petrol station near to where I live. "Come inside," it says, "for CD's, VIDEO's, DVD's, and BOOK's."

If this satanic sprinkling of redundant apostrophes causes no little gasp of horror or quickening of the pulse, you should probably put down this book at once. By all means congratulate yourself that you are not a pedant or even a stickler; that you are happily equipped to live in a world of plummeting punctuation standards; but just don't bother to go any further. For any true stickler, you see, the sight of the plural word "Book's" with an apostrophe in it will trigger a ghastly private emotional process similar to the stages of bereavement, though greatly accelerated..."

Now you can understand what I go thru.

gn.sn42 · Post by **gn.sn42** » 07 Mar 2007, 04:00

Ah, Lynne Truss... from complaining about poor punctuation she moved on to complain about - well, everything, really, in a book called "Talk to the Hand - the utter bloody rudeness of everyday life". Great reading for those who like that sort of thing, and for those who don't there's John Crace's digested read:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/digestedrea ... 85,00.html

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 07 Mar 2007, 04:05

Jayaram,
Role/roll - yes, that was it.
My point is not that language mechanics are not an issue - but rather that they should not be an issue here. Currently, there are so many dialects of English, that it'd be very difficult to insist that everyone use just one form. As long as the import is clear, it should be OK - people on the forum are not professional writers - and before you quote statements from the sAhityam thread, by and large, those were comments on professional musicians.

If this was a forum of english teachers or professional (english) writers, then your comments would be spot on. So don't just roll over and give up - just use it in the appropriate forum/fora.

Suji Ram · Post by **Suji Ram** » 07 Mar 2007, 04:10

jayaram wrote:Now you can understand what I go thru.

go through - not thru

Hope this will be the "beginging of the end" to this thread.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 07 Mar 2007, 04:17

Suji,
Could not agree more!
Now all we need is for CML to say tathAstU, and sprinkle some water (apa upa sparSya)!

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 07 Mar 2007, 04:22

Ravi, you've missed my point completely. You keep referring to English teachers, professional writers, and the like. And you talk about 'many dialects of English'. But what I am talking about are fundamental/basic errors that people keep on making here. E.g. 'Its' for 'It is' etc. Is it that difficult to get these right?

To take an analogy:
If someone here writes 2 + 2 = 5 and you point out the error, would it be right for me to say 'Hey, this is not a forum for professional mathematicians or math teachers. Take your criticism elsewhere.'

Do you see my point? Maybe you don't. And that's why I said I give up.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 07 Mar 2007, 04:26

go through - not thru

Please see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thru

tathAstU indeed.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 07 Mar 2007, 04:42

Ah !
The Tyranny of ......
Now who used that phrase here,first ?
I keep forgetting.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 07 Mar 2007, 06:28

Suji Ram wrote:Hope this will be the "beginging of the end" to this thread.

At the least, "end of the beginning" so that we can move on to next chapter in correctional writing such as affect/effect, principle/principal etc.

My title at a multinational pharma company at one time was "principle scientist", which I endorsed wholeheartedly.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 07 Mar 2007, 06:34

I will not be surprised if this thread grows like anumAr vAl. Years ago somebody interpreted a finding using a paradigm which violated the second law of thermodynamics. That paper was later on mentioned by Science Citation Index as one of the most quoted papers because every Tom, Dick, and Harry excoriated the author of that paper for the violation in various commentaries, thereby drawing the most-cited paper status.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 07 Mar 2007, 14:05

Ah !
The Tyranny of ......
Now who used that phrase here,first ?

At the risk of extending the tail, let me explain:
There seem to be two types of rasikas out there:
1. those who aim for precision in written/spoken language, but are quite laissez-faire when it comes to enunciation of words in singing by musicians. Music reigns supreme for these people.
2. those who require (and insist on) correct ucchArana in musician's renderings, but are themselves quite indifferent to the correct usage of language in communication.
(we will ignore the other two for now)
I guess I belong to the former category, hence my 'Tyranny' polemic. I'm sure (hope?) a few others share my world view at least...? (Vijay, are you there?)

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 08 Mar 2007, 13:42

Jayaram, following keenly from the sidelines!

I am with you 100% on pronunciation...

As regards communication, my position is that English is just a language of convenience on this forum (a bit of a shame, actually, given our magnificent linguistic heritage but a practical solution given the babel of languages and dialects that is our country)...for a majority of members of this forum, including myself, English is not the language of "thought and dreams"...theferefore, insisting on grammatical accuracy and/or elegance of expression is, perhaps, expecting too much..

In any case my own usages are based more on instinct than on the strength of a theoretical foundation so I tend to take a liberal view of grammatical errors in general. However clarity of communication is a different matter altogether and, I believe, possible to achieve even on a weak grammatical wicket...