Truly Plural

Apologies for the tongue-in-cheek twister. Read this recently, and loved it. Check it out:

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Then shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England ..
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly,
boxing rings are square,

and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,
grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend.
If you have a bunch of odds and ends
and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.

In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
in which your house can burn up as it burns
down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out,
and in which an alarm goes off by going on.

And, in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?

La Belle Dame Sans Merci

I suddenly remembered the poem by Keats. And I remember when I first read it as a teenager, there was very little that I could understand. I thought it's a good time to revisit it 10 years later. Here is how it goes:

Ah, what can ail thee, wretched knight,
Alone and palely loitering?
The sedge is withered from the lake,
And no birds sing.

Ah, what can ail thee, wretched knight,
So haggard and so woe-begone
The squirrel's granary is full,
And the harvest's done.

I see a lily on thy brow
With anguish moist and fever dew,
And on thy cheek a fading rose
Fast withereth too.

I met a lady in the meads,
Full beautiful, a faery's child:
Her hair was long, her foot was light,
And her eyes were wild.

I set her on my pacing steed,
And nothing else saw all day long;
For sideways would she lean, and sing
A faery's song.

I made a garland for her head,
And bracelets too, and fragrant zone;
She looked at me as she did love,
And made sweet moan.

She found me roots of relish sweet,
And honey wild, and manna dew,
And sure in language strange she said,
"I love thee true!"

She took me to her elfin grot,
And there she gazed and sighed deep,
And there I shut her wild, sad eyes--
So kissed to sleep.

And there we slumbered on the moss,
And there I dreamed, ah! woe betide,
The latest dream I ever dreamed
On the cold hill side.

I saw pale kings, and princes too,
Pale warriors, death-pale were they all;
Who cried--"La belle Dame sans merci
Hath thee in thrall!"

I saw their starved lips in the gloam,
With horrid warning gaped wide,
And I awoke and found me here,
On the cold hill side.

And that is why I sojourn here,
Alone and palely loitering,
Though the sedge is withered from the lake,
And no birds sing.


Now for my interpretations.

1. The 'Knight' is a guy who just got dumped by his significant other of many years. And he's going through that phase of self-pity, "I cant go through a relationship again" phase.

2. The guy just slept with a hooker and picked up an STD. And has no clue what to do about it.

3. The guy has a fatal disease, and this is a conversation he's having with his life, personified as a wretched knight.

4. The guy is a rapist, and now it's his conscience that is disrobing him.

Now help me add to this list, will ya?

A century, 77 years in the making.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. A 100 wins! And 10 years ago, no cricket statistician worth his cricket blog and uninterrupted cricket coverage via Cricinfo would have guessed it would've been achieved within another 10 years. While the whole of India kept criticizing the men in blue of their inability of winning abroad and of falling standards in the 5 day game, Team India quietly managed to pull-off their best decade ever. No, seriously! What would say of a team's history of 77 years, when 39% of its success was experienced in this one decade?

On closer look, we'll find that there's a small matter of the matches against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. But these will be dealt with too, when we try and capture the essence of this decade.

The 2000s started most disastrously for team India. After yet another Australian whitewash, it was the turn of Cronje's Proteas blanking India at Home. And then the most forgettable incident in Cricket's history, which threatened annihilation of the game itself. It left India reeling, with yesteryears' heroes, Azhar and Jadeja being proved guilty of match fixing.

But from the rubble emerged a new India, much like the Reneissance after centuries of strife. And leading them from the front was Saurav Ganguly. The Prince led his men to their first test win of the decade, and an overseas one at that, against debutants Bangladesh and followed it with wins against Zimbabwe.

And then the epic series that would probably define the team for the decade that followed. To their credit, Ganguly, Dravid, Kumble and Dhoni managed to do in the 2000s what their predecessors hadn't managed in 67 years - a win-loss ratio of 1.

So before we start criticize this team, I feel we need to look-up our history and then make an assessment.




Much in the spirit of India's 100th victory, I've compiled my All-time India XI.

Sunil Gavaskar
Virendar Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Sachin Tendulkar
G Vishwanath
Vinoo Manked
MS Dhoni
Kapil Dev
Anil Kumble
Zaheer Khan
J Srinath
Ekanath Solkar(12th man)

Remember those great Volkswagen ads?

Surely you do. If you're in advertising or if you're an auto enthusiast. And if nothing else, you are old enough to have seen Dick Cheney with all his hair.

In the days when Sports Entertainment was no more than an hour of physical activity, and reality TV was a distant reality, people spoke of advertising. And they certainly spoke of Volkswagen ads.

That's because the Volkswagen and its advertising enjoyed a successful marriage. If you looking for evidence to verify the success of the marriage, see how every flaw of the car was spoken in such an affectionate tone, thus endearing the Beetle to the whole generation that was lost in space.

The honesty of the car was articulated through smart, honest advertising. It would have been a pity if such a successful marriage was without a family album. Hence the book.

And like any album worth its nostalgia, it's bound to elicit a few chuckles.

This book is a must buy for people who believe in the power of advertising, and those who believe in the power of their dreams. Afterall, don't we all like the fairy tale of the ugly ducking within us becoming a pin-up boy?

Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino is known to make films that are full of legendary contradictions, real-life references and imaginary events, inspired/borrowed elements and dazzling original plots, and mind-numbing absurdity and deep-layered meaning - often rendering them as brilliant as they are ridiculous. And we movie buffs love him for just that. Suffice it to say, Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino's most glorious attempt since Pulp Fiction.

Read the full review here.

Dharma for Dhamra

Here's a comment published from my post on Olive Ridley. I find it surprising that it still remains my most popular post. I wonder why?

Says Meghna, "Tata Steel has always maintained a strong focus on environment sustainability and environment management in all its operations. We have seen that in the issues regarding the construction of a deep-sea port at Dhamra in Orissa, the Company has been forthcoming in sharing the concerns of activists and ever willing to implement practical means of mitigating any adverse impact of port construction on the marine eco-system in that area. The Company has held at least eight to nine sessions of meetings with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations in the matter of Dhamra Port. Tata Steel has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to have further discussions in order to alleviate any unnecessary doubts that the dissenters may yet nurture against the project.

Here is an outline of events as they happened till date.

The JV agreement with L&T to build a port at Dhamra was signed by Tata Steel in 2004. At the very onset, discussions were initiated with WWF- India, BNHS, Mr Kartik Shankar, Mr Bittu Sehagal and others.

The company was duly concerned with the objections raised by different environmental organizations and agreed not to begin construction work till a detailed study was complete. Responding wholeheartedly to the demands of activists, Tata Steel agreed for a proposal for a further study of the impact of the port on turtles and on the marine and island eco-system.

In 2005, BNHS and WWF-India, with an unprecedented suddenness, reversed their stand and refused to conduct the assessment study as they had promised. However, the organisations did not provide any reasons for their turncoat attitude.

In March 06, in an address to ED, Greenpeace India, the Chairman of TATA Sons made it clear that commitments were meant to be honoured at both ends. The Company had fulfilled their promise by withholding construction work for the proposed study, which never actually took off. The MD of Tata Steel also met Greenpeace officials in their Bangalore office.

In January 2008 a meeting was subsequently conducted between Greenpeace and Tata Steel and a list of concerns was presented by Greenpeace with regard to Dhamra Port. DPCL on 8th March 2008, gave a detailed and comprehensive explanation to all the points raised by Greenpeace. Subsequent objections were allayed on 3rd May 2008.

Further on 23rd October 2008, MD, Tata Steel along with senior executives of Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL met Greenpeace, BNHS, WPSI, Wild Society of Orissa, Sanctuary Asia and other environmental organizations to discuss the concerns and the way forward on the subject with regard to Dhamra Port.

A team of Company Executives and environment experts visited Bhitarakanika National Park, Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary and the Dhamra Port site on February 2009, supervising the ongoing dredging operations.

On fourth meeting on 20th Feb 2009 in Kolkata, Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL agreed to conduct the additional biological impact assessment in close collaboration with NGOs’ of environmental organizations team led by a mutually agreed upon Scientists team. However the NGOs’ in a further instance of unreasonableness, insisted upon complete cessation of on-going dredging operation of Dhamra Port even before the commencement of study. However DPCL, Tata Steel and L&T team showed it preparedness to adjust the schedule of works including dredging to facilitate the study after due recommendation by the Scientists team.

The 102nd AGM of Tata Steel had been attended by a number of Greenpeace activists who happen to be shareholders of the Company as well. The AGM highlighted Tata Steel’s interests in further conference with Greenpeace in the matter of the port in addition to an invitation to activists to visit the port site yet again.

From the sequence of events, it is absolutely clear that the only thing that Greenpeace wants is to prolong the situation of deadlock in the matter of Dhamra Port. Perhaps, due to a lack of other valid issues on their agenda, Greenpeace is carrying on with a stance of stiffness, lest they have to give in to valid scientific reasoning. The only deduction that may be drawn from Greenpeace’s lack of willingness in discussion is that they have lost their own conviction long before and fear that they will have to admit it as such in an open forum. It is indeed a very sorry state of affairs in which progress is kept at stake and the environment is being used as a pawn by people who profess themselves to be friends of the environment. "

Wow!! That's easily the longest comment posted on my blog. :)

Taking Case: A sign of aggression?

Thanks to Mr. Gurudutt Mundkur, I read this interesting piece on sense of humour, published in the Journal of Pragmatics.

Helga Kotthoff, of the Frieburg University of Education, claims that dominant people exploit the ability to make others laugh as a degree of control to show that they are in charge.

When I look back, I wonder if that was what case-taking was all about. To me, it was what people with sense of humour had indulged in. And it was exclusively mutual (as opposed to mutually exclusive? Well. Sheepish smile.) If anything, it was a defense mechanism. It was to conceal the demons in your life. Your sense of humour is like those hummer wheels, which could help you overcome the obstacle-laden path that is life. As a popular humourist once said, it is with humour that you can soften some of the worst blows that life delivers. And once you find laughter, no matter how painful your situation might be, you can survive it.

"Those 'on top' are more free to make others laugh. They are also at more liberty to be more aggressive. A lot of what is funny is making jokes at someone else's expense," the Telegraph quoted her as saying.

"Displaying humour means taking control of the situation from those higher up the hierarchy and this is risky for people of lower status, which before the 1960s meant women rarely made other people laugh -- they couldn't afford to."

Interesting thoughts, I must admit. Have you ever experienced a situation when you were forced to laugh at a superior’s joke? Even when you thought it wasn’t remotely funny. Or choose to laugh only because you mean no offence.

According to Kotthoff, the differences between men's and women's ability to become comedians starts very young. She supports this by pointing out that boys as young as four can be seen telling more jokes, frolicking, and clowning about, whereas the girls tend to be the ones doing the laughing.

However, she adds, women tend to become funnier at a later age because they feel freer to not be seen as ladylike. Kotthoff thinks that humour, including teasing, is a mix of "bonding and biting", which is often used by women to form social bonds with their friends.

Men, on the other hand, often use humour to vent frustration, she says. However, Kotthoff says, both sexes use comedy as a means of controlling others.
But Helga’s last claim really blew my head off. "A study in the late 1980s showed that men use sexual jokes as a way of verbally undressing a woman who rebuts his advances; his humour was aggressive in essence," she said. I’m sure that’s not true, if the audience is well acquainted with the, for the lack of a better word, speaker or performer. For instance, I’d really like to know if this is how it is interpreted between friends.

To my relief, nothing was mentioned about punsters, or those who indulge in harmless wordplay. But then, there is definitely a case of one-upmanship, or if I’m allowed to say so, pun-upmanship. It’s certainly an ego-boost, much like deciphering a cryptic clue in The Hindu crossword, or working out a quiz question. And then, there’s a tacit understanding among punsters. To always acknowledge another’s attempt at word play. Since we all know those who do not enjoy a pun are those who believe, "Even I could’ve thought of that one!"

So, what do think? Humour me. Please!