Oh! The English..... !!

ONLY THE ENGLISH COULD HAVE INVENTED THIS LANGUAGE
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?
AND IF PEOPLE FROM POLAND ARE CALLED POLES THEN PEOPLE FROM HOLLAND SHOULD BE HOLES AND THE GERMANS, GERMS!
(…..sent in by Ronnie D’Souza: 23 May 2009)

Posture-ous

• Never sleep on your stomach (?)
• Pick a mattress that supports you, but is neither too hard nor too soft
• Adjust your car seat or steering wheel so your elbows are always bent at least 30 degrees while you are driving.
• When you stand, make sure your body follows its vertical plumb-lines
• When you sit, shoulders should be aligned vertically over the hips. Do not cross your legs at the thigh.
• Sit symmetrically so there is equal pressure on both hips
• Do not carry a wallet in your back pocket; it will work as a wedge and cause misalignment of your hips and pelvis
• Avoid high-heeled boots and shoes; wear footwear with shock-absorbing rubber soles.

............Health Tips from Dovecot - The Bangalore Club House Journal:May 2009

Indian MADAME TUSSAUDS(?) at Kolhapur.... Amazing !!!

Got this one on the email circuit........

Mind Blowing !!
Indian MADAME TUSSAUDS at Kolhapur.... Amazing !!!
Unlike at Madame Tussauds, that most of these statues are in the outdoors and exposed to vagaries of nature, makes it all the more amazing and mind blowing!

"Mera Bharat Mahaan!"

Siddhagiri Museum Kolhapur
… it's on the outskirts of Kolhapur on the way to Belgaum
..worth seeing…. all statues are made out of wax.

Comments:

Monika Sharma 01 May 2009
simply amazing and cute! This country offers so much, I wish its own people would know more about and learn to value what they have got.

Ramesh A. Vaswani 01 May 2009
This museum should find mention by the Ministry of Tourism in their Incredible India campaign and suitable facilities worked out for tourists to access the museum.

Nisha Maria Peres: 01 May 2009
Really awesome!! Thanks for sharing... and these are people worth seeing in immortalised wax forms

Ulrike Straka: Algiers: 03 May 2009

this is to remember India how it was, in a few years time!

i hope some of the good things stay. although i know that what seems beautiful and idyllic to me is in many cases not a situation that people want to have forever (no electricity, hard work on the fields).

Bloody noise, kill it…!

By Maxwell Pereira
mfjpkamath@gmail.com

Mumbai observed a 'No Honking Day' on April 07 (World Health Day) this year, focusing on noise pollution that impacts citizens’ health. A host of NGOs, automobile associations, as well as schools and colleges participated, to sensitize motorists on the campaign. The local FM radio stations pitched in too to appeal to motorists to abstain from honking for a day. An NGO – Earth Saviours Foundation in Delhi wants to emulate this on Dec 13.
Not many are conversant with noise pollution laws. Basically noise levels above 80dB (decibels) are considered detrimental and harmful to healthy hearing. And for normal tension free conversation one requires a background noise level of <55dB.
However, Government itself is the first violator of these norms – since noise standards prescribed in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules–1989 (CMVR) for most categories of vehicles are above 80dB. Except for petrol-driven two-wheelers for which the limit is 80 dB(A), for passenger cars and other petrol-driven vehicles it is 82 dB(A). For passenger or LCVs including three-wheeled vehicles with diesel engines upto 4000 Kgs. – 85 dB(A); for passenger or commercial vehicles above 4000 and upto 12000 Kgs - 89 dB(A); and above 12000 Kgs. - 91 dB(A).
The acceptable noise levels prescribed in USA are – for parks and open spaces, the exterior limits to be not above 60 dB(A), for residential areas within the buildings - 55 dB(A) and outside the buildings - 70 dB(A) and for other developed areas 75 dB(A).
Noise has been defined variously. Physically, ‘…as a complex sound with little or no periodicity’. Acoustically, ‘….as a signal that bears no information and whose intensity varies randomly and in time’. Psychologically, ‘…as any sound which is unpleasant or unwanted’. Commonly, it is the last definition that affects and touches every soul.
Increasing urbanization has led to mounting volumes of noise, intruding upon the quality of life and privacy of urban dwellers. The annoyance and discomfort caused by noise at times assume serious proportion meriting urgent attention. Noise in cities is a result of activities and factors like – road traffic, aircraft, railways and industrial and constructional works. Widespread prevalence of high intensity levels of sound from all these is termed as noise pollution.
The generation of noise from automobile machinery as well as the widespread use of horns is a major contributor to the level of ambient noise in Indian cities today.
Detrimental effects of traffic noise are under 3 major groups – subjective, behavioural, and physiological. Subjective effects include annoyance, disturbance, dissatisfaction, bother and noisiness – difficult to measure precisely, because of variation in describing levels of discomfort. Behavioural effects cover – interference with sleep, speech or any general task. Noise wakens people, or impairs quality of sleep and its duration. Noise can cause interference in speech and in the enjoyment of audio and visual programmes; also cause disturbance in studies and intellectual pursuits. It can upset balance between stress and recuperation and thus cause chronic fatigue, reduced efficiency and increase incidence of ailments.
Physiological effects are those that startle or cause fright phenomenon that can result in harmful effects on various parts of the body. Exposure to noise can raise blood pressure; accelerate heart rate, contract blood vessels; increase muscular tension and at extremely high levels and long periods of exposure, may produce deafness.
Noise caused by road traffic can be – that from various parts of the vehicle; that contributed by interaction between vehicle and road surface; and noise dependant on speed, and flow or density of traffic. Contributing elements from the vehicle itself being – engine (power unit, especially during acceleration); the inlet and exhaust; propulsion and transmission including gears and brakes; the horn; the chassis and body structure; the load factor in the vehicle and also ‘door slamming’. In effect, the horn is just one of the contributors!
Two-wheelers are generally noisier than cars. Commercial trucks worse, because of the larger horse power of the diesel engine and the heavy loads they carry. As vehicles grow older and their mechanical conditions deteriorate, their noise condition becomes more. In tyre/road-surface interaction, smooth surfaces generally produce less noise than rough ones. Grooved cement concrete pavements and wet surfaces too being a source of annoying noise to the neighbourhood.
Control of traffic noise can be through – changes in vehicle design; changes in tyres or road surfaces; elimination of noisier vehicles; modification in traffic operations and designing streets, buildings and areas that produce less noise. Changes in tyre-tread design and composition can reduce noise. Smoother surfaces result in less noisier roads – but this has simultaneously to be balanced against the required skid resistance factor of the tyres too. And legislative measures can prevent old vehicles from being used on roads.
Measures possible in traffic operations are – re-routing of heavier vehicles to the extent possible; by providing synchronized traffic signals to reduce the ‘stop and go’ traffic flow and consequently eliminating acceleration noise; and prohibiting the blowing of horns by proper signage and enforcement strategies. In addition to standard silent zones, the Delhi Traffic Police in 2002 banned honking at all signalized junctions too.
The CMVR require a motor vehicle to be fitted with an electric horn for purposes of warning only. Use of any multi-toned horn or other sound producing device with harsh, shrill or alarming noise is prohibited. Use of sirens only for ambulances, fire engines, salvage and police vehicles. Silencer to reduce to the extent practicable the noise that would otherwise escape from exhaust gases is mandatory. The Rules of the Road Regulations – 1989 further prohibit a driver from sounding the horn needlessly or continuously or violate the silence zone regulations; or drive a vehicle that creates noise when in motion; and against driving a vehicle with a defective muffler causing alarming sounds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
© Maxwell Pereira, Dec 10, 2008: 3725 Sector-23,Gurgaon-122017:
email

Why English is so hard to learn

Some reasons why the English language is so hard to learn:

The bandage was wound around the wound.
The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
We must polish the Polish furniture.
He could lead if he would get the lead out.
The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

Since there is no time like the present,
he thought it was time to present the present.

A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
I did not object to the object.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
They were too close to the door to close it.
The buck does funny things when the does are present.
A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
After a number of injections my jaw got number.
Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
(……….sent by Ronnie D’Souza: 14 May 2007)

Woman On Top

By Maxwell Pereira

I suffer from a gender bias. And over the years I have realised the bias is tilted strongly in favour of the fairer sex, having convinced myself that nature has dealt them a raw deal. It is also because I do believe those of the female gender, especially in our country, are a lot discriminated against, ill treated, exploited sexually, commercially and for labour, molested and raped, and attempted to be eliminated be it at the pre-conception or pre-natal stage by female foeticide, after birth by infanticide, abandonment or malnutrition – in a patriarchal male dominated society, by a people irrationally and unreasonably obsessed with a preference for sons.

I crusade against all this – work for and advise on women’s safety issues, join the debate on discrimination on grounds of sex, and fight against domestic-violence; advocate and participate in workshops on gender sensitisation for target groups where it is deemed necessary; write and attempt to draw attention to and impose my thoughts on the reader social milieu through column space the editors condescend to provide me – and engage myself, as currently, as a law enforcement consultant in the effort of the Union Health Ministry to combat female foeticide by discriminative sex selection aimed at eliminating the girl foetus/child.

Even so, there are times when I feel things are getting out of hand, that social thinking is getting a bit too warped, to warrant some limit, to draw the Laxman rekha at some point. Like when the Supreme Court tells us that a woman cannot rape a man!

Actually, I believe, in saying so the apex court has gone by the definition of statutory rape as codified in section 375 IPC, pointing out that a bare reading of it “makes the position clear that rape can be committed only by a man”. This was in a case where the Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier taken a view that though “a woman cannot commit rape”, if she facilitated the act of rape then Explanation-I to section 376(2)(g) would come into operation to allow prosecution of the woman for “gang rape”.

The court is right, of course! Only in so far as the legal definition is concerned. But without going into legal semantics and the letter of the law on the subject, it is the sweeping statement and blanket conclusion projected in the media consequent to the court’s decision that “a woman cannot commit rape” is what I object to.

To me rape in any form or by either gender is wrong. And that's the bottom line. Rape is a disgusting crime no matter who commits it. And rape is the fault of the predator, the aggressor party, because it is not consensual but forced sex. Just as men do not own women, nor do women own men. It is about wanting to have sex or not wanting it – so the same goes for women raping men.

The reason why women raping men isn't a big issue is because most people cannot fathom a man being raped by a woman. Because we as a society do not see men as victims of sex crimes. A lot of people see this in their head as a ridiculous notion. For starters, a man is supposed to be stronger than a woman, so how can she overpower him? But consider, like in a case in South Africa, three women accosting a man at gunpoint to have sex with him! The most common view is that no man would deny sex, so how could a woman force him to have something he doesn't want? What people forget is that rape is not about sex, it's an act of violence – the sex is just a sidebar to the crime.

May be even courts would view male rape as a joke. In the west where the concept of females raping men is not so incomprehensible as it is here in India, there have been twister situations – when the attacker woman has got pregnant through her crime and initiative, and the courts have decreed that the victim man pay her child support. Similarly in situations of domestic abuse where the woman is the abuser, and not the other way around, the overwhelming bias tends to see this too as a joke, making victim men often the butt of derisive mirth, ridicule and insults. In a just society, just the fact that you are a man shouldn't make the act of violence you suffered at the hands of a woman, any different.

Studies elsewhere on Female Sex Offenders – from therapists, offices, college campuses etc – and not police reports, have proved the amount of female sex offences occurring, most of which never reported. That it happens, it’s real and society better get a handle on female sex offending, and realize it occurs, before they are completely blind-sided – and their loved one, son, friend or relative becomes a victim. Perhaps only then people will stop laughing and want something done about it in the legal system.

There appears indeed a deep-seated assumption that gender equity is synonymous with female disadvantage. In this context Cathy Young’s view in her book “Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Should Join Forces to Achieve True Equality”, is pertinent. She describes women as a “class whose presumed interests are to be given priority and see equality as a matter of convenience; women are tough and aggressive as men when it comes to fighting wars or fires” – as we would want to believe after the recent controversy over treatment of women in the Indian Army – “but frail and helpless when it comes to domestic violence; as carnal as men when it comes to sexual freedom, but innocent and victimized in any sexual conflict. To some extent this has also been the party line in the mainstream media.”

July 18, 2006: 950 words: Copy Right © Maxwell Pereira:
email: mfjpkamath@gmail.com; web: www.maxwellpereira.com

Comments

Jennifer Arul: Indonesia/Malaysia/Chennai: 18.07.2006
this is a very interesting AND provocative piece.......oh and by the way in Bahasa Malay the word (which I am trying to get for you) for MATERNITY HOSPITAL is THE PLACE FOR VICTIMS OF MEN!! From that one is led to assume that there is no such thing as consensual sex!!

Austin Prabhu: austinporob@gmail.com: Chicago: 19.07.2006
Good article Maxwell; I really liked the title!!

John Dayal: johndayal@bol.net.in : Delhi: 19.07.2006
That, was a penetrating insight….

Fr. Jacob Kani: jacobkani@hotmail.com; Delhi: 19.07.2006
Not only the title, but the contents as well make it a good reading and reflection. I hope you won't object to my idea of publishing it in the next issue of Indian Currents.

BBL Madhukar :bblmadhukar@yahoo.com : Delhi: 19.07.2006
Like ur other articles,Woman on Top has raised very pertinent points.Some one should take up this with the apex court for a review through a PIL. I am deeply impressed. Thank u for ur timely initiative.

Martin Howard :honiwala@vsnl.com : Delhi/Gurgaon: 19.07.2006
Though it is possible to imagine cases where “Three women armed with guns” etc, importuned a male , it is a fact that for sexual intercourse to occur, the male needs an erection, and guns may not command that. The male be excited, and in such circumstances I wonder whether there may not be a voluntary element in it. However, when a male is excited and forces himself on a woman, this is an entirely different matter.
It is always the woman that is invaded, and if she doesn’t mind, then it is not rape and if she does mind then it is.
I am full of sympathy for what I think the SC intended.

Francis Aranha :francis.aranha@gmail.com : Delhi/Noida: 19.07.2006
I guess I am one of the proviledged few - maybe the only one, who had a chance to "preview" your piece.
Bravo! Shall look forwrad to more.

Manish Bhatnager :manish@digisoftonline.com : Digisoft Technologies; Delhi: 20.07.2006
One of the most radical pieces - of penning your thoughts; especially when it comes from a bureaucat who is always groomed to practice subservience to seniors and exercise abject authority on juniors.
I salute you for your belief, I guess its easy when you are not serving. However somebody has to begin at some level.
Sir, I would be honoured to meet you some time with such open debates, when we say open means open, no subservienvce - thats the way life always moves forward if we wish to really make a difference

Dr. Anup K Pujari IAS:anup@nic.in : Delhi/Bangalore/Harvard: 20.072006
Fabulously written and well argued.
(The title is catchy !).

subhash sawhney : subhashcs@yahoo.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
Very thought provoking indeed.

Eric Gonsalves IFS : ericgonsalves3@gmail.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
BRAVO MAXIE - TELL THE WOMEN LIKE IT REALLY IS CHIVALRY AND EQUALITY AS IT SUITS THEM

ABHA.DAYAL@itcwelcomgroup.in : 20.07.2007
Good one !!


Fatima Pais :fatimapais@gmail.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
Nice writing. I also believed - how can a woman rape a man? However, after meeting a couple of guys who have taken a beating from their wives and heard about women looking for sex outside marriage because they were bored - I can believe anything is possible. I also know about real cruel women who can make their husbands sound like wimps. They'd just be the ones!

sawan dutta :sawandutta@yahoo.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
Ha ha ha ha ha :-)
You sound like you're suffering from too many women in your life...
LOL!!!

A.S. Syali : vasanta@rajdootpaints.com : 20.07.2006
The article made very fascinating reading and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I am always very happy to read your delightful articles and would request you to keep writing more

Sunil D'Cunha : sdcunha@staywellhealth.org : Bridgeport/USA: 20.07.2006
well written, not sure many women will agree, how are you able to do this much research.

VIMALA LOBO : vimala_lobo@sify.com : Mangalore: 21.07.2006
Max, You are back again, on the screen with somwe interesting reading. Thanks for it.

Vasanthi Nazareth : vasanthinazareth@yahoo.com : Florida/USA: 22.07.2006
You write about a very interesting and controversial subjects. Rape and sexual crimes of women and men. Yes, women can and have raped men but what percentage? I cannot qualify the statement I am making, but I am sure there are far more men sexual predators than there are women. What I am glad to note is that you are taking an interest in this subject, of specially killing innocent foetus of unborn girls, in India.
Life is beautiful, I am or once was a girl and what would life be without me in this world? Keep up the good work....

Corporal Punishment

By Maxwell Pereira
mfjpkamath@gmail.com

When the ‘caning’ of Michael Fay, an American teenager in Singapore, occurred on May 5, 1994 for car vandalism – despite intervention and request for clemency from no less a person than President Clinton, my first reaction was to imagine that the Singapore authorities were definitely Jesuit products. That was influenced by my own childhood experiences and exposure to caning and corporal punishment (CP), which was then a part of the disciplining process.
In actual fact though, CP as part of penal legislation in the then British Malaya has historical roots in the criminal laws of England and India. When the Straits Settlements Penal Code Ordinance IV replaced the common law in 1871, it was based on the Indian Penal Code enacted in 1860 to unify the criminal laws of the various provinces in India. The offences punishable by whipping were broadly similar to the ones in England of the time. So ‘caning’ was entirely an outgrowth of British legal and judicial custom and practice…. negating the erroneous belief attributing CP to Islamic justice.
Even though Corporal punishment as a judicial penalty was abolished in the UK in 1948, and in India in 1955, caning was retained as a primary penal sanction in Malaya and Hong Kong. Singapore is one of sixteen countries, including Malaysia, Pakistan and Brunei, that mandate caning or flogging as punishment for criminal offences. But Michael Fay’s case exposed the differences between the legal philosophies that underpin many Asian countries and the USA, describing the incongruousness as a clash of civilizations.
For more clarity, corporal punishment has been described in dictionaries as the deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment. Historically, most punishments – whether in judicial, domestic or educational settings were corporal in basis. The practice held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and therefore intended to be limited, rather than intended to totally destroy the will of the victim.
The practice of CP is known to have existed in classical civilisations of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Israel, used for both judicial and educational discipline. Among varied practices, scourging and beating with sticks were common. These approaches to CP continued into Medieval Europe, encouraged by attitudes of the medieval church and the muslim world (as during muharram) towards the human body, with flagellation being a common means of encouraging self-discipline or penance. In particular this had an influence on CP in schools as educational establishments were closely attached to the church during this period. But even then the use of CP was seen as a cruel treatment of children.
New trends from 16th century onwards, witnessed judicial punishments increasingly made into public spectacles, with the heavy public beatings of criminals intended as a deterrent to others. But early writers on education also complained of the arbitrary manner in which children were punished.
CP attracted heavy criticism during 18th century, both by philosophers and legal reformers. Merely inflicting pain on miscreants was seen as inefficient, influencing the subject merely for a short period of time and effecting no permanent change in their behaviour. Critics wanted the purpose of punishment to be reformation, not retribution – thereby reducing the need for measures such as CP. This led to a diminution of CP throughout the 19th century in Europe and North America. Even so CP proved most persistent as a punishment for violation of prison rules, as a military field punishment, and in schools.
In the modern world, CP has been largely rejected in favour of other disciplinary methods. Modern judiciaries often favour fines or incarceration, whilst modern school discipline avoids physical coercion. And yet CP has remained a common way of disciplining children. Although outlawed in some European countries, most legal systems permit parents to discipline their children however they see fit, implying a belief that there is a distinction between reasonable punishment and abuse. And although CP is still used in many domestic settings it has been specifically banned in seventeen countries.
In terms of punishment in judicial and educational settings, the practice is almost completely abandoned in Europe and North America, whilst other societies in Asia retain widespread use of judicial corporal punishment, including in Malaysia and Singapore. In Singapore, male violent offenders and rapists are typically sentenced to caning in addition to a prison term. CP also dictated as a punishment in traditional Islamic Sharia law, and applied in countries like Saudi Arabia.
Corporal punishment exists in schools in many countries, although in many countries this practice has now been made illegal. CP in schools was often in the form of hitting the child's hand with a leather belt, or hitting the buttocks with a cane. Many educators use a milder form of CP by "spanking" – usually slapping the child's buttocks with the palm of their hand. Others punish their children with a switch, belt, paddle, or rattan cane although this practice is less common than in years past.
The debate on corporal punishment has triggered yet again, with the Karnataka High Court’s recent ruling on April 19 that punishing a child in good faith cannot be considered as an offence – interpreted in terms of section 88 of IPC. Locally, visages of corporal punishment continuing to exist in the Delhi School Education Act were struck down by Delhi High Court in December 2000; following which all school principals were addressed in a circular by the government and the CBSE in 2002 to ensure no child is subjected to any corporal punishment. At the instance of the NCERT there is also an effort to eschew all forms of violence in the school environment – including violence disguised as discipline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
May 02, 2006: Copy Right © Maxwell Pereira: 3725 Sec-23, Gurgaon-122002
email: maxpk@vsnl.com, mfjpkamath@gmail.com; web: www.maxwellpereira.com