|
National
State
District
City
Business
Foreign
Stocks
Sports
Edit Page
Economy & Business
Science & Technology
Youth Herald
Sportscene
Avenues
Metro Life
Spectrum
Living
She
Open Sesame
Foreign Panorama
Sunday Spotlight
Sunday Herald
Articulations
Entertainment
Net Chat
Yesterday's Edition
Archives
E-mail to Editor
About Us
Ad Tariffs
Postal Subscription
For enquiries on advertisements & responses :
Contact Us
|
|
|
ENGLISH FOR YOU
|
 |
Praetorian
Guard
K S Yadurajan
Mr Menon (Kengeri) has drawn my attention to the phrase protective onion, which appears in an article on Saddam Hussein published in The Guardian (reprinted in Deccan Herald, March 2, 2003). “The men who surround Saddam within his protective onion, will, for the first time, be forced to make a choice....’
Saddam has three rings of security guarding him --an outer ring, the inner ring and the last ring. These rings are like the flakes of onion which you can peel away, one after another. The interesting point about the article is this: it has made a novel phrase out of a simile. You won’t find the phrase ‘protective onion’ in any dictionary -- not yet!
Further down the same paragraph there is a reference to a classical phrase - ‘Praetorian Guard’ ‘...as the last of the Praetorian Guard falls on his body....’
Praetorian is the adjective of praetor, a Roman military governor. The praetorian Guard was the picked troops acting as his bodyguard.
Subsequently (from the time of Augustus to that of Emperor Constantine) the Praetorians were the household guards of the Roman emperors. They became quite powerful and even played the role of kingmakers. They were disbanded in 312 AD.
The writer of the Guardian article has used the phrase to refer to the Republican Guards who form the three-ring security around Saddam Hussein.
border / boundary The recently concluded Kannada Sahitya Sammelan at Belgaum brought to the fore the dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka. One paper referred to the acerbic views [of the sammelan President] ‘on the Belgaum border dispute’. Others spoke of ‘the boundary dispute’ between the two states.
What’s it anyway? Is it a ‘border’ dispute or a ‘boundary ‘ dispute? The two words are frequently used interchangeably in IE. The same paper which, on the first day had ‘border dispute’ came out next day with ‘boundary dispute between the two states.
Strictly speaking ‘border’ is used in connection with countries. It is the official line that separates two countries. It can also refer to the areas close to the official line. The ‘Mexican border’ is the line separating Mexico from the US. The Rio Grande forms part of the US border. Jeumont is a small town on the border between France and Belgium. India is facing infiltration across the border in Kashmir. Our border with Bangladesh is very porous (i.e. there is large-scale illicit immigration into the country from Bangladesh). ‘Border’ as a verb can be used of states within a country. Wisconsin borders on Illinois.
For historical reasons the Border (in England) refers to the territory between England and Scotland. Though part of one country now, the United Kingdom, the two were for centuries, separate and hostile countries, frequently fighting with each other.
‘Boundary’ is the word in connection with units other than (and smaller than) countries. The Mahajan Commission did a fine job in drawing the boundaries of the states in the Indian union. When you draw a boundary line, you create boundary problems. More generally boundary can refer to the limits of any area , big or small. You can play anywhere within the boundary of the park.
So we have a boundary dispute with Maharashtra and Kerala. The country as a whole has a border dispute with China and Pakistan.
The other day I heard a friend say: ‘That can be possible.’ Why does this sound odd?
You can say: ‘That can be done’. Does it mean that only a past participle can occur in the frame can be ---? No. That can be true. True and possible are both adjectives. How come true is good but not possible?
Analyzing further you can see that That may be possible is correct. So what is wrong with the sentence is the modal can. But why can’t we have can while we can have may?
The modal meaning required here is: ‘possibility coupled with some uncertainty’. It would seem that may expresses this meaning better than can. Cf. It may rain / It can rain.
|
|
|
ARTICULATIONS
ENTERTAINMENT
SUNDAY
HERALD
FOREIGN
PANORAMA
SUNDAY
SPOTLIGHT
|
Classifieds
