[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by Googleman

My Company proudly states that it was "Founded" in so and so..

I guess Found is already past tense of Find. Founded is past tense of Found? why? but if such a big company writes this all over their brochures, probably the word is correct?

It is correct. 'Founded' means 'established'. It is not a past tense of find. Come to think of it, how can you lose a company and then find it?

Foundation stone is more that comes to mind when 'founded' is used, though all companies do not lay foundation stones.


Edit: @amitoj---that video clipping was hilarious!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Googleman

My Company proudly states that it was "Founded" in so and so..

I guess Found is already past tense of Find. Founded is past tense of Found? why? but if such a big company writes this all over their brochures, probably the word is correct?

You probably found your company when you went to work their, but its founders certainly did not. How could they? it wasn't there before they founded it!

Words that look the same are not necessarily actually the same

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

You probably found your company when you went to work their, but its founders certainly did not. How could they? it wasn't there before they founded it!

Are you testing us?

[noopster]

^^ - nice catch!

"Founded" is definitely a word, past tense of "to found" which means to create. Haven't you heard of the term "founder-director", e.g. Subroto Bagchi, founder-director of Mindtree (his designation is now "gardener" but that's another discussion altogether!)

I find people struggling with "sponsor" to.For some unfathomable reason, "sponsor" is both a verb ("Pepsi sponsors the IPL") as well as a noun ("Pepsi is the chief sponsor of the IPL"). It would be so much more intuitive to add an "er" to indicate the noun: if someone who pays is a "payer" why not someone who sponsors a "sponsorer"?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by amitoj

Are you testing us?

No: you are testing me ...and I failed!

It's/its and their/there are big problems for me. My head understands, but the wrong thing comes out of the fingers. Usually I catch it in time <Blush>.

[AVR]

Not exactly OT but I knew people on this thread would like to read it.
Please, and I insist Please, go pick up a copy of "The Etymologicon" by Forsyth. You'll love it. Haven't read something better in a while.

Flipkart here

Cheers,
Adi

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Just ...This morning...

I was aware of that, was just trying to use "Today in the morning" as amitoj said by punctuating it to make it sound better.

[Thad E Ginathom]

So many different ways to say the same thing with slightly different flavours or meanings. "Today, in the morning, blah blahed the blah blah bla," could be perfect.

[hdnivara]

Which one of the following is correct? I keep seeing all combinations in emails, newspapers and what-not!

1. Myself and Mr. X did so and so things.
2. Mr. X and myself did so and so things.
3. I and Mr. X did so and so things.
4. Mr. X and I did so and so things.

[noopster]

4. "Mr X and I..." My English teachers used to say "Donkey never comes first"

[Googleman]

Originally Posted by hdnivara

Which one of the following is correct? I keep seeing all combinations in emails, newspapers and what-not!

1. Myself and Mr. X did so and so things.
2. Mr. X and myself did so and so things.
3. I and Mr. X did so and so things.
4. Mr. X and I did so and so things.

Myself is not = I
*4 is the correct way of saying it, all other are wrong.

Originally Posted by noopster

4. "Mr X and I..." My English teachers used to say "Donkey never comes first"

My teacher used to say "Donkeys comes first"... So we never used "I" first.

[Thad E Ginathom]

You and I...

Always the I comes after the other person. I don't think this is a matter of grammar, but of usage/etiquette. Is there any such stipulation in other languages?

[thoma]

Pardon my ignorance, but I tried searching the commonly-used-abbreviations thread, this thread and google for the usage of "wot?". I was always intrigued by its usage and thought that I might get an answer here. Going by the context, I am guessing that it could mean "eh?", right?

Originally Posted by

Tuner-style rear lights. Look similar to the ones on the Cedia, wot?

Originally Posted by

Big buttons = easy to use. Large temperature display easy to read. Looks like a Sony Discman, wot?

[mallumowgli]

^^ wot is just an informal way of spelling 'what', generally used at the end of the sentence. Yes, in this form it can replace 'eh?'. I think Asterix might be the inspiration, cant remember now

[voodoochild]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

You and I...

Many people get 'me' and 'I' mixed up a lot. From my understanding, the following cases illustrate correct usage:

1) He brought chocolates for you and me.
2) Shall you and I go to the movies?

A thumbrule I use is that it should sound right when the You is removed. "He brought chocolates for I" doesn't really sound correct.

Always the I comes after the other person. I don't think this is a matter of grammar, but of usage/etiquette. Is there any such stipulation in other languages?

There's the "pehle aap" or "You first" in Hindi, but that applies to behaviourial etiquette. However, a lot of Indian languages use a plural as a respectful form of address.
For example: Sie and du in German, vous and tu in French, neevu and neenu in Kannada.
A lot of times though, parents and God are referred to in singular form (in Kannada atleast) probably as an endearment.

Cheers
Rahul