The Enduring Power of Words, How Know Your English from 1999 Still Resonates Today

The Enduring Power of Words, How Know Your English from 1999 Still Resonates Today

In an age dominated by fleeting digital content, algorithmically-generated snippets, and the rapid evolution of internet slang, revisiting a piece from a quarter-century ago feels like an archaeological dig into a simpler linguistic era. The “Know Your English” column by S. Upendran, published in The Hindu on June 29, 1999, offers precisely such a treasure trove. At first glance, its queries about “humdinger,” “cloud nine,” “till vs. until,” and “crow’s-feet” might seem charmingly dated, mere relics from a pre-Google world where such clarifications were sought through letters to newspaper editors. However, a deeper examination reveals that the column’s content is not only timeless but also profoundly relevant to current affairs in communication, the psychological impact of language, and the evolving yet constant nature of English as a global language. This 1999 artifact serves as a mirror, reflecting both what has changed and what endures in our relationship with words.

The Linguistic Zeitgeist: 1999 vs. 2024

To appreciate the column’s enduring value, one must contextualize it. June 1999 was a pivotal moment. The world was on the cusp of the new millennium, buzzing with Y2K anxiety. The internet was growing but was not yet the omnipresent force it is today. In India, liberalization was reshaping society, and English was solidifying its role as a key to economic and social mobility. In this milieu, a column like “Know Your English” was a vital bridge—demystifying the nuances of a language that was both an colonial inheritance and a passport to the future.

Fast forward to 2024. Our linguistic landscape is transformed. We have AI-powered grammar checkers, instant dictionary apps, and platforms like YouTube and TikTok where language evolves at breakneck speed. Slang terms can go global in days (consider “rizz,” “quiet quitting,” or “girlboss”). Yet, amidst this torrent, the fundamental human curiosities highlighted in Upendran’s column persist. People still strive for precision, delight in expressiveness, and grapple with the cultural baggage of words. The column’s explanations are not obsolete; they are foundational stones in a much noisier river.

Deconstructing the Queries: Timeless Lessons in a Modern World

1. “Humdinger” and the Language of Spectacle:
Upendran defines “humdinger” as an informal term for something excellent, citing its use in the 1999 Cricket World Cup. Today, the word might be considered quaint or niche, but the phenomenon it describes is more prevalent than ever. Our current affair is dominated by the language of hyperbole in media, sports, and politics. Every product launch is “revolutionary,” every sports match a “clash of titans,” and every political speech “historic.” In this environment, “humdinger” represents a more specific, earnest form of praise. Its revival could be a antidote to cliché. Consider its application to current events: Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starship launches, while not all successful, are technological humdingers. The ongoing chess rivalry between Magnus Carlsen and the new generation is a humdinger for aficionados. The word reminds us that genuine excellence deserves distinctive vocabulary, not just recycled superlatives drained of meaning by overuse.

2. “On Cloud Nine” and the Psychology of Happiness:
The column’s explanation of this idiom, linking it to cumulonimbus clouds and a 1950s radio show, is a beautiful example of etymology meeting meteorology. In 2024, the pursuit of happiness is a multi-billion dollar industry, quantified by wellness apps, mindfulness podcasts, and happiness indices. “Being on cloud nine” remains a powerful metaphor because it is visceral and universally understood—it conveys a peak emotional state that is temporary and exhilarating. Current neuroscience would likely locate this feeling in a surge of dopamine and serotonin. The idiom’s endurance, despite its archaic origin, speaks to the human need for metaphors to articulate complex emotional states. In a world reporting a global rise in anxiety and depression, holding onto linguistic expressions of pure, unadulterated joy is itself an act of resilience. When a country legalizes marriage equality or a scientist makes a breakthrough in renewable energy, the collective feeling is one of being “on cloud nine.”

3. “Till vs. Until” and the Persistence of Grammar Anxiety:
Upendran’s simple clarification—that they are interchangeable, with “until” being slightly more formal—addresses a classic grammar hiccup. This remains a hot topic in 2024, but the battlefield has shifted. Today, the debate is less about “till” vs. “until” and more about the prescriptive vs. descriptive nature of language. Purists decry the erosion of rules, while linguists and the general public, especially online, embrace evolution. The column’s gentle correction about using “until” for time, not distance (“walked to the gate, not until the gate”), is a lesson in semantic precision that is crucial in an era of miscommunication. In legal documents, diplomatic communiqués, and technical manuals, such precision is non-negotiable. The current affair here is the ongoing tension between linguistic fluidity (seen in the acceptance of “they” as a singular pronoun) and the need for clarity that rules provide. Upendran’s approach is refreshingly moderate: inform without pedantry.

4. “Crow’s-feet” and the Language of Aging:
This might be the most socially resonant entry today. Upendran notes the comparison is “not very favourable.” In 1999, the term was largely accepted, if unflattering. In 2024, it is a flashpoint in the discourse on ageism, beauty standards, and inclusive language. The current affair is the powerful movement to destigmatize aging. Brands are (slowly) moving towards more positive language. “Crow’s-feet” are increasingly reframed as “laughter lines” or “character lines,” terms that celebrate experience and joy rather than comparing a human face to a bird’s foot. This shift is part of a larger linguistic justice movement that scrutinizes words for embedded bias—whether gendered, racial, ageist, or ableist. The 1999 column inadvertently highlights how language shapes perception. A term meant as a neutral descriptor can carry a value judgment that society later decides to reject. This makes the discussion of “crow’s-feet” not just a vocabulary lesson, but a miniature case study in sociolinguistic change.

The Column as a Model for Digital-Age Communication

Beyond the specific words, “Know Your English” embodies a communication ethos desperately needed today. It is accessible yet authoritative, concise yet complete, and personal yet universal. Upendran writes with a teacher’s patience, answering Jailakshmi from Chetput and Somasundaram from Kodambakkam directly. This creates community. In our era of anonymous, often hostile online interactions, this personalized, respectful tone is a model. Furthermore, the column respects the intelligence of its readers—it doesn’t dumb down the explanation of “cumulonimbus” clouds. In a time of misinformation, this commitment to accurate, well-researched explanation, even for “trivial” questions, is a virtue.

The format itself is instructive. A typical modern “explainer” is a listicle or a shallow video. This column, in about 500 words, provides definitions, etymology, usage examples, and subtle corrections. It is micro-learning at its best, predating the concept by decades. For content creators today, it’s a reminder that depth and clarity can coexist with brevity.

English in 2024: Globalization, Hybridization, and AI

The column also prompts reflection on the state of English itself. In 1999, Indian English was confidently asserting its identity, with columns like this one standardizing its quirks for a domestic audience. Today, Indian English, alongside other global variants (Nigerian, Singaporean, etc.), is a dynamic, creative force, feeding words like “prepone,” “airdash,” and “cousin-sister” into the global lexicon. The “gatekeepers” are no longer just traditional media or dictionaries but also social media trends and global pop culture.

Furthermore, the rise of Generative AI (like the model writing this analysis) presents a new frontier. AI is trained on vast corpora of language, including columns like Upendran’s. It can explain idioms or grammar instantly. But can it replicate the human touch, the understanding of cultural nuance, or the simple joy of sharing knowledge? Unlikely. AI might tell you that “crow’s-feet” are “wrinkles at the outer corner of the eyes,” but it may not engage with the term’s sociolinguistic implications without human prompting. The role of the human curator, interpreter, and contextualizer of language—the role Upendran played—becomes even more critical.

Conclusion: The Unchanging Core in a Changing World

S. Upendran’s “Know Your English” from June 29, 1999, is far more than a historical curiosity. It is a testament to the enduring human desire to understand and master language, to use it with precision and joy. The words it explains are vessels for larger themes: the celebration of excellence (“humdinger”), the expression of emotion (“cloud nine”), the pursuit of clarity (“till/until”), and the social power of naming (“crow’s-feet”). These themes are as current as today’s headlines.

In a world of rapid change, information overload, and often divisive communication, the column’s spirit—of patient, respectful, and insightful explanation—offers a timeless blueprint. It reminds us that behind every question about language is a person seeking connection, understanding, and a better way to articulate their experience of the world. That is a current affair that will never go out of date.

Q&A: Exploring the Linguistic Past and Present

Q1: The column mentions the 1999 Cricket World Cup in relation to “humdinger.” How has the language of sports commentary evolved since then, especially with the rise of digital media and global broadcasts?
A1: Sports commentary has undergone a dramatic transformation. In 1999, commentary was dominated by professional broadcasters and a relatively stable set of idioms. Today, digital platforms and social media have democratized and accelerated the language of sports. Hashtags, memes, and fan-generated slang (#Bazball in cricket, for instance) spread instantly. Commentary is more interactive, analytics-driven (“expected goals,” “player efficiency rating”), and influenced by global English variants. While terms like “humdinger” might still be used by traditional commentators, the lexicon is vastly more diverse, hyperbolic, and instantly recyclable into online trends.

Q2: The etymology of “on cloud nine” is linked to a 1950s radio show. How do you think idioms are born and popularized in the internet age compared to the era of radio and print?
A2: In the mid-20th century, idioms were popularized through centralized, mass media—radio, television, and widely-circulated print publications. This process was slower but created widely shared cultural references. In the internet age, idioms and slang can emerge from anywhere: a viral TikTok video (“quiet quitting”), a mistranscription (“Bone Apple Tea” for bon appétit), a niche online community, or a celebrity’s tweet. They spread with viral speed through algorithms and networks, but their lifespan can be shorter due to the rapid churn of content. They often reflect internet culture’s irony, self-reference, and remix nature, unlike the more straightforward, narrative-based idioms of the past.

Q3: The column corrects the usage of “until” for distance. In an era where language rules are increasingly seen as fluid and descriptive, is such precision still important?
A3: Absolutely, but its importance is context-dependent. In informal spoken language or social media, fluidity reigns, and being understood is the primary goal. However, in contexts where ambiguity can have serious consequences—law, medicine, engineering, diplomacy, and academic writing—semantic precision is critical. Using “until” correctly (for time) prevents misinterpretation in contracts or instructions. The modern approach is not to discard rules but to understand their domain. Descriptive linguistics tells us how language is used; prescriptive guidance helps us use it effectively and safely in high-stakes environments. Precision remains a tool for clarity and equity.

Q4: Regarding “crow’s-feet,” how does the movement towards more inclusive language balance the desire to avoid negative connotations with the risk of creating euphemisms that obscure meaning?
A4: This is a central challenge in inclusive language. The goal is not simply to replace one term with a softer one, but to shift the underlying perception. Calling them “laughter lines” actively reframes the sign of aging as a positive marker of joy and experience, which can have a real impact on self-image. The risk of euphemism exists if the new term feels forced, dishonest, or is used to gloss over real issues (e.g., in corporate-speak). Successful inclusive language feels authentic and accurate to the community it describes. It’s less about obscuring and more about choosing a lens that focuses on dignity and respect. The test is whether the new term is adopted organically because it feels more truthful and kind.

Q5: If a “Know Your English” column were written today, what kind of questions do you think it would address, given the influence of technology, social media, and global English varieties?
A5: A modern version would likely be a hybrid of traditional grammar and digital-age linguistics. Questions might include:

• “Is it okay to use ‘they’ for a singular person whose gender I don’t know in a formal report?”

• “What does ‘based’ or ‘rizz’ mean, and where did these terms come from?”

• “How do I navigate the differences between American, British, and Indian English in global business communication?”

• “Is the increasing use of emojis and GIFs in professional messaging degrading language?”

• “What are the most common mistakes people make because of autocorrect or predictive text?”

• “How do I interpret internet acronyms like IYKYK, TBH, or FOMO in different contexts?”
  The column would still serve its core purpose—demystifying language—but its focus would expand to include the digital vernacular and the complexities of English as a truly global, pluricentric language.