The Star Online > Lifefocus

Wednesday June 7, 2006

Test your word power

Songwriter Bob Dylan’s evident skill with words infuses not only his songs but also his autobiography, Chronicles, Volume One. That’s where we got the words used in this quiz.  

1. cryptic adj. – A: close to death. B: sarcastic. C: causing illness. D: mysterious. 

2. zeal n. – A: fervour. B: high point. C: witty remark. D: closure. 

3. renounce v. – A: to criticise sharply. B: give up. C: restate. D: break, as in an agreement. 

4. bucolic adj. – A: pastoral. B: marked by constant crying. C: hard-working. D: idle. 

5. firebrand n. – A: dragon. B: type of small handgun. C: agitator. D: large, heavy skillet. 

6. citadel n. – A: house of worship. B: lighthouse. C: military university. D: stronghold.  

7. gaunt adj. A: clumsy. B: very tall. C: very thin. D: very muscled. 

8. transcend v. – A: to rise above. B: change forms. C: send, as with a signal. D: move slowly. 

9. affirmation n. – A: military unit. B: legal statement. C: act of validation. D: related item.  

10. vernacular n. – A: type of receptacle. B: moon phase. C: local dialect. D: wart. 

11. deity n. – A: person trying to lose weight. B: supreme being. C: devil. D: clue. 

12. debauched adj. – A: corrupted. B: unusual. C: questioned closely. D: powerful. 

13. retract v. – A: to assault quickly. B: review. C: redraw, as with a map. D: take back.  

14. antebellum adj. – A: anti-war. B: connected to the roof of a house. C: pre-US Civil War. D: agricultural. 

15. portico n. – A: navigator’s perch on a ship. B: creeping vine. C: veranda-like structure. D: back yard. 

ANSWERS to 'TEST YOUR WORD POWER'

2. zeal – [A] Fervour. Your zeal for exposing the truth on this matter is thrilling.
 

3. renounce – [B] To give up, refuse or resign, usually by formal declaration; repudiate. If you must enforce those ancient rules, I must renounce my allegiance to your cause.
 

4. bucolic – [A] Relating to or typical of rural life; pastoral. Things got tense in the city, so he opted for more bucolic surroundings up north.
 

5. firebrand – [C] One who creates unrest or strife; agitator. The crowd was eerily quiet, as though waiting for the firebrand to set it off.
 

6. citadel – [D] Fortress that commands a city; stronghold. For close to three years, she treated the tiny house as their citadel.
 

7. gaunt – [C] Excessively thin and angular; barren, desolate. He played up his gaunt appearance by smearing white make-up on his face.
 

8. transcend – [A] To rise above or go beyond the limits of; overcome. Whenever I hear the melody of that song burst forth, I’m able to transcend whatever petty task I’m doing.
 

9. affirmation – [C] Act of validation, confirmation. His return to regular performing after a decade in seclusion served as affirmation for the fans who knew it was inevitable.
 

10. vernacular – [C] Language or dialect native to a group, region or country. When writing great folk songs, use a distinctly American vernacular.
 

11. deity – [B] A god or goddess; a person or thing considered supremely powerful. He scoffs at those who treat him as a deity yet still demands that people bow before him.
 

12. debauched – [A] To be corrupted by intemperance or sensuality; debased. Before you criticise the behaviour of others, you should take a moment to consider your own debauched past.
 

13. retract – [D] To draw back or in; take back, withdraw. The problem with a lie is that once you’ve told it, it’s not so easy to retract.
 

14. antebellum – [C] Existing before a war, specifically the US Civil War. Driving through Natchez, Mississippi, on Highway 61, you see plenty of antebellum homes.
 

15. portico – [C] A covered structure, usually supported by columns or piers, often at a building’s entrance. We kicked off our dirt-encrusted boots and spent the hot afternoon lazily sipping cool drinks inside the mansion’s portico. 

The Star Online > Lifefocus

Wednesday June 7, 2006

Fun with English grammar and style

By OH TEIK THEAM

LOOK at the following “stories” and see if you can replace the italicised words with some other words to make the writing concise. 

The thief 

In spite of the fact that many witnesses saw him steal the necklace, the defendant insisted that he was not guilty. “If you want witnesses,” he said to the prosecutor, “I can produce twice as many who didn’t see me steal it!” 

Change “In spite of the fact that” to “Although”. 

The editor 

A man who got lost in the jungle sat down under a tree to rest. All of a sudden, several cannibals stepped out from behind some bushes and captured him. 

“What is your job?” asked the cannibal chief. 

“I’m the editor of a newspaper,” replied the prisoner. 

“That’s good,” said the grinning cannibal. “Tomorrow you’ll be editor-in-chief!” 

Change “All of a sudden” to “Suddenly”. 

The obese husband 

It came as a shock to the obese, pot-bellied husband to learn from his bank statement that he had very little money left at the bank. “Where did all my money go?” he asked his wife. 

She said, “Stand sideways before the full-length mirror and you’ll see.” 

Change “It came as a shock to” to “It shocked”. (The sentence can also begin as: The obese, pot-bellied husband was shocked to learn ?) 

The Star Online > Lifefocus

Wednesday June 7, 2006

Language in problem solving

By GUY PERRING

MUCH of business is about arriving at solutions to problems. Solving those problems needs a structured approach and use of appropriate language. This article looks at the classic approach to problem solving and highlights some of the language that is useful in such business discussions. 

First of all, brainstorming requires an open mind and willingness to look at a range of choices. We often use the phrase “think outside the box”, which essentially means don’t ignore any wild ideas.  

That said, you shouldn’t ignore the obvious either; often the solution is right in front of you. The language you might use in such discussions is as follows: 

We have a number of options. 

Let’s take a look at the range of choices available to us. 

There are a variety of solutions to the problem we face. 

We need to consider all the potential ideas that can solve this issue. 

One useful technique for problem solving is reframing. This involves changing the frame in which a person or organisation is looking at an event or problem. By changing the frame or viewpoint, you change the meaning of an event or problem. The crucial language here is: 

How else can we look at this problem? 

Let’s look at this problem from another angle. 

Let’s redefine the problem. 

Often asking the right question about a problem is crucial. Toyota used the technique of five whys to reach the true problem and not just the superficial symptoms. This means asking “why” five times to drill down to the real issue. 

After you have formulated a list of solutions, the next stage is evaluation. Here the traditional approach is to look at the advantages and disadvantages of each potential solution. For example: 

Let’s examine both sides of each solution. 

We need to take a look at the pros and cons of each proposed solution. 

There appear to be advantages and disadvantages to all the suggested ideas. 

Finally, you actually have to make a decision which is hopefully based on consensus if it is a group decision, or your own values and beliefs if it is an individual decision. Decision-making is about considering all the alternatives and converging on the most appropriate one. 

So we have arrived at an agreed solution. 

The best way forward is to ... 

Having made the decision, you go to the next stage of implementation and evaluation.  

At the implementation stage, you need to ensure that everyone relevant is informed of the decision and to state the future action needed. Finally, be prepared to evaluate the decision after implementation to see if it really has solved the problem. 

Effective problem solving defines effective leaders and making decisions quickly and effectively is often the definition of success in business.  

The Star Online > Lifefocus

Friday May 26, 2006

Disputed territory

By RALPH BERRY

BOMBAY?is the dateline in a newspaper report on a cricket test match. Further down the same page, the scorecard is, however, headed MUMBAI. What is going on? Cannot the newspaper, The Times, speak with a clear, authoritative voice to sort matters out? 

Evidently not. I guess the reporter, a man accustomed to getting his own way, said, ook, I call it Bombay, always have.?And the sub-editor said, y instructions are that the Indian authorities have renamed the city.?  

Freddie Flintoff, the England captain, said in interview ombay? as did Rahul Dravid, the Indian captain. And there the matter rests. People differ.  

The English language is not a smooth, level, manicured lawn. There are bumps and irregularities. One of them is the name people give to places.  

PERSIA gave way to IRAN long ago, but nobody refers to ersian rugs?by any other name. It is traditional. Similarly with Persian cats. Nowadays he Gulf?is standard (and not he Persian Gulf? which offends Iraqis). But in a historical context, the older usage is still allowed (arius I, King of Persia?.  

Time has settled some disputes ?but not all. And one of the fiercest disputes is the name we give to, well, sex.  

GENDER is a huge word. It emphasises social and cultural aspects, as against biological in SEX. In today culture wars, GENDER occupies highly coloured space on the war map.  

Consider this headline in a recent obituary: lice Barker: Aircraftwoman who was the last of her gender to have served in the First World War.?Not much doubt about it, Alice Barker was a woman. And there a photograph to illustrate the fact. Could she not have been he last of her sex? Not to the accomplished wordsmith who chose the headline.  

Yet further on in the same issue, a sports writer says of Martina Hingis: t is no wonder that no player of either sex is considered either more fascinating or quoteworthy.? 

I cannot see any meaningful distinction between Hingis and Barker here. What may be significant is that the obit was unsigned, while the sports writer (Neil Harman) has a by-line. In other words, the advances of the politically correct gender folk tend to be stealthy and anonymous, while those writers with a name may stand by it. 

Which brings me, with a heavy sigh, to PERSON. Battle continues to rage over this seemingly inoffensive word. Tony Blair is ever sensitive to words, and the other day said,  deeply regret the death of an innocent [slight pause] person.?  

Now, the whole point of erson? in today usage, is that the speaker/writer does not have to make assumptions about the sex of people referred to. They might be genuinely offensive. The erson?could be male or female. But in Blair case, there was no assumption to make. The erson?he spoke of was a man, whose name was Juan Carlos De Menezes, shot by the police.  

erson?is an attempt to generalise what was a specific case. Anyone with respect for the English language would have said,  deeply regret the death of an innocent man.?nbsp;

The vantage point around which combat swirls is SPOKESMAN. By definition, anyone speaking on behalf of a company, political party (etc) can be identified. There can be no doubt who is doing the speaking. So why not SPOKESMAN, or SPOKESWOMAN? Because, in the words of the normally restrained Burchfield,  blitz by feminists has more or less succeeded in forcing us all into a corner unless we use SPOKESPERSON instead.? 

And that has led to the idiocy I caught on Sky News, he International Red Cross spokesperson Jessica ?. If you don mind, Jessica, I shall continue to refer to you as a pokeswoman? No offence meant. 

The plural shifts the argument. Many would now shrink from SPOKESMEN (were women excluded?). That is because of the movement for the removal of ?MAN?in its traditional sense of erson (without regard to sex)? So SPOKESPERSONS or SPOKESPEOPLE is used. 

The same point applies to SPORTSMEN/ SPORTSPEOPLE, though personally I would go the long way round with PORTSMEN and SPORTSWOMEN?  

The tendency continues, for ?person?words to be applied mainly to women. Words such as salespersons and draughtspersons are often used in job advertisements. he arguments about them,?prophesied Burchfield, ill continue into the 21c.?He spoke truth. 

Footnote: For the third cricket test, The Times reported it as as from Bombay, with the scorecard from that city. The traditionalists won ?this time. But Sky News covered the event from Mumbai. The Guardian plumped for Mumbai while The Independent stuck with Bombay. The Sunday Telegraph (whose editor was lately fired) voted for Mumbai, but the Daily Telegraph, part of the same newspaper group, stuck with Bombay.  

As the poet A.H. Clough says, ay not the struggle naught availeth.? ????nbsp;

The Star Online > Lifefocus

Wednesday March 8, 2006

Lesser mortals get murdered?

When someone of position got bumped off, people invariably say he was assassinated. When a lesser known mortal received the same treatment, they say he was murdered.  

Is there a class or distinction to categorise the killing when someone has been unceremoniously sent to the happy hunting grounds? – lcw, Kuala Lumpur 

In polite standard English, as far as I know, there are only the two words used for deliberately sending someone to “the happy hunting grounds”, i.e. “assassinate” and “murder”. 

It is hard to draw a line between “assassination” and “murder”, but usually when someone is a very important political or religious leader and we have reason to believe that the killing is politically or religiously motivated, the word “assassination” is used.  

Thus, the media refers to the killing of the late President Kennedy and the late Martin Luther King (leader of the US Civil Rights Movement) as “assassinations” and the attempted killing of the late Pope John Paul II as an “attempted assassination”. 

The countless other people who are deliberately killed every year are said to have been “murdered”. 

However, in a situation of conflict, what is called “assassination” by one side may be called something else by the side that has killed him, e.g. he may be said to have been “taken out”. 

Not happy with answers 

I RECENTLY sat for an English monthly test at school. I am discontented with a couple of the answers my teacher insists are correct. 

1. (taken from a passage) “Many of these drugs are banned by international sports federations. _______ the top of the list is amphetamines.” 

A. On B. By C. At D. In 

The answer given is A. I think it should be C. I have never heard of “on the top”; “at the top” would be more appropriate. 

2. (taken from a passage on skydiving) “Next, we had to learn how to arch _____ body upon exit from the plane.” 

A. a B. its C. the D. our 

The answer given is D – “arch our body”. I feel that in order to use “our”, the sentence should be “arch our bodies”. I think C, “arch the body”, is more apt. 

Please tell me what you think. – D.F. 

1. You are right about the correct answer being C. The phrase should be “at the top of the list”, meaning at the highest point (metaphorically) of the list.  

“On the top” means literally “over” or “above” something, e.g. the OED defines a Genoa cake as “a rich currant cake with almonds on the top”, i.e. the almonds are not mixed with the currants, but arranged above the cake. 

2. This question touches upon a disputed area in English grammar, i.e. whether we can use a plural possessive determiner (“our” or “their”) with a singular noun (e.g. “body”). I agree with you here. “Arch our bodies” sounds so much better to me, because “body” here is not used in a general sense.  

Writers sometimes use statements like “our life on earth” or “we must look after our body” in a general sense, but this is about skydiving, a particular sport. Since the noun given in the question is singular, “the” seems to be the best choice to me.  

Here are some examples from the Internet: 

“One way to alleviate back pain is to arch the body, as people and animals do when they stretch to relax.” http://www.bodybridge.com 

“... we got about a 30min lesson on how to arch our bodies once we left the plane.” 

http://www.thrillnetwork.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-34684.html 

And below is a link to an English language forum which you might find interesting: 

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/1099-their-our-singular-plural-noun-print.html 

Right and wrong sentences 

MAY I know what the differences are among these sentences? 

i) He learnt swimming when he was young. 

ii) He learnt to swim when he was young. 

iii) They are playing lanterns. 

iv) They are playing with lanterns. 

v) She likes to play dolls. 

vi) She likes to play with her dolls. 

vii) She likes playing with her dolls. 

– CL 

Some are correct sentences, and some are not. The correct ones are ii), iv), vi) and vii). 

Sentence i) “He learnt swimming when he was young.” is incorrect. “Swimming”, which is here used as a gerund (-ing verb functioning as a noun), means a sport or activity, comparable to “tennis”, for example. Just as we don’t say “He learnt tennis.” but “He learnt to play tennis.”, we have to say “He learnt to swim when he was young.”, which is your sentence ii). 

If “lanterns” was the name of a game, it would be correct to say iii) “They are playing lanterns.” just as we say “They are playing hide-and-seek.” But “lanterns” are things some people play with. So the correct form of the sentence is iv) “They are playing with lanterns.”, which is similar in structure to “They are playing with toy cars.”, for example. 

Sentence v) “She likes to play dolls.” is incorrect in the same way that sentence iii) is incorrect. “Dolls” is not the name of a game, but things children play with. So the correct form of that sentence is vi) “She likes to play with her dolls.”, which has the same meaning as vii) “She likes playing with her dolls.” although vi) uses the infinitive “to play” and vii) uses the gerund “playing”.

The Star Online > Lifefocus

Wednesday March 8, 2006

It’s easy when you know how

I was overwhelmed by the response I received from people all over Malaysia to my letter, ‘Guidance on IPA’ (Feb 17). I would like to share my view a little further regarding proper pronunciation.  

English can be spoken in a variety of accents. However, a foreign learner, for whom English is not his mother tongue but perhaps only a second language, wants to learn a type which has been widely accepted wherever English is spoken.  

The accent of standard British English which best fulfils these requirements is known as Received Pronunciation or RP in short. It shows no regional variation. 

Like many other languages, English is a method of human communication that consists of WORDS. So, it goes without saying, the sounds that make up words should be an area of focus if one wishes to improve his pronunciation.  

As a matter of fact, only two kinds of information are needed if a word is to be appropriately pronounced. 

1) We need to know about the individual sounds that make up the word. 

2) We need to know about stress, the extra force, on that particular word or syllable. 

One can always look in a dictionary for a list of the individual sounds (also known as speech or vocal sounds) that make up all English words. 

Normally, a phonetic symbol (symbol that represents a single speech sound) appears between a pair of oblique lines, / /. This shows that it is a significant sound in English. The technical term for a significant sound is “phoneme”.  

Most of the symbols are similar to ordinary Roman letters having the sound values that English learners would expect: for example, the voiceless consonant sound /p/ as in pail and the voiced consonant sound /b/as in bail. 

The pronunciation of English words is best shown by Phonetic Transcriptions. A phonetic transcription is the representation of the speech sounds of a word, in spoken English, using phonetic symbols. Practically anyone who understands the phonetic symbols and their corresponding sounds could read a phonetic transcription accurately. Believe me, it is that simple! 

For example, take the following phonetic symbols: /p/ as in pen; /l/ as in letter and /i:/ as in eagle. 

Now, let us put these sounds together in different orders and say the combination of the sounds as a whole. That would be the actual pronunciation of the related words. 

Pronunciation              Word 

/pi:/               pea 

/i:l/                     eel 

/pi:l/              peal 

/li:p/              leap 

/pli:/              plea 

/'pi:pl/              people  

The phonetic transcription for the word “people” has a mark ['] in front. This mark indicates that the first syllable of the word, PEOple, is stressed.  

A stress is the force or energy used in the articulation of a word or a syllable, which the listener perceives in terms of loudness. There are two levels of stress in English, the primary stress and the secondary stress.  

The primary stress is indicated by the symbol ['] and precedes the stressed syllable.  

Primary stress potentially allows a pitch change, which would make the stressed word or syllable able to be heard louder. 

The secondary stress is indicated by the symbol [?] and precedes the stressed syllable.  

Secondary stress involves less energy and is heard as less loud. 

Actually, the pronunciation of English words cannot be covered in a single article, like this one.  

But my aim is just to give a sense to readers that pronouncing English words is not difficult after all. – S. Gabriel

The Star Online > Lifefocus

Wednesday February 22, 2006

George’s way with words

By RALPH BERRY

This column is nothing but challenging. Today I want to question the widespread belief that President Bush is a dunce, whose command of language often slips out of gear. On the contrary, I think that the US President is a clever fellow who uses language to communicate with other Americans, his message being “I get it wrong, too, like you.â€� This bonds him with the national audience. 

My suspicions were first aroused by his famous “The French don’t have a word for entrepreneur.â€� Now, this is an excellent joke. The French do indeed have a word for entrepreneur. It is “entrepreneurâ€�, and they coined it. Had the President, who is a Harvard man and has travelled to the end of the earth –Scotland – no inkling of this? I doubt it. 

I suspect that the President maintains a covert team of scriptwriters (much like Bob Hope) who toil night and day to keep up the flow of errors. Here is a selection. 

1) “We can come together to heal whatever wounds may exist, whatever residuals there may be.â€� Residual (noun), much loved by the financial industry, is a recurring payment. Residue is correct here. 

2) (of the public education system) where “children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic societyâ€�. Opportunistic has a bad meaning, “without principle, taking advantage of chances as they occurâ€�. Tony Blair regularly accuses the Opposition of being “opportunisticâ€� when they come up with what he fears is a good idea. Bush should have said “to take advantage of the fantastic opportunities in our societyâ€�. 

3) “Sometimes I can be a little allergic for people overseas.â€� You have to be allergic to, not for. Presumably, he meant that people overseas were allergic to him, but this phrasing would seem too blunt, and he changed the construction. 

4) “Will the highway on the internet become more few?â€� It would be easier to say “highways ... fewer.â€� But Bush has a recurring weakness with the comparative, as in: 

5) “An education system that ... will make America what we want it to be – a literate country and a hopefuller country.â€� You can’t make a comparative just by adding “-erâ€� on to every adjective. “Uglierâ€� is all right, but “beautifullerâ€� is ridiculous. The phrase should be “a more literate and more hopeful countryâ€�. 

6) “The illiteracy level of our children are appalling.â€� Bush has a problem remembering, when he gets to a verb, that it is governed by its subject. Singular subject, singular verb. The verb here (“areâ€�) is not governed by a plural word that just happens to be near by (“childrenâ€�). 

7) “The woman who knew that I had dyslexia – I never interviewed her.â€� Dyslexia may be the upfront explanation for Bush’s difficulties. There’s an inspired moment in a speech he gave in Rochester: “If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow.â€�  

This kind of accidental transposition is called Spoonerism, after the Dean and Warden of New College, Oxford. Many examples are still quoted: “You have hissed all my mystery lectures and have tasted a whole worm.â€�  

8) Of course, anyone can make a verbal slip. Of Al Gore’s tax plans, Bush said, “It’s going to require numerous IRA agents.â€� Many honest Americans are convinced that there is little difference between the methods of the IRS and the IRA (Irish Republican Army). The President gives covert support to this view of the tax-gatherers, and cannot lose votes thereby. 

9) I do, however, wonder at “The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.â€� No. It’s the judiciary’s job to interpret law. No doubt an aide was quick to reassure the audience that the President “mis-spokeâ€�. 

10) And what did he mean by “I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as wellâ€�? He meant – I hope – successors. 

11) Let this sum up the Bush way with words: “I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander-in-chief, too.â€� You can see how they got to misunderestimate him.  

“I admit it, I am not one of the great linguists,â€� said the President. I maintain that he keeps competent linguists on the payroll, though. A shrewd observer, Sir Christopher Meyer, notes of a White House conference: “Without a note in front of him, Bush chaired the meeting and led the discussion with confidence and aplomb. There was no sign of the verbal stumbles that plagued his public speaking.â€� (DC Confidential, p.178)  

My case rests.

The Star Online > Lifefocus

Friday February 24, 2006

Order of Malaysian names

By FADZILAH AMIN

How should we list the names of Malaysian office bearers in, say, a society alphabetically? – sm, Ipoh 

This is quite a problem in our multicultural society. I would say, first of all, arrange them by name, not title (if there is a title), though the titles should appear before the names.  

Then, arrange the names according to first names for those without surnames and according to surnames for those with surnames. For example: 

Tan Sri Amin Ahmad
Puan Fatimah Awang
Datuk Paduka Valerie Fernandez
Datuk Dr Krishnamoorthy Sundram
Mrs Lai Swee Gim
Mr Elvis Lim Kim Hock
Tuan Haji Nawawi Ghazali
Datuk Ong Chee Weng 

All names are fictitious. I must say I am not an authority on this matter. Are there other suggestions from readers? 

On the coast, usually 

One of the colleges in Kuantan, Pahang, has advertised in many billboards and newspapers as follows: 

“The Premier College On the East Coastâ€� 

Should it be read as “The Premier College In the East Coastâ€�? – Confused, Kuantan, Pahang 

The preposition that goes with “coastâ€� is usually “onâ€�. So “on the East Coastâ€� is correct. However some people use “inâ€� with “coastâ€�, perhaps to denote a region. 

A ‘couple’ and ‘they’ 

Please tell me if the following are correct: 

1) A couple was arrested and they were remanded for a week. 

2) A dozen was bought and they were distributed to people. – Dr Chin Kui Siang, Kuala Lumpur 

Yes, the sentences are correct.  

Sentence (1): “A coupleâ€�, meaning a married or engaged couple, or a man and his girlfriend, takes a singular verb. So “wasâ€� is correct. However, even after using the singular verb, you have to use a plural pronoun for them, since there are two of them, and this plural pronoun must be followed by a plural verb. Hence “they wereâ€� is correct. You can’t possibly write “he/she/it wasâ€�!  

Here’s a similar sentence from a British newspaper: 

“... but the couple has also lost custody of a two-year-old boy they were seeking to adopt.â€� (http://society.guardian.co.uk/intercountryadoption/story/0,8150,470901,00.html) 

Sentence (2): “A dozenâ€� is a set or group of 12 things, people, etc. It takes a singular verb, so “wasâ€� is correct. Again, when a pronoun is needed for “a dozenâ€�, you need a plural pronoun, because there are 12 items in a dozen and in your sentence they are distributed to different people. So, “were distributedâ€� is correct there.  

If the whole dozen (of let’s say books) was presented to one person, one can write: “A dozen was bought and was presented to the birthday girl.â€�, but we don’t normally use a singular pronoun in the sentence, like “it was presentedâ€�. 

Further on ‘farther’ and ‘further’ 

Regarding the two words further and farther, I wish to share this extract from the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, page 504. 

Further, farther, furthest and farthest can all be used for talking about distance: 

Stand further/farther away from me. 

Who can jump furthest/farthest? 

Further is often used for talking about the degree to which something happens: 

I expect prices to rise further. (= rise more). But farther, farthest and furthest are not often used in this way. 

Further is also used as an adjective to mean “additionalâ€�: 

There has been no further news.  

But farther cannot be used in this way. 

I believe that, since the two words can be used for physical distance, it could just mean whether the user is speaking British or American English. What do you think? – L.C. Peh 

My impression is that “fartherâ€� and “farthestâ€� are more commonly used in American English for physical distance than “furtherâ€� and “furthestâ€�, which are more commonly used in British English.  

The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) says that “According to a relatively recent rule ... farther should be reserved for physical distance and further for nonphysical, metaphorical advancement.â€�  

But it goes on to say that “In many cases, however, the distinction is not easy to draw.�