India, Dec. 28 -- I am writing this column from London, where I am holidaying over Christmas and New Year. Britain is a country I love and greatly admire. Something that never ceases to fascinate me is their language and how they use it. If you are not British - or haven't lived here for a long time - you would be perplexed. Often, things don't mean what they seem to suggest. It can even be the opposite. A delightful article in The Times illustrates how tortured courtesies can mask real meaning. Let me give you a few examples. "Sounds fun. I'll let you know." Normally, you might think the speaker is about to say yes. Actually, that is far from it. In translation, what has been said is that the speaker has no intention of coming. Or consider this: "I'm sure it's just me." Now, that would appear as if the speaker is accepting blame or responsibility. Not in the least. It means this is entirely your fault, but the speaker is striving to put it politely. The Times article has dozens of examples of such circumlocution. For instance, when an Englishman says, "Sorry, could you say that last bit again," it actually means he hasn't heard a word of what you were saying. Or if he says, "I hear what you're saying." he's, in fact, telling you he completely disagrees. If the response you get is, "I'll bear it in mind", that's a way of gently telling you that what you've said will be forgotten immediately. This sort of speech takes getting used to, but once you have, it is easy to follow. I remember my tutor at Stowe commenting on an answer to a question he had asked. "That's one way of looking at it," Mr Stephan said. I was 16 and thought he was validating my reply. He wasn't. What he was gently telling me is that I was wildly off the mark. Claire Winterschladen, a dear friend from my days at Oxford, would often tell me when we differed, "I'm sure it's just me but .". What she really meant was, "This is entirely your fault, but I'll make it seem as if it's not." In India, our English is very different. We're direct, if not blunt. We don't believe in euphemisms. We say things almost as the thought occurs to us. The British, on the other hand, camouflage their actual intent. They sugarcoat it inside disarming phrases of politeness. But don't be fooled by this tactic. It's not a trick. It's just the way they are. They have no intention of being bullied or coerced into what they don't want to do. They're just putting it nicely. I guess none of this should be surprising when you consider how torturous their pronunciation is. The French are very particular about getting it right. But that's not easy to do in English. Two words that look very similar sound very different. Here's a little paragraph to test your pronunciation. If you get your tongue correctly around every word in the following stanza, I can guarantee you're speaking English better than most native speakers. "Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Viscous, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward. And your pronunciation is OK When you correctly say croquet." Now, if you managed that with ease, here's a more advanced test that might trip you up. Take it slowly, think carefully, and you could get it right. "Mark the differences, moreover, Between mover, cover, clover; Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Finally, which rhymes with enough, Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough? Hiccough has the sound of cup. My advice is to give up!!!"...