6 ms·

That usage is common/"correct" in Indian / Singaporean English, and perhaps others too. It's a regional difference, as opposed to corporate nonsense, although i

That usage is common/"correct" in Indian / Singaporean English, and perhaps others too. It's a regional difference, as opposed to corporate nonsense, although it's still very strange when you first encounter it.

outworlder 7y ago
Not as strange as "do the needful".
- jogjayr 7y ago
  At least "do the needful" is somewhat correct and parseable. It was even used in Victorian England.[1] Anyone can understand it means "do what's necessary". It's old and weird, but not wrong. "revert" and "reply" are entirely different words that sound kind of similar. 1. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/do-the-needful/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/do-the-needful/
- agoodthrowaway 7y ago
  I’m not Indian but I love “do the needful”. I’ve only ever encountered it when people used it for humorous affect. Something about it makes me smile.
  - levythe 7y ago
    It's much less amusing when it's used seriously by a lead engineer who clearly hasn't actually thought about what "the needful" is and who clearly just wants to pass off the "ask" you "brought them" to someone who clearly doesn't know what "the needful" is.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I was replying to an email about an interview, and beginning "Please do" (not consider me for this job any further), and my (Android) phone autocompleted "the needful". Rather interesting considering I don't think I had ever typed it.
- arthurcolle 7y ago
  Oh man, I forgot about this one. Such a classic.
jogjayr 7y ago
"Common" != "correct". I know languages are living things, and often words organically take on new definitions. But "revert" meaning "reply" is one of the stupider evolutions IMO. It probably started because someone wanted to sound "professional". They saw this word and went "hey, this word seems like a more formal way to say 'reply', I'll just use it". Without ever bothering to check its definition in the dictionary.
- antiterra 7y ago
  Sometimes a new usage is jarring or inharmonious, and that discord causes us to derisively argue the usage is ignorant and contemptible. I would suggest that we should resist this impulse. It's that same impulse that suggests the 'aks' pronunciation of 'ask' is indicative of ignorance, despite it having an unbroken lineage back to Old English. In this case, the first OED cited usage of 'revert' in the 'reply' sense is nearly half a century old and from the Times of India. There's also a good deal of documentation of 'revert' in the 'return' sense: 1828 A. A. Opie Detraction Displayed xv. 231 None can shoot these arrows, but they must expect they will revert with a rebounded force. Cites like this go back to the medieval period. It's completely reasonable for revert to take on the meaning of reply. In the 14th century, reply' itself was used to indicate repeating or echoing.
  - jogjayr 7y ago
    > In this case, the first OED cited usage of 'revert' in the 'reply' sense is nearly half a century old and from the Times of India. Doesn't make it correct. You're saying it's not possible for the Times of India to be wrong? I used to read it daily for 10 years and they had their share of mistakes. > documentation of 'revert' in the 'return' sense 'return' is not the same as 'reply'.

outworlder 7y ago

Not as strange as "do the needful".

jogjayr 7y ago
At least "do the needful" is somewhat correct and parseable. It was even used in Victorian England.[1] Anyone can understand it means "do what's necessary". It's old and weird, but not wrong. "revert" and "reply" are entirely different words that sound kind of similar. 1. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/do-the-needful/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/do-the-needful/
agoodthrowaway 7y ago
I’m not Indian but I love “do the needful”. I’ve only ever encountered it when people used it for humorous affect. Something about it makes me smile.
- levythe 7y ago
  It's much less amusing when it's used seriously by a lead engineer who clearly hasn't actually thought about what "the needful" is and who clearly just wants to pass off the "ask" you "brought them" to someone who clearly doesn't know what "the needful" is.
perl4ever 7y ago
I was replying to an email about an interview, and beginning "Please do" (not consider me for this job any further), and my (Android) phone autocompleted "the needful". Rather interesting considering I don't think I had ever typed it.
arthurcolle 7y ago
Oh man, I forgot about this one. Such a classic.

jogjayr 7y ago

"Common" != "correct". I know languages are living things, and often words organically take on new definitions. But "revert" meaning "reply" is one of the stupider evolutions IMO. It probably started because someone wanted to sound "professional". They saw this word and went "hey, this word seems like a more formal way to say 'reply', I'll just use it". Without ever bothering to check its definition in the dictionary.

antiterra 7y ago
Sometimes a new usage is jarring or inharmonious, and that discord causes us to derisively argue the usage is ignorant and contemptible. I would suggest that we should resist this impulse. It's that same impulse that suggests the 'aks' pronunciation of 'ask' is indicative of ignorance, despite it having an unbroken lineage back to Old English. In this case, the first OED cited usage of 'revert' in the 'reply' sense is nearly half a century old and from the Times of India. There's also a good deal of documentation of 'revert' in the 'return' sense: 1828 A. A. Opie Detraction Displayed xv. 231 None can shoot these arrows, but they must expect they will revert with a rebounded force. Cites like this go back to the medieval period. It's completely reasonable for revert to take on the meaning of reply. In the 14th century, reply' itself was used to indicate repeating or echoing.
- jogjayr 7y ago
  > In this case, the first OED cited usage of 'revert' in the 'reply' sense is nearly half a century old and from the Times of India. Doesn't make it correct. You're saying it's not possible for the Times of India to be wrong? I used to read it daily for 10 years and they had their share of mistakes. > documentation of 'revert' in the 'return' sense 'return' is not the same as 'reply'.