# Revert (back), respond, reply, get back - If you are interested please revert back with your updated resume.



## drei_lengua

Hello everyone,

Has anyone ever heard of "revert back" in the context of to send? This is the first time I have ever heard this. It is obvious what he meant. Is this BE?

Thanks,
Drei

> Please do not reply to this mail. contact xxx.
>
> Hi
>
> I am xxx from xxx Technologies. I am sending you this mail with
reference to your resume we have got from xxx. We have an Onsite opening
in xxx as an Informatica Lead. The location of Posting would be in Texas. Its
for a Fulltime and Permanent position with xxx. If you are interested
please revert back with your updated resume.
>
> Please do not reply to this mail. contact xxx
>
> Regards
> xxx
>


----------



## panjandrum

drei_lengua said:
			
		

> [...] Has anyone ever heard of "revert back" in the context of to send? This is the first time I have ever heard this. It is obvious what he meant. *Is this BE?*


NNOOOOOOOO!!!!!
This isn't any kind of English that I could contemplate, although I see it is common on the web.
It isn't all that clear exactly what they think it means.

Pleuggh!


----------



## maxiogee

~ and double Pleuggh!

They also mistreat the "its" in the middle line, and the use of Capitals is ridiculous.


----------



## TrentinaNE

I'd be very surprised if this were written by a native English speaker.  I believe _Informatica_ is the Italian word for someone for works in IT.

Elizabeth


----------



## drei_lengua

TrentinaNE said:
			
		

> I'd be very surprised if this were written by a native English speaker. I believe _Informatica_ is the Italian word for someone for works in IT.
> 
> Elizabeth


 
It is highly likely that this person is a native English speaker as his name is "Joel".  As for Informatica, this is a tool although in Spanish IT is Informática.  The Italian word is probably similar.

The reason I asked whether "revert back" is BE is because I also saw this phrase in the context of "to send back" in an e-mail from someone working in IT in Bangalore, India.  I am aware that Indians speak BE.  

I had a developer once from India who was calling someone on the phone.  The person on the other end never "lifted" he said.  We say "never picked up".  He used other BE phrases.  I enjoyed listening to his BE.

Okay, let me "revert back" .... or "revert" to the original thread discussion.  I look forward to your replies.

Drei


----------



## TrentinaNE

drei_lengua said:
			
		

> It is highly likely that this person is a native English speaker as his name is "Joel".


Ah, withholding crucial information, although the name could be a decoy.   

Elizabeth


----------



## nycphotography

I personally wouldn't want to revert back to working for illiterates.  But maybe it's just me.

I suspect the word he intended was "respond".


----------



## drei_lengua

nycphotography said:
			
		

> I personally wouldn't want to revert back to working for illiterates. But maybe it's just me.
> 
> I suspect the word he intended was "respond".


 
I couldn't agree more.  When I see messy e-mails from potential employers I have doubts whether I want to work there.  It is kind of like an automatic screening working for me.

Drei


----------



## Kelly B

Joel might be an unlikely name for an Italian, but he could be Israeli, or even Chinese - many of my Chinese neighbors use American-sounding names in addition to their given names.


----------



## aridra

'Revert back' is an Indian-English expression for respond and is commonly used in communication such as the one given here.  I have lived for 25 years outside India in 4 continents working with people from dozens of countries but have never seen anyone else use it.

I say, you people are very judgemental, aren't you?  You conclude solely based on one single strange sounding phrase (to your ears) that a person is illiterate? He might have been an Indian with a doctorate in computer science, brilliant in what he does, and he might still write something like that!! I protest on behalf of this un-named, unknown stranger, as well as all of us who work in foreign countries, foreign languages and foreign cultures, doing our darned best but still judged by superficials.


----------



## elroy

Although I had never seen "revert back" used in such a context, it was immediately obvious to me upon reading the e-mail that the meaning was "respond" or "write back."


----------



## panjandrum

Yes, Elroy, we can understand what was intended. As far as I am concerned, the words don't mean what was intended, but then that's OK, as long as I can understand what they should have said, regardless of what they actually said.

Yes, aridra, we are being judgmental. Especially when forming an impression of a prospective employer, or employee, that's what we all do - it's what we must do.

This is a formal response from Corporate America to a prospective employee. It is understandable only because we are intelligent people, not because the words mean what they meant to say.

As maxiogee points out, there is more to be concerned about than the use of "revert back". My criticism is not of the individual who responded, but of the process within the company that allows a formal communication of such poor quality.


----------



## nycphotography

aridra said:
			
		

> I protest on behalf of this un-named, unknown stranger, as well as all of us who work in foreign countries, foreign languages and foreign cultures, doing our darned best but still judged by superficials.


 
Protest all you want.  It's a judgemental world.

I was using "illiterate" in semi-sarcastic sense.  The fact remains that the grade of langauage encountered will certainly impact any decisions I may make to respond to any job related communications.  Both as an employer, and as an employee.

And I suspect this holds true for many, but certainly not most, people.

After reading enough job postings or resumes, there comes a time when you start weeding them out on anything you can find.  Is it fair?  Probably not.  But it does one no good to rail against reality.


----------



## aridra

nycphotography said:
			
		

> . But it does one no good to rail against reality.


 
No, it does not.  However there is another reality to be faced as well.  In the increasingly global world of business, one comes across English spoken and written in many different ways.  In fact, some are so different that perhaps one cannot call them English any more   My husband works for an international organisation where English is the language of communication.  In the offices here in Switzerland alone, there are people of 71 different nationalities, each with different levels of fluency in the language, yet they manage to deal very well indeed.  The reality of globalisation is that your very own English will be adopted, adapted and perhaps 'murdered' by these 'non-native' speakers of the language. And you are absolutely right, it does one no good to rail against reality.


----------



## drei_lengua

aridra said:
			
		

> 'Revert back' is an Indian-English expression for respond and is commonly used in communication such as the one given here. I have lived for 25 years outside India in 4 continents working with people from dozens of countries but have never seen anyone else use it.
> 
> I say, you people are very judgemental, aren't you? You conclude solely based on one single strange sounding phrase (to your ears) that a person is illiterate? He might have been an Indian with a doctorate in computer science, brilliant in what he does, and he might still write something like that!! I protest on behalf of this un-named, unknown stranger, as well as all of us who work in foreign countries, foreign languages and foreign cultures, doing our darned best but still judged by superficials.


 
aridra,
I would like to respond to your post. I work in Information Technology. Around seventy percent of my co-workers are from India and Pakistan. They are brilliant, intelligent, warm, and quite frankly a pleasure to work with. If you look at my previous post about my Informatica developer I mentioned how much I enjoyed listening to their expressions. I agree with you that there are geniuses out their who have various levels of fluency in English and within the company grammar is not as big an issue.

However, to address the other issue of prospective employers, I would say that when I get an e-mail from a recruiter seeking my candidacy and there are misspellings, poor grammar, odd/unconventional phrases, and/or lack of organization I must say I immediately question that company. More than likely I discard the e-mail. At first glance this seems superficial. However, if they cannot represent themselves successfully what does that say about the company?

No company in their right mind should place such a person in a position to send out responses to resume postings like the one I received that started this thread. To tell you the truth, this person did not have an Indian first name or last name. We are not picking on Indians or foreigners here. Most of my friends are foreign and my wife was not born in America.  She is a brilliant woman who even skipped English 101 at the university because of her advanced English skills.

Drei


----------



## timpeac

aridra said:
			
		

> No, it does not. However there is another reality to be faced as well. In the increasingly global world of business, one comes across English spoken and written in many different ways. In fact, some are so different that perhaps one cannot call them English any more  My husband works for an international organisation where English is the language of communication. In the offices here in Switzerland alone, there are people of 71 different nationalities, each with different levels of fluency in the language, yet they manage to deal very well indeed. The reality of globalisation is that your very own English will be adopted, adapted and perhaps 'murdered' by these 'non-native' speakers of the language. And you are absolutely right, it does one no good to rail against reality.


 
I work in an organisation that comprises many nations around the world, so I understand very well your example here. I see it all the time in internal communications and it is never a problem (as long as the meaning is clear, as indeed "revert back" was). Moreover, people would not think it "clever" to criticise the English expression of the other countries in such contexts since they are only doing their best.

However, here this is strictly in reference to internal communications. In terms of the "face" presented to the outside world it is not acceptable to have either mangled English or dialectic English (as in fact I believe you are saying "revert back" is - not a mistake, but a feature of a regional variety of English).

There are many dialects around the world and so a very plain, but grammatically standard, English is generally used in business communication. I can't see it is any more reasonable to use "to revert back" than it would be to write "ain't" or "thee" or "gonna" or "bairn". Rightly or wrongly deviations from the norm will be judged badly - and when they are little known, as in this case, may well be assumed to be plain errors.


----------



## drei_lengua

elroy said:
			
		

> Although I had never seen "revert back" used in such a context, it was immediately obvious to me upon reading the e-mail that the meaning was "respond" or "write back."


 
elroy,
I do not see any text written anywhere in this thread indicating that we could not pick up the understanding from the context.  We are only analying the "revert back" statement and its origin.  I was curious where it came from.   

Drei


----------



## cuchuflete

We are drifting off course.  If anyone wants to open a thread in the Culture forum to discuss non-standard language use by those who are multi-lingual, that's fine.  We have literally thousands of examples of it every day, here in these forums.
Sometimes we have non-standard use by natives.

If anyone has an urgent need to add a post that specifically address the question in post #1, please PM any English Only moderator.

Thanks,
Cuchuflete


----------



## linkinrustle

Hi,

1. Please revert back to me if any issues.

2. Please revert to me if any issues.

Which one is correct??


----------



## nzfauna

Neither is particularly good.  But revert back is more wrong, you don't need the back, it's redundant.


----------



## bibliolept

Neither sounds natural; "revert back" could be redundant depending on the meaning.

Are you asking people to contact you if they have any problems or concerns? If so, a common phrase used it "please get in touch with me if..."; others are "please let me know if," "please come to me with any questions," "please see me if," etc.

It would be helpful if you could provide additional information.


----------



## bibliolept

nzfauna said:


> Neither is particularly good.  But revert back is more wrong, you don't need the back, it's redundant.



Is "more wrong" preferable to "wronger" in this use in NZ?


----------



## nzfauna

We'd never say "wronger" in NZ.  It is not in the dictionary.


----------



## linkinrustle

bibliolept said:
			
		

> Neither sounds natural; "revert back" could be redundant depending on the meaning.
> 
> Are you asking people to contact you if they have any problems or concerns? If so, a common phrase used it "please get in touch with me if..."; others are "please let me know if," "please come to me with any questions," "please see me if," etc.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could provide additional information.


 
Apropos to the above ,what is the actual meaning of *REVERT? *People generally use "Please revert back if any issues." in my office.
Please clarify in more detail.
Thanks .


----------



## coleywoley

Revert does not make sense there. Revert means to go back to the way something was or a previous topic. I would use refer or consult.


----------



## bibliolept

Aridra had this comment to make on the use of "revert back":


> 'Revert back' is an Indian-English expression for respond and is commonly used in communication such as the one given here. I have lived for 25 years outside India in 4 continents working with people from dozens of countries but have never seen anyone else use it.


I recommend that you visit the thread in which this was previously discussed: "revert back" - If you are interested please revert back with your updated

<<Mod note:  Thanks for pointing out the link.  Today's posts have now been added to the original thread.  It's a pity that the original questioner hadn't taken care to search the forum first.  It would have saved a lot of unnecessary effort.>>


----------



## bibliolept

coleywoley said:


> Revert does not make sense there. Revert means to go back to the way something was or a previous topic. I would use refer or consult.


"Refer back" sounds reasonable; "consult back" sounds a little less natural. It would depend on the context, I suppose.


----------



## coleywoley

I would not use consult back. I would simply use "Please consult me if any issues."


----------



## Blues Piano Man

I found this in Wictionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revert

The fourth definition in a list of seven...



> to revert (*third-person singular simple present* reverts, *present participle* reverting, *simple past* reverted, *past participle* reverted)
> 
> 4 	To return; to come back. _If they attack, we will revert to the bunker_.


 
That looks like the definition under discussion.

Hope that helps,
Blues


----------



## Lexiphile

So we are agreed:  "revert back" is the most wrongerest of all the options so far.

I thought people ususally said "get back to me" in these situations.  Or is that limited to the opposite case: "I'll get back to you when I have the information"?


----------



## coleywoley

You could use "get back to me" but that has a more casual feel than what was originally said. Revert back has a much more formal feel.


----------



## Lexiphile

Hang on Coley, we decided that *revert back* was (how was it again?) the wrongest of the wrong.  It would have to be *refer back*, I think, if you don't want any informality creeping in.


----------



## Forero

nzfauna said:


> We'd never say "wronger" in NZ.  It is not in the dictionary.


It's in my dictionary, and it has the odd property that it does not rhyme with "stronger" because the "ng" in "wronger" is as in "singer", not as in "finger".

Usually, we use "revert back" when something returns to a former state apparently on its own, not when we ask a person to return.


----------



## Teafrog

bibliolept said:


> Neither sounds natural ; "revert back" could be redundant depending on the meaning.
> 
> Are you asking people to contact you if they have any problems or concerns? If so, a common phrase used it "please get in touch with me if..."; others are "please let me know if," "please come to me with any questions," "please see me if," etc.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could provide additional information.


It appears to me that Linkinrustle mixes things up, and would like to say "Please get back to me if there are any issues". See here for get back to someone, and here and here for using "to revert".



bibliolept said:


> Is "more wrong" preferable to "wronger" in this use in NZ?


Aaaargh , my hears are hurting! Ok, my eyes, in this case . Call me old fashionned, but what's wrong with using "worse", with all it's many nuances?



Lexiphile said:


> So we are agreed:  "revert back" is the most wrongerest of all the options so far.
> Do you mean that it is the far worse option? Do you realise that some foreigners are reading this and will think that "wrongerest" is proper or clear English and emulate it (copy it)?!
> 
> I thought people ususally usually (I know, it was a typo…) said "get back to me" in these situations.  Or is that limited to the opposite case: "I'll get back to you when I have the information"?


Absolutely 



Lexiphile said:


> Hang on Coley, we decided that *revert back* was (how was it again?) the wrongest of the wrong.  It would have to be *refer back*, I think, if you don't want any informality creeping in.


 Yesssssss, this is, i*n *m*y *o*pinion*, the very best (not the bestest ) of all the options. You refer back to someone or something. However, to be fair, I have seen "revert back" occasionally; it is called "redundant" here…, and used here. At the end of the day, and as far as I'm concerned, "to refer back" to someone is more correct (not correctest ).

Phew!


----------



## panjandrum

ORDER please.
Beginning of mod rant.
1.  If the original questioner had taken the trouble to use the WR Dictionary, or to search the forum, the thread may not have been necessary - or at least the current query would be have been added to the previous thread.
2. The topic of the thread is "revert back", not playing silly games with comparatives and superlatives that are likely to be misleading.
3. It is evident from the earlier thread, and indeed from bibliolept's quote from it in this thread, that "revert back" is a standard expression in Indian English.  Realising that, it is unhelpful, if not rude, to describe it as wrong, in any terms.
(Mod rant over)

Back to linkinrustle's question.
If this communication is within the context of those for whom _revert back_ is standard vocabulary then (1) is entirely satisfactory.
However, as is evident from this thread, there are many of us for whom revert back sounds at least odd, if not wrong.  So if this is being used in a wider context you would be well advised to avoid revert back and use one of the alternatives - as suggested by bibliolept in post #21, for example.


----------



## Forero

Can we say that (2) "sounds funny" the world around?  In other words, is the Indian expression "revert back" only, or can it be said with plain "revert"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

1. Please revert back to me if any issues. 
2. Please revert to me if any issues. 

Please contact me if you have any problems. Don't hesitate to contact me again if you have any problems - the again covers the idea of returning. Either of these is fine, to my ear. Many English people resort to the, to my mind, much less elegant formula - please get back to me if you have any problems.


----------



## murthyk002

Hi,

Please correct the below sentences:

1. Please revert to me in case of any clarification.
2. I will revert to you with the details.


----------



## owlman5

Hello, Murthy.  You may possibly be confused about "report" and "revert".  In both your examples "report" would work well:

Please report to me in case you need any clarification.  This means "Please come and ask me in case you need any clarification."

I will report to you with the details.  This means I will tell you about the details.


----------



## Copyright

Many businessmen are equally confused... because *revert *is the new word for *report*. Sounds cooler, more technical, more getting-things-done (ok, I made up the reasons, but I can report that *revert *is alive and well in the boardroom and office corridors). I particularly like *revert back to me*.


----------



## owlman5

Copyright, I must really be behind the times.  Thanks for the information on this new trend.


----------



## sound shift

I think I would say
"Please get back to me if you need clarification" and
"I'll get back to you with the details".

I would definitely not use "revert". "Revert back to me" sounds like some sort of genetic mutation!

Dictionaries are not infallible, but I agree with the Collins Dictionary's definition of "to revert" as "To go back to a former practice, condition or belief".


----------



## Harry Batt

Revert is not a new term, but it has new usage as Copyright has explained. Its original meaning was to go back to an original state. It has gradually taken on the meaning of reporting back or taking a former position. It is often spoken as a redundancy, reverted back. Eg. Gingrich was believed to be reverting back to tough rrhetoric. Taken from _Dictionar of Modern American Usage, _Gardner


----------



## owlman5

Harry Batt said:


> Revert is not a new term, but it has new usage as Copyright has explained. Its original meaning was to go back to an original state. It has gradually taken on the meaning of reporting back or taking a former position. It is often spoken as a redundancy, reverted back. Eg. Gingrich was believed to be reverting back to tough rrhetoric. Taken from _Dictionar of Modern American Usage, _Gardner


I'm with you here, Harry Batt.  I use "revert" occasionally in my own speech and writing, but never with the meaning that Copyright noted.  It sounds terrible to me, and I doubt I'll change my mind about that anytime soon.


----------



## natkretep

This is one of my complaints about the Singapore-Civil-Service-speak, which seems to use 'revert' in the sense of 'reply' rather than 'return to original state or practice'. I'm with owlman, sound shift and others and see no warrant in this way of using _revert_.


----------



## danielcarroll34

Let me tell you all that "revert" is not an acceptable term, and holistically overly utilized, within the Asian business place, specifically when interacting with American businesses. Many emails are sent with a sign off of "Please revert for clarifications" - every "new" person to read this is puzzled by this strange sentence that doesn't seem to make sense, especially when the sender is not asking for clarifications, but is soliciting feedback on the email. 

An acceptable, similar statement would be "Please let me know if you have any questions" - this tells the recipient that it is okay to reply asking the sender to clarify a statement....


----------



## cycloneviv

Hi murthyk002,

We have had numerous discussions in the English Only forum about the use of "revert" to mean "reply" or "respond" in Indian and various other (largely Asian) forms of English. It is not widely understood in that way in British English, American English or Australian English.


----------



## Kryptonite1303

Sorry to revive an old thread.

I am based in India and I used to say "revert" in place of "reply" till about a year ago when I found out it was wrong. Over the past year, I have trained myself to say "get back", "reply" or "respond" instead of "revert". 

 But I have now started seeing the usage of "revert" from my associates in London, Amsterdam and Singapore. 

It makes me wonder if "revert" is accepted worldwide and if that is the case, my self-training goes waste!


----------



## summoner

The definition of "revert" is different from the definition of "reply". However, "revert to" is commonly used in our company. For example, the following message is commonly used in our reply email to customers.
_Regarding XXXXX, we will revert to you next Monday

_It gives me a hard decision of whether following email template from colleagues


----------



## timpeac

Kryptonite1303 said:


> Sorry to revive an old thread.
> 
> I am based in India and I used to say "revert" in place of "reply" till about a year ago when I found out it was wrong. Over the past year, I have trained myself to say "get back", "reply" or "respond" instead of "revert".
> 
> But I have now started seeing the usage of "revert" from my associates in London, Amsterdam and Singapore.
> 
> It makes me wonder if "revert" is accepted worldwide and if that is the case, my self-training goes waste!



"Revert" isn't necessarily wrong, it depends on the wider context. Could you give an example of the usage you've seen from colleagues?


----------



## prasannakurugod

Hi,

It's inappropriate to use Revert in mail communication. Revert implies going back to the old one. In a mail communication, how can one go back to the previous version or old one. If one has applied any changes and the changes don't work, then going to the older version is said as revert. But in a mail communication, we use reply or respond.

Regards,
 K.Prasanna


----------

