Jose Carillo's Forum

YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

Jose Carillo’s English Forum invites members to post their grammar and usage questions directly on the Forum's discussion boards. I will make an effort to reply to every question and post the reply here in this discussion board or elsewhere in the Forum depending on the subject matter.

What does the expression “if anything” mean?

Question by jonathanfvaldez, Forum member (November 18, 2013):

Hi Joe,

It’s been a while since I last visited and I’m glad to see that all is well (at least in the Forum). Like many of our kababayans here in Los Angeles, CA, my family and I are glued to the TV watching broadcasts on the progress of the relief efforts in the areas devastated by Yolanda. We all hope and pray for our countrymen especially in those hard-hit areas.

More than twice, I’ve come across the phrase “If anything,” my latest “meeting” with it being this afternoon when I read a study with this excerpt: “I do not believe that substituting more precise words and phrases for an equivocal word would decrease the scientific quality of the writing.  If anything, I felt that the precision of the communication process was improved in the 110 instances in which the ‘e-word’ was replaced.  Equivocal words can always be replaced by other words or phrases that convey a more precise meaning in a scientific context.” (italics mine)

Please clarify when, how, etc. “If anything” is used. I Googled it but I think it’s better to consult with the word maven.

Thanks.

Jonathan

My reply to jonathanfvaldez:

I’m sorry to say that all’s not well in the Philippines today after the devastation wrought by the quelling of the MNLF rebellion in Zamboanga, by the Bohol 7.2-magnitude earthquake, and now by Typhoon Yolanda. Many parts of the nation are in a veritable state of calamity—people, habitations, commerce, infrastructure, governance, the public sphere and all—and I don’t think we’ll be seeing the end to it in the immediate future. We just have to brace ourselves for the long, backbreaking effort towards recovery and rehabilitation.

Now regarding your question about the usage of “if anything” in this excerpt that you presented:

I do not believe that substituting more precise words and phrases for an equivocal word would decrease the scientific quality of the writing. If anything, I felt that the precision of the communication process was improved in the 110 instances in which the ‘e-word’ was replaced.  Equivocal words can always be replaced by other words or phrases that convey a more precise meaning in a scientific context.

The idiom “if anything” is used to convey the sense that someone or something is different when the speaker isn’t absolutely sure if there really is any change or difference. The closest meaning of it that I can think of is “if at all” or, in a more comparable or measurable sense, “if in any degree,” as in “If anything, the government response to the Typhoon Yolanda disaster has shown that the Philippines is never too ready for the severe weather disruptions projected to be brought about by climate change” or “Your flawed solution to that quadratic equation has demonstrated that, if anything, you need a refresher course in advanced algebra.”

In Tagalog, I would think that the closest equivalent idiom to “if anything” is “kung tutuusin,” as in “Kung tutuusin, mukhang walang kalatoy-latoy ang tugon mo sa napakalaking problemang hinaharap ng bayan ngayon” (“If anything, it looks like your response is too ineffectual for the huge problem being faced by the country today.”) 

What we have to keep in mind is that the usage of “if anything” suggests tentatively that something may be true—often the opposite—of something previously said or implied. This is actually the case with the passage that you provided. The declaration of the first sentence, “I do not believe that substituting more precise words and phrases for an equivocal word would decrease the scientific quality of the writing,” is supported by the next sentence, whose use of “if anything” serves to emphasize that such word or phrase substitutions indeed can improve rather than impede the communication process.

I hope that this has adequately clarified the usage of “if anything” for you.

Rejoinder by jonathanfvaldez (November 20, 2013):

Thanks, Joe. Yes, the idiom “If anything” is much clearer now.

I’m sorry for my “all is well” statement. I simply misspoke. What I wanted to convey was (at least) the Forum is still going strong. As the kids might say, “my bad.”

BTW, is “first foray” redundant, given that one definition of “foray” is “an initial attempt”?

Thanks.

Jonathan

My reply to jonathanfvaldez’s rejoinder:

The phrase “first foray” isn’t redundant at all. The sense of “foray” is not “an initial attempt” but “a brief excursion or attempt, especially outside one’s accustomed sphere” or “a sudden or irregular invasion or attack for war or spoils.” “Foray” conveys not “initialness” but “briefness” or “suddenness.” Thus, the use of “first foray” in the following sentence is definitely not redundant: “Her first foray into fashion modeling was forgettable, but her second made her so widely acclaimed as to be considered international beauty queen material.”

Comment by BenK, new Forum member (November 21, 2013):

If I may jump into this conversation, I’d like to share a personal rule based on how I understand “if anything.” I have always defined it—and I make no assertion that I am correct, only that I am consistent—as “if [what I am about to explain in the sentence that follows has any meaning/is indicative of] anything,” [then it means/indicates this]. To check it, a slightly longer phrase can be substituted; if it makes sense, “if anything” is okay, if not, go back and try again:

- “If this/that means anything”
- “If this/that teaches/tells us anything”
- “If this/that will result in anything”

...and so on.

My reply to BenK:

BenK, I absolutely agree with your method for figuring out the sense of the phrase “if anything” in a sentence. I could hardly improve on it.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

What does the term “Philippine Area of Responsibility” mean?

Request by justine aragones, Forum member, posted in my Personal Messages box (November 8, 2013):

Dear Sir Carillo,

I hope you are all right during this stormy evening.

I remember the discussion on Philippine Area of Responsibility and its distinction from the Philippine boundaries. Help me, sir, to find that posting so I can understand better that technical term used by PAGASA meteorologists.

Thank you.

My reply to justine aragones:

Your request is very timely so I am reposting below the Forum discussion on the term “Philippine Area of Responsibility” that started on November 6, 2009:

Why not “soil” or “land” for “area of responsibility”?

Question from Mr. Leoncio Contreras, someone of Filipino descent who presumably now lives overseas:

Let me ask you something.

I get so annoyed when I hear from TV anchors and read in the print media the statement “The typhoon has entered the Philippine area of responsibility.”

I believe it’s the obligation [of PAGASA] to paraphrase “area of responsibility.” I think the more appropriate way to word that sentence is, “The typhoon has entered Philippine soil.”

Please advise.

My reply:

Dear Mr. Contreras:

After looking into the origins and semantics of the term “area of responsibility,” I think we are well-advised not to tinker with it. Offhand, I’ll already say that I could find neither a suitable paraphrase nor even a synonym that comes close to what it means.

In general terms, the Area Of Responsibility (AOR) defines an area with specific geographic boundaries for which a person or organization bears a certain responsibility. The term originated from the United States military but is now used in oceanography and weather forecasting as well.

For the Philippines, in particular, its area of responsibility isn’t meant to define its internationally recognized territory, and it isn’t a measure either of its land mass or what you refer to as “Philippine soil.” This is because as all of us know, the Philippines is an archipelago of 7,100 islands, each irregularly jutting out from sea, and the nation’s share of territory on the globe actually extends way beyond the shorelines of these islands. Indeed, although the Philippines has a total land area of 300,000 sq. km (115,830 sq. miles), the so-called “Philippine area of responsibility” covers something like 9-11 multiples of that area in terms of sea and land combined.

For those who know at least a smattering of spherical geometry, the Philippine Area of Responsibility or PAR is that part of the world map “bounded by rhumb lines on the Philippine Tropical Cyclone Tracking Chart/Map or imaginary lines on the surface of the earth that makes equal oblique angles with all meridians joining the following points: 25°N 120°E, 25°N 135°E, 5°N 135°E, 5°N 115°E, 15°N 115°E, 21°N 120°E and back to the beginning.” The initials N and E refer to the compass directions “north” and “east,” the superscript “o” after the numbers stands for “degrees of the Earth’s arc,” and the term “rhumb lines” means “any of the points of the mariner’s compass.” All this may sound like science mumbo-jumbo, of course, so it’s much better to just visually check out this area by logging on to PAGASA’s website.  

Here’s PAGASa's map of the Philippine area of responsibility:


Anyway, within the Philippine area of responsibility, the PAGASA is mandated to monitor tropical cyclone activity and to make the necessary warnings. It has to issue bulletins every six hours for all tropical cyclones within this area that have made or are anticipated to make landfall within the Philippines, or every 12 hours when cyclones are not affecting land.

So don’t get annoyed anymore when PAGASA repeatedly uses the term “Philippine area of responsibility.” Those hardy weather forecasters of ours aren’t really having big airs when they use that term. They don’t really have much choice—or would you rather they pounce on you with “AOR, AOR” or “PAR, PAR” ad infinitum whenever a typhoon’s coming?

Postscript to Forum members:

The Philippine media have gotten used to referring to the Philippine weather bureau as PAGASA, which oxymoronically means “hope” in Tagalog—obviously an inappropriate name because of the dire news that the bureau usually brings to the public during the typhoon season in the Philippines. PAGASA is, of course, an acronym for the kilometric official name Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, which, in turn, is rendered in Filipino as the equally kilometric, strange-sounding Pangasiwaan ng Palingkurang Atmosperiko, Heopisikal at Astronomiko ng Pilipinas (PPAHAP). The acronym of this Filipino name doesn’t spell any nice existing word and doesn’t resonate, of course, so it’s understandable why the English acronym is the one that has gained currency instead. As to the full Filipinized name of the weather bureau, I know that this name is a well-meaning translation of the English, and I have gotten comfortable with all of the Filipinized terms in that name except for one—Palingkuran. I don’t know if you know what I have in mind, but that new Filipino coinage does sound like something else—something fetid—to me. Can’t we think up a better word? What do you think?

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Some syntax variations in English evoke practically the same sense

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (November 2, 2013):

Why should there be an in between the words “speaking” and “English” in the second sentence below but nothing between the same words in the first sentence?

“The last time I was heard speaking English fluently was when my grade-school assistant principal visited me in the ICU.”

“But that incident made me conscious of a divide between Filipinos who prefer speaking in English and those who prefer speaking in Tagalog.”

(These are quotes from my posting in the Advocacies section, “When speaking in English becomes a problem,” on October 27, 2013.)

My reply to Miss Mae:

Hmm… a very interesting grammar question.

In the first sentence, “The last time I was heard speaking English fluently was when my grade-school assistant principal visited me in the ICU,” the preposition “in” is not used between the verb “speaking” and “English” because here, “English” is being used as an adjective. With such a construction in the form “verb + adjective + adverb,” the implied sense is that the speaker speaks English fluently as a matter of course.

On the other hand, in the second sentence, “But that incident made me conscious of a divide between Filipinos who prefer speaking in English and those who prefer speaking in Tagalog,” the preposition “in” is used between “speaking” and “English” and between “speaking and “Tagalog” because in both instances, “English” and “Tagalog” are being used as objects of the preposition “in.” In this form, the implied sense is that the speaker has a choice of speaking either in English or Tagalog, and vice versa. This sense is, in fact, emphasized by the verb “prefer,” in such a way that the preposition “in” becomes functionally necessary to link the verb with the alternative objects “English” or “Tagalog.”

In informal English, however, these grammatical distinctions often get blurred without causing sentence dysfunction. In the first sentence you presented, the phrase “speaking English fluently” can also use “in” without raising eyebrows and yield practically the same sense: “The last time I was heard speaking in English fluently was when my grade-school assistant principal visited me in the ICU.” So with knocking off the “in” in the phrases “prefer speaking in English” and “prefer speaking in Tagalog” in the second sentence: “But that incident made me conscious of a divide between Filipinos who prefer speaking English and those who prefer speaking Tagalog.” English has the flexibility and tolerance for such minor deviations in syntax in evoking the same sense.

Follow-up question by Miss Mae, Forum member (November 4, 2013):

Wait. Let me understand.

If the reason why there is no in between the words "speaking" and "English" is because the latter was used as an adjective, then why there is also no in between the words "live" and "is" in the sentence below? 

Quote from: Miss Mae on October 27, 2013, 12:20:04 AM
“About 140 kilometers away from the city where I live is Dubai.”

 My reply to Miss Mae:

There’s no need for the preposition “in” in this sentence that you presented:

“About 140 kilometers away from the city where I live is Dubai.”

It’s because in the phrase “where I live is Dubai,” the noun “Dubai” is actually not an object of the preposition; instead, it is the subject of the sentence. You see, that sentence is what’s known as an inverted sentence, with the following construction as its normal form:

“Dubai is about 140 kilometers away from the city where I live.”

In this normal form, “Dubai” is the subject and the whole phrase “is about 140 kilometers away from the city where I live” is the subject complement that serves to describe it.

But let’s address the question as to whether the preposition “in” might hypothetically be needed in the original sentence you presented. Yes, it might, but that “in” would need an object of the preposition, say “my Filipina friend,” to function properly, as in the following sentence:

“About 140 kilometers away from the city where I live in with my Filipina friend is Dubai.”

In that form, however, “live in” becomes a prepositional idiom that could mean “to live in one’s place of employment” or “live in another’s home” or, in the derogatory sense, to live with a member of the opposite sex without benefit of marriage—an arrangement that’s legally known as “cohabitation.”

Another thing: Even if that reconstruction is grammatically and semantically airtight, it would be much more readable if it’s also rendered in the normal form as we had done to your original sentence. That normal form would read as follows:

“Dubai is about 140 kilometers away from the city where I live in with my Filipina friend.”

I trust that settles this matter about the usage of “in” for you.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

When subjunctive sentences are needed and how to construct them

Question posted in my Personal Messages box by Nesaga, new Forum member (October 6, 2013):

Please explain the rules on the proper use of “was” or “were” in “If I (were, was)…” sentences, as in “If I were you, I will...” or “If I was there, I would...”

It has been such a long time that I can’t even recall the term on this subject.

Thank you very much.

My reply to Nesaga:

The verb “be” is in the so-called subjunctive mood when it consistently takes the plural past-tense form “were” rather than “was” or “is” in sentences like “If I were you, I would have accepted that job offer,” “If Marian were taller, she’d qualify for the that beauty contest,” and “I wish Edwin were more discreet in his personal affairs.”

Recall now that mood is that aspect of the verb that expresses the state of mind or attitude of the speaker toward what he or she is saying. There are three such moods in English: the indicative mood and the imperative mood, both of which deal with actions or states in factual or real-world situations; and the subjunctive mood, which deals with actions or states only as possible, contingent, or conditional outcomes of a want, wish, preference, or uncertainty expressed by the speaker.

Let’s do a quick review of all three of these moods to put our discussions in full context.

The indicative mood. This mood conveys the idea that an act or condition is (1) an objective fact, (2) an opinion, or (3) the subject of a question. Statements in the indicative mood seek to give the impression that the speaker is talking about real-world situations in a straightforward, truthful manner. Verbs in this mood take their normal inflections in all the tenses and obey the subject-verb agreement rule at all times.

Here are examples of indicative sentences: “The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,100 islands” (stating an objective fact); “Several senators implicated in the pork-barrel scam have outrageously proclaimed ignorance despite the preponderance of the evidence against them” (stating an opinion); and “Who then plundered all those millions from the government coffers?” (posing a question).

The imperative mood. This mood denotes the attitude of a speaker who (1) demands or orders a particular action, (2) makes a request or suggestion, (3) gives advice, or (4) states a prohibition. This mood uses the base form of the operative verb (the verb’s infinitive form without the “to”), and is most often used in second-person, present-tense sentences that use an elliptical subject or the unstated second-person pronoun “you.

Here are examples of imperative statements; “Abolish the pork barrel unconditionally!” (demanding a particular action); “Please keep quiet” (making a request or suggestion); “Take this pill for a good night’s sleep” (giving advice); and “Don’t pick the flowers” (stating a prohibition).

The subjunctive mood. This mood, which only has present-tense and past-tense forms, performs the following tasks: (1) indicate a possibility (2) express a desire or wishful attitude, (3) express insistence on a particular action, (4) express doubt about a certain outcome, (5) describe an unreal situation or an idea contrary to fact, or (6) express a request or suggestion. When used with the auxiliary verbs “could,” “would,” and “should,” the subjunctive can convey even more intricate and sophisticated shades of possibility and conditionality.

Now we are ready to take up the specific rules for constructing sentences in the subjunctive mood:

(1) When indicating a supposition or possibility. Regardless of whether the doer of the action is singular or plural, verbs consistently take the subjunctive plural past tense in “if”-clauses that indicate a supposition or possibility: “If I were to join you in Tokyo, I’d have to file a leave from my job.” “You’d all loss your jobs if Rowena were to implicate you in that funds anomaly.”

(2) When expressing a desire or wishful attitude. Verbs consistently take the subjunctive plural past tense in “that”-clauses that follow main clauses expressing a wish: “I wish (that) she were more reliable.” “I wish (that) I were the team leader.” “How I wish (that) you were home now!” The wish or desired outcome in such constructions is neither a present reality nor a future certainty.

(3) When expressing insistence on a particular action. Regardless of whether the doer of the action is singular or plural, verbs consistently take the subjunctive plural present tense in “that”-clauses that insist that a particular action be taken: “I insist that everyone vacate the room right now.” “I demand that Francis stop that transaction at once.”

(4) When describing the outcome of an unreal situation or idea contrary to fact. The subjunctive can be used to denote a hypothetical state or outcome given a certain condition that is unreal or contrary to fact. Such conditions will often be indicated by the word “if” or “wish”: “If the moon were not there, there wouldn’t be tides on Earth.” Without “if,” such constructions can sometimes take an inverted syntax: “Were the moon not there, there wouldn’t be tides on Earth.”

One notable exception that doesn’t call for subjunctive usage is when verbs like “wonder” or “ask” are used to express indirect questions. Even if the act or state described is evidently contrary to fact, the indirect question should be constructed in the indicative mood: “We wondered if the testimony she gave was [not “were”] truthful in all respects.” “I was surprised that my friend in Norway asked me if the Philippines was [not “were”] part of the Asian mainland.”

(5) When expressing doubt about certain appearances or raise a question about an outcome. Statements that cast doubt on observed behavior or raise a question about a presumed outcome often take the subjunctive form: “She behaved as if she were the only cultured person in class.”

I hope that this has adequately clarified the subjunctive usage in English for you.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

What’s the difference between “for ever” and “forever”?

Question by spelling, Forum member (September 16, 2013):

Hi there,

What is the difference between “for ever” and “forever”?

Thank you.

My reply to spelling:

For those who use the American English Standard, “for ever” doesn’t exist in the contemporary lexicon and would be considered a misspelling of the one-word “forever,” which can either be an adverb or a noun. As an adverb, “forever” means for a limitless time, as in “Only a fool would want to live forever”; as a noun, it means a seemingly interminable time or excessively long time, as in “It took Nancy forever to get herself dressed for her first date.”

Since I know you to be based in South Africa, however, you must have had greater exposure to British English than to American English. I therefore presume that you know that while the Oxford English Dictionary cites “forever” as the predominant usage, it also recognizes “for ever” as an adverb that—like “forever”—also means eternally, continually, or incessantly. You will find an interesting discussion of the usage of “for ever” in Patricia T. O’Conner and Stewart Kellerman’s The Grammarphobia Blog.

Despite the fact that “for ever” is still extant in the British English lexicon, it has progressively gone into disuse. I don’t think it will be missed if it finally goes into total oblivion. After all, “for ever” is pronounced in practically the same way as “forever,” and, whether you are using British English or American English, writing “for ever” in your correspondence or published work today will surely mark you as a diehard nonconformist.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The excessive use of ellipses beclouds the sense of sentences

Question e-mailed by Jhumur Dasgupta (August 29, 2013):

Dear Jose,

I don’t know how to post this query in your Forum, so I am mailing my question instead. Can you please explain whether the sentence below from a news agency is correct? If I am not wrong, I see (that) the phrase “moving closer to banning its broadcasts” does not refer to the appropriate subject. 

The sentence in question:

“Egypt’s official news agency says the interim government has deemed Al-Jazeera's local affiliate a national threat, moving closer to banning its broadcasts.”

Regards,

Jhumur

My reply to Jhumur:

Yes, surprising as it may seem, this admittedly confusing sentence construction from Associated Press is acceptable by modern journalistic standards: “Egypt’s official news agency says the interim government has deemed Al-Jazeera's local affiliate a national threat, moving closer to banning its broadcasts.” It’s actually a doubly ellipted version of the following sentence, which dropped the relative pronoun “that” twice for brevity and ease of articulation:

“Egypt’s official news agency says that the interim government has deemed Al-Jazeera’s local affiliate a national threat and that it is moving closer to banning its broadcasts.”

In this complete, unellipted form, it’s very clear that the doer of the action “moving closer to banning its broadcasts” is “the interim government,” which is the same one that “has deemed Al-Jazeera's local affiliate a national threat.” Many English-language journalists engage in this kind of journalistic shorthand and expect readers to just supply the missing “that” mentally each time it is dropped. This type of ellipsis can work rather nicely and can make the sentence streamlined and more succinct when there’s only one action and one doer of the action, as when we drop the second action, “moving closer to banning its broadcasts,” from the original sentence that you presented:

“Egypt’s official news agency says [that] the interim government has deemed Al-Jazeera’s local affiliate a national threat.”

As a rule, elliptical sentences consist of two independent clauses, one containing the grammar elements the other has left out. The independent clause with the missing elements is the elliptical clause—an abbreviated adverb clause stripped of its subject and verb. When done sensibly, ellipsis can gracefully knock off repetitive words and phrases from a sentence, thus making it simpler and easier to read.

The problem though is that some news reporters and their editors just don’t seem to know when not to do ellipses any further, and I daresay that the Associated Press overdid it in this case and obfuscated the meaning of the sentence as a result. Indeed, it’s no longer clear in that sentence what actor is “moving closer to banning its broadcasts,” making this clause virtually a dangling modifier to readers not wise to the ways of ellipsis-prone journalists.

MORE ON ELLIPTICAL SENTENCES:
Elliptical sentences often read and sound better than regular sentences
Deconstructing and understanding those puzzling elliptical sentences

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Which is correct: “XX is different (than, from) YY?”

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (August 27, 2013):

This sentence I saw in an online US newspaper’s commentary puzzled me: “I chose this dress because it’s different than the traditional wedding gown you see at every wedding.” It presumably might perplex anyone whose knowledge about the word “than” is that it is a conjunction used after a comparative adjective or adverb to introduce the second element or clause of an unequal comparison, as in “Maria is taller than her sister,” “He paints more beautifully than his friend,” and “Their neighborhood is more dangerous to walk at nights than ours.”

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

I’ve grown so accustomed to using “different from” instead of “different than” in this sentence that you presented, “I chose this dress because it’s (different fromdifferent than) the traditional wedding gown you see at every wedding,” that I don’t think I’ll ever have reason to gravitate to using “different than” no matter what the grammatical situation might be. Having said that, however, I must acknowledge for the record here that this is simply a personal choice—my personal idiom, so to speak. Most grammar authorities in both American English and British English maintain that there’s nothing wrong with using “different than”—and even “different to”—in such sentence constructions. Indeed, alongside “different from,” both “different than” and “different to” have been used by well-known writers since the 17th century to convey the same sense.

Check out the exhaustive, very robust disquisition on these alternative usages by Stan Carey, a scientist turned writer-editor and swivel-chair linguist, in his blog “Sentence first.” I’ll take his as the last word on the subject.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

I find it easier to speak fluently in English than to write well in English. Why?

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (August 23, 2013):

In your appraisal (“Too much focus on grammar indeed can hamper learning how to speak in English”), why do you think it is relatively easier to become a fluent English speaker than a perfect writer in English language? That at least is the experience I am myself getting in my quest for perfect English. I always don't have any difficulty making conversations with my lecturers coming from English-speaking countries in our daily communications, and they even are surprised at how 'good' my English is in comparison to that of others. But troubles begin when I am asked to whip up even a small official letter or write just a brief account about my education life. I will spend a very long time wrestling with my mind over the correctness of a word, the proper preposition to apply, whether or not to use an adjective or adverb, or how long the sentences should be. A sentence that I usually make in a matter of seconds during conversation takes me almost 15  minutes to put it down on a piece of paper. 

And that appears to be not a problem restricted to nonnative speakers only: I spend a few minutes every day visiting various global Internet fora run in English, and I shouldn't at all sound ostentatious if I boast myself of having remarkable English-writing skills compared to many contributors there. In straightforward terms, most native speakers whose sentences I come across surely need not ignore signing up for a grammar school to learn how to write well in the language they might be speaking terribly fantastically.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

You are hardly alone in your experience of finding it easier to speak fluently in English than to write well in English. The experience is actually universal, and we can be sure that it’s true not only to learners of English but of most—if not all—languages as well. This happens because of the vast but not well-appreciated difference between spoken language and written language, and in answer to your question above, I’ll explain the reason for that difference as simply as I can but hopefully without being too simplistic about it. 

When we speak, we simply repeat familiar phonetic sounds to convey ideas that have been clearly imprinted in our minds over time by just listening to those who speak the language, in much the same way that young birds learn bird language from the sounds made by their parents and the rest of the flock. The communication medium for speaking is the sound itself and our message gets instantly validated by our own ears and also by listeners other than ourselves, if any. The communication loop is therefore short and joined almost instantaneously.

In contrast, when we write, communication becomes a much slower, highly abstract, and complicated process. We need to harness the many tools of written language—vocabulary, spelling, sentence construction, punctuation, grammar, structure, paragraphing, orthography, typography—and map them on a physical surface (paper, board, or computer screen) to make sense and to clearly convey our ideas not only to ourselves but more so to the unseen or unknown reader. I’d say that just to learn to write passably well in a particular language is a no mean feat, but that to write so well as to become a great writer in English like William Shakespeare—a native English speaker—or Joseph Conrad—a nonnative English speaker from Poland—is nothing less than a stupendous achievement.

So I’d say that there’s no reason for you to fret that it’s not a breeze making yourself as fluent in your written English as in your spoken English. Mastery of written English is a long and continuing process, but from your postings, I can see that your written English is already way above par. I have no doubt that through sustained reading of excellent books in English and more practice in writing in English, you’ll eventually become as fluent or more fluent in your written English as you are now in you spoken English. Then perhaps—who knows?—you’ll begin to see your byline in leading English-language periodicals or in your own nonfiction books or novels, in much the same way that Michael Crichton did after getting his medical degree from Harvard.

Wouldn’t that be great?

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Overfocus on grammar hampers learning to speak English fluently

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (August 20, 2013):

I saw this piece of advice being given somewhere and I want to be sure if it is at all credible: People keen to improve their speaking skills shouldn’t put much focus on learning the basics of grammar. They just ought to spend much of their time talking with those believed to have a good command of English. Becoming proficient in grammar has an effect of making ourselves excessively careful about always coming up with grammatically unassailable sentences, which in turn will tend to slow down our talking speed and raise our level of self-consciousness.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Yes, that advice makes a lot of sense. Too much focus on grammar indeed can hamper learning how to speak in English—and I’d say in learning how to speak any language for that matter. It just makes the learner too self-conscious and too fearful of making mistakes to the point of being tongue-tied and inarticulate. Let’s keep in mind that even in the absence of formal grammar lessons, the child learns to speak and become adequately fluent in a particular language simply by listening to members of the household communicate with it. The child learns to speak a language primarily by imitating its speakers, and the more fluent the people around the child are in that language, the faster the learning process and the better will be the child’s command of it. This obviously applies to English as it does to all languages.

When it comes to writing, however, the situation becomes different: the learner should first learn enough of the vocabulary, grammar, semantics, and structure of the language to be able to put his ideas in clear, understandable writing. As we know, this is a much longer and more painstaking process than learning to speak the language, so it’s no wonder that we sometimes meet professionals who speak English very fluently but whose English grammar is so atrociously faulty that they couldn’t even write a decent sentence longer than five or six words. It is for this reason that every nonnative English speaker, whether young or adult, needs to undertake a continuing self-improvement program in English grammar and usage to be able to speak and write it fluently. Not to do so is to risk making do with faulty spoken and written English for life.

Rejoinder by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (August 23, 2013):

In your appraisal (“Too much focus on grammar indeed can hamper learning how to speak in English”), why do you think it is relatively easier to become a fluent English speaker than a perfect writer in English language? That at least is the experience I am myself getting in my quest for perfect English. I don’t have any difficulty making conversations with the lecturers in my classes who come from English-speaking countries; they even are surprised at how “good” my English is in comparison to that of others. However, trouble begins when I am asked to whip up even a short official letter or write just a brief account about my education life. I would spend all of three hours wrestling in my mind the correctness of a word, the proper preposition to apply, whether or not to use an adjective or adverb, or how long or short the sentences should be. A sentence that I usually make in a matter of seconds during conversation takes me almost 15 minutes to put down on paper. And that problem appears to be not restricted to nonnative speakers only. I spend a few minutes every day visiting various global Internet English-language forums, and I shouldn’t at all sound ostentatious if I say that I have far better English-writing skills than many contributors there. Very often, I would come across badly written sentences by native English speakers who, even if capable of speaking English fantastically well, surely should consider signing up in grammar school to straighten their basic English grammar and usage.

My reply to Mwita Chacha’s rejoinder:

You are hardly alone in your experience of finding it easier to speak fluently in English than to write well in English. The experience is actually universal, and we can be sure that it’s true not only to learners of English but of most—if not all—languages as well. This happens because of the vast but not well-appreciated difference between spoken language and written language, and in answer to your question above, I’ll explain the reason for that difference as simply as I can but hopefully without being too simplistic about it. 

When we speak, we simply repeat familiar phonetic sounds to convey ideas that, over time, have been clearly imprinted in our minds by just listening to those who speak the language, in much the same way that young birds learn bird language from the sounds made by their parents and the rest of the flock. The communication medium for speaking is the sound itself and our message gets instantly validated by our own ears and also by listeners other than ourselves, if any. The communication loop is therefore short and joined almost instantaneously.

In contrast, when we write, communication becomes a much slower, highly abstract, and complicated process. We need to harness the many tools of written language—vocabulary, spelling, sentence construction, punctuation, grammar, structure, paragraphing, orthography, typography—and map them on a physical surface (paper, board, or computer screen) to make sense and to clearly convey our ideas not only to ourselves but more so to the unseen or unknown reader. I’d say that just to learn to write passably well in a particular language is a no mean feat, but that to write so well as to become a great writer in English like William Shakespeare—a native English speaker—or Joseph Conrad—a nonnative English speaker from Poland—is nothing less than a stupendous achievement.

So I’d say that there’s no reason for you to fret that it’s not a breeze making yourself as fluent in your written English as in your spoken English. Mastery of written English is a long and continuing process, but from your postings, I can see that your written English is already way above par. I have no doubt that through sustained reading of excellent books in English and more practice in writing in English, you’ll eventually become as fluent or more fluent in your written English as you are now in you spoken English. Then perhaps—who knows?—you’ll begin to see your byline in leading English-language periodicals or in your own nonfiction books or novels, in much the same way that Michael Crichton did after getting his medical degree from Harvard.

Wouldn’t that be great?

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How long should our sentences be to clearly convey our ideas?

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (August 20, 2013):

Different writers writing about writing well in English have different perspectives over how long sentences should be constructed to effectively deliver the ideas carried by them. Some advocate short sentences, arguing that long ones just tend to confuse and put off readers. Others recommend making sentences as lengthy as they might require to accommodate the information to be delivered. They go as far as to say that short sentences are more preferable for making headlines of stories. Still, there are those who campaign for a combination of both, pointing out that this could prevent the monotony that might arise if sentences are of the same length all throughout in the exposition. Your stating your position on this will definitely put an end to my lingering confusion.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

To clearly convey an idea in the writer’s mind, a sentence should only be as long as it needs to be. It could be as short as two or three words, as “That’s all” in the old Nat King Cole song or “Call me Ishmael” in the opening line of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. On the other hand, the sentence could be all of 4,391 words, which is how long Molly Bloom’s soliloquy is in James Joyce’s novel Ulysses; this formidable wordage, however, pales in comparison with a 13,955-word sentence in British novelist Jonathan Coe’s The Rotter’s Club, which Wikipedia says “appears to hold the record for the Longest English sentence in English literature.” (This time I won’t bother you with a link to a quote.)

My point in citing these highly disparate sentence lengths in published English work is that there really isn’t any rule as to how long a sentence should be. It all depends on how simple or complex the mind of the writer runs, on the personal writing style that he or she has developed, and on the kind of audience being addressed. For practical purposes as opposed to literary purposes, however, I would recommend brevity in sentence construction all the time in the interest of clarity. In particular, I do think that a newspaper reporter would be making a hateful imposition on the reader by habitually writing news-story sentences far in excess of, say, 20-25 words; that a TV news writer would cause confusion and consternation among both news readers and TV audiences by foisting 30-word sentences on them even just occasionally; and that a speaker on the lecture circuit would make audiences doze off without fail by droning on and on with sentences way beyond 30-40 words. 

Admittedly, though, the preceding 85-word sentence above would seem to contradict my very own prescriptions for sentence length. Well, it does, but I suggest that we look at this contradiction as another important aspect of sentence word-counts. Punctuation does change the sentence-length paradigm altogether. Indeed, the judicious use of punctuation marks—the comma, semicolon, colon, dash, ellipsis, and parenthesis—makes it possible for us to write high word-count, many-idea sentences without overwhelming our readers or listeners. This, however, is another aspect of sentence construction that we should look at more closely some other time.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Analyzing a tough test sentence that uses the function word “but”

Question e-mailed by FH from Iran (July 29, 2013):

I overlooked this question e-mailed to me last month by FH, an Iran-based English teacher:

Which choice is correct? Please explain your reasons.

“We can do nothing for Peter but ________ Peter to think deeply about his problem.”
(a) to ask
(b) asking
(c) ask

My reply to FH:

My apologies for this belated reply.

There are two possible ways of parsing this sentence with respect to the function word “but”: “We can do nothing for Peter but ________ Peter to think deeply about his problem.” One is to look at “but” as a conjunction in the sense of “with the exception of,” and the other is to look at “but” as a preposition in the sense of “other than.”

Let’s first test “but” as a conjunction by substituting “with the exception of” for it in the sentence you presented: “We can do nothing for Peter with the exception of ________ Peter to think deeply about his problem.” The gerund “asking” works perfectly both grammatically and semantically in that construction: “We can do nothing for Peter with the exception of asking Peter to think deeply about his problem.” However, the construction becomes dysfunctional when we use “but” itself as the conjunction: “We can do nothing for Peter but asking Peter to think deeply about his problem.” This indicates that while the usage of “but” as a conjunction in that sentence is conceivable, it’s not syntactically advisable.

Now let’s test “but” as a preposition by substituting “other than” for it in the same sentence you presented: “We can do nothing for Peter other than ________ Peter to think deeply about his problem.” The infinitive phrase “to ask” works perfectly both grammatically and semantically in that construction: “We can do nothing for Peter other than to ask Peter to think deeply about his problem.” The construction remains grammatically and semantically correct when we use “but” itself as the preposition: “We can do nothing for Peter but to ask Peter to think deeply about his problem.”

This means that using “but” as a preposition is the syntactically correct choice for that sentence. And let me hasten to add that with “but” as a preposition in that sentence, the infinitive phrase “to ask Peter to think deeply about his problem”—a noun form—functions as the object of the preposition.

By now, it should be unmistakably clear that in all respects, the correct answer choice for the test sentence you presented is “(a) to ask.”

But one more question remains: What about “(c) ask”? Is there anything conceivably wrong with this sentence construction: “We can do nothing for Peter but ask Peter to think deeply about his problem”? This form is actually an elliptical form of the sentence “We can do nothing for Peter but to ask Peter to think deeply about his problem,” with the preposition “to” in the infinitive “to think” dropped for brevity and ease of articulation—the so-called “bare infinitive.” Many professional writers routinely use this elliptical form—I would even say they do so instinctively—for informal narratives and dialogue because it sounds more natural and spontaneous.

This being the case, I must conclude that the test sentence you presented is not very suitable for standard testing purposes because apart from being too complex, it is fraught with grammatical and syntactic ambiguity in actual usage.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The use of the verb form “have to” to express an objective obligation

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (July 10, 1013):

A BBC correspondent in South Sudan made this statement in a documentary highlighting the progress that has been achieved in the two-year-old African nation since its independence: “In a recent past, patients have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services. But now that...”

I found her combination of “have” and “had” not only awkward but also strange. The only such combination I am used to can be represented by the sentence “I have had an accident,” a present perfect construction that uses “have” as a helping verb and “had” as an action verb.

Do you approve of the grammar of that correspondent’s sentence?

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

The sentence “In a recent past, patients have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services” uses “have to” in its past participle form “had to” to express an objective obligation or an obligation imposed by an outside agent or force. In this sentence, the first “have” functions as the auxiliary verb and the second “have” is actually the main verb or the verb that takes the tense. That particular sentence has the following basic form: 

“Patients  +  have  +  had to  +  walk.”

Subject  +  “have” or “has” (as auxiliary verb)  +  “had to” (where “have” is the main verb in the past participle form “had”)  +  bare infinitive

Such sentences are perfectly grammatical constructions where the subject is forced or constrained to act not on its own accord but by a separate, external power. 

Now let’s consider the particular sentence you presented (I took the liberty of replacing the article “a” with the more proper “the” to make the sentence unassailable by grammar purists): 

“In the recent past, patients have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”

Here, the intended sense is that until recently, the patients had no other means to get medical services but to walk for very long distances, presumably because there has been no other means of transport.

Now let’s take a look at the various forms that sentence will take when the subject is in the singular or plural form, whether in the first person, second person, or third person:

“In the recent past, I have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“In the recent past, you have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“In the recent past, he/she/John/Marcia has had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“In the recent past, we have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“In the recent past, they have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”

The strangeness or awkwardness you feel over such “have to” sentences may have to do with that BBC correspondent’s use of the time marker “in the recent past,” which in a very strict sense could be construed as more indicative of the past tense rather than the present perfect. But see how that strangeness or awkwardness diminishes and ultimately disappears when we tweak that time marker to the more precise and more obvious present-perfect forms “until recently” and “until this morning when this rural hospital opened”:

“Until recently, I have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until recently, you have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until recently, he/she/John/Marcia has had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until recently, we have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until recently, they have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”

“Until this morning this morning when this rural hospital opened, I have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until this morning this morning when this rural hospital opened, you have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until this morning this morning when this rural hospital opened, he/she/John/Marcia has had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until this morning this morning when this rural hospital opened, we have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.”
“Until this morning this morning when this rural hospital opened, they have had to walk for very long distances to seek medical services.” 

I trust that these various conjugations and usage variations of the “have had to + bare infinitive” form will increase your level of comfort in accepting and using it.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

What’s the difference between the preposition “on” and “in”?

Question by Al Bagtas, Forum member (July 7, 2013):

Sir, if “on” may be used “on the bus” or “on the plane.” How about with the submarine? Can it be “on the submarine”? Heard that it should be “in the submarine.” Please help.

My reply to Al Bagtas:

For indicating location, the general rule in American English is to use the preposition “in” for being in an enclosed or circumscribed space, “on” for being on a surface, and “at” for being at a point in space.

“In” is idiomatically used in these cases: “The children are [in the kitchen, in the garden, in the car, in the library, in the class, in school]. This is in the context of “kitchen,” “garden,” “car,” “library, “class,” and “school” as enclosed or circumscribed—but not virtually closed or insulated—space.

On the other hand, it’s idiomatic for native American English speakers to use “on” for being in these particular means of transport: “They are [on the plane, on the train, on the boat, on the submarine].” This explains the usage of “on” in this sentence regarding work on a submarine: “One of the typical duties of a Seaman Subfarer is working with non-nuclear divisions on the submarine.”

However, for indicating an action, activity, or process that happens inside fully closed vessels, “in” is the idiomatic usage, as in this sentence: “Previously there were fears that women were more at risk from a build-up of carbon dioxide in the submarine.” It’s in this same context that “in” is used in this sentence: “The vinegar was fermented in big batching tanks.”

In contrast, to indicate being located at a particular point in space, the preposition “at” is idiomatically used: “She was [at home, at the library, at the office, at school, at work] when we arrived.” The context is that these locations are not reckoned as places but as simply a point—a small dot of sorts—in space.

We must keep in mind that these indicative preposition usages are essentially conventional, even quirkish at times. They have no inherent or discernible logic of their own but have simply established themselves over time as the preferred usage by native English speakers. 

FURTHER READING:   
Lesson #8 – Specific Rules for Preposition Usage

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

In formal letters, should we capitalize all job titles?

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (July 4, 2013):

I’d like to know what grammar rules are saying about capitalizing job titles.

I the other day had a “fierce” argument with my Australian professor, who apparently felt demeaned that I wrote her title as “dean of faculty” rather than as “Dean of Faculty” in one line of my letter asking for permission to attend the wedding ceremony of a relative in a distant town. She refused to approve the letter unless I modified the phrase. But confident I hadn’t committed any grammar mistake, I wasn’t comfortable about making the change she wanted, challenging her to show me one grammar rule demanding that all job titles be capitalized. Reddening and shaking with rage, she crumpled the letter in her hand and tossed it in a dustbin, forcing me out of her office while shouting “I am not available to disputant students.”

Do we really have to capitalize every job title in sight as the professor suggested?

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

There are no hard-and-fast grammar rules for capitalizing the first letters of job titles, but in formal written communication, the astute communicator does it as a matter of elementary courtesy. In a well-established social or academic hierarchy, not to observe this formality will understandably be taken as a sign of disrespect—even spite or contempt—for the holder of the position being addressed. I am therefore not surprised at all that your Australian professor didn’t take so kindly to your addressing her in your letter simply as “dean of faculty” instead of “Dean of Faculty.” In a very real sense, you demeaned her, so her outrage towards you, while probably excessive and unbecoming of her, wasn’t at all surprising.

We need to make a clear distinction between the position as a term and the formal job title for it. From a purely grammar standpoint in an exposition or narrative, we can routinely use lower-case characters for the first letters of the position being held by a particular person, as in “Joanna Smith is the dean of faculty of X University.” But when referring to her in her formal capacity, protocol and elementary courtesy demand that she be formally addressed as follows (assuming she has a doctorate, of course): “Dr. Joanna Smith, PhD, Dean of Faculty, X University.” All the more so is capitalization of the first letters of the title required when it is used ahead of the name: “Dean of Faculty Joanna Smith.” By doing this, the writer will definitely be much more welcome and agreeable to the recipient of the message, who then can be expected to be more receptive to what the writer has in mind and what the writer wants to happen or to be done.

But let’s now take up your next question: Do we really have to capitalize every job title in sight as your professor suggested? I don’t think so, but to get the results we want from the people we are formally writing to, we need to be sensitive to their temperament and emotional needs; if they are known to have big egos, we should capitalize their job title as a matter of course. To quibble about the grammatical correctness of doing so would really be counterproductive and—as you’ve found in your case—thoroughly disastrous. The lesson to be learned here is that in formal communication, whether written or spoken, etiquette and precedence—the formal term for this is “protocol”—should trump grammar correctness at all times.

For your better appreciation of the need to observe the social graces, I am posting below an essay that I wrote for my “English Plain and Simple” column in The Manila Times way back in 2004:

The proper and improper forms of address
(360th of a series)

I was surprised to receive e-mail from a U.K.-based Times reader the other day asking me to clarify the rules for writing official correspondence. Mr. Nestor Padalhin, using a yahoo.com.uk address, observed: “My concern is the agreement between the salutation and the complimentary close in official correspondence. The many books on official letter-writing I checked were unanimous on this rule: ‘When the salutation is formal, the complimentary close is also formal; when the salutation is informal, the complimentary close is also informal.’

“I am therefore terribly irritated every time I see official communications from high-ranking officials of both the Executive Department (including Malacañang Palace) and the Legislative Department that ignore this rule. They usually have this salutation and complimentary close: Dear Assistant Secretary Cruz, ending with Very truly yours, or Sir: ending with Sincerely yours

“Shouldn’t the salutation Dear Assistant Secretary Cruz in such cases end with Sincerely yours as complimentary close, and those using Sir: end with Very truly yours? More formal styles can, of course, be used if the addressee ranks much higher than the writer. But I find that many high-ranking letter-writers don’t even know when to use the formal style and when to use the informal.

“Am I correct in my observations? What can we do to correct this situation? Have the rules of official correspondence changed without me noticing it? Or should we just ignore those rules and follow the incorrect usage on the presumption that practice makes right?”

Dear Nestor:

Having never been part of the government bureaucracy, I’m not really that much of a stickler for protocol. But I had worked in a large corporation for many years, and in whatever end I was of the communication loop, I also found it terribly disconcerting to see protocols broken or trifled with. Sometimes, in the deep of night, I would wake up in a cold sweat imagining that I had stupidly blown a promotion by addressing someone of much higher rank as “Dear Frank” instead of “Dear Sir,” and ending with “Sincerely” instead of the more formal “Respectfully yours.”

But you’re definitely right in arguing for judiciously observing protocol in the government bureaucracy; after all, the stability and efficiency of the service depend so much on it. To begin with, carefully considering who is being addressed, I believe it’s good etiquette to stick to one of the three well-accepted groupings of complimentary closes. In deference to people of much higher rank, like a country’s president, a university chancellor, or a company’s chairman of the board, it is only proper to acknowledge their higher station by closing with “Yours respectfully” or “Respectfully yours.” When talking purely business with our superiors and higher-ranking people elsewhere—our own department head or another company’s general manager, for example—closing with “Very truly yours” or “Yours truly” would be more appropriate. But for formal letters to company equals and peer group members, we will hit just the right register by closing with “Sincerely,” “Yours sincerely,” or “Sincerely yours.”

But obviously more crucial in formal correspondence is addressing people of a much higher station in life. This requires etiquette in its most refined, delicate, and—shall we say?—stratified forms. Thus, even if we will rarely ever get to write to such people at all, it will be socially illuminating to familiarize ourselves with the quintessentially correct ways of addressing them. Also, as a matter of good form, we should make it a point to always end our salutation with a colon, never with a comma.

Here now are some representative formal forms of address:

Our own country’s president: “Dear Mr. [Madame] President:” Foreign king or queen: “Your Majesty:” Foreign prince or princess: “Your Royal Highness:” Foreign head of state: “Excellency:” or “Dear Mr. [Madame] Prime Minister:” Supreme Court chief justice: “Dear Mr. [Madame] Chief Justice:” Senator: “Dear Senator [surname]:” Congressman: “Dear Rep. [surname]:” Mayor: “Dear Mayor [surname]:” Judge: “Dear Judge [surname]:” Our ambassador to another country: “Dear Mr. [Madame] Ambassador:” Foreign ambassador to our country: “Excellency:” or “Dear Mr. [Madame] Ambassador:” Military officers: “Dear [full rank + last name]:”, as in “Dear Brig. Gen. Reyes:”

The Pope: “Your Holiness:” or “Most Holy Father:” Cardinal: “His Eminence:” Roman Catholic bishop: “Your Excellency:” Protestant bishop: “Dear Bishop [surname]:” Roman Catholic priest: “Dear Reverend Father:” or “Dear Father:” Protestant clergy: “Dear Mr./Mrs. [surname]:” College or university president: “Dear President [surname]:” College or university dean: “Dear Dean [surname]:”

That’s about all we need to know about salutations and complimentary closes, which is not to say that they are a small matter. They are the hallmarks of elementary courtesy in formal communication. They not only separate us from the barbarians but make us appear much more agreeable, and make those reading us more receptive to what we have in mind and what we want them to do. (March 25, 2004)

As a cautionary note about capitalization, though, I must hasten to add the two paragraphs below from “A Style Guide for Writing in English,” a later essay that I wrote in my English-usage column in The Manila Times:

Capitalization. The unbridled use of so many capital letters in prose can be very distracting; except in cases where they are needed or deserved, upper case letters are actually telltale signs of exaggeration—the prose equivalent of screaming. As a general rule, only the proper names of persons, places, companies and brands, and institutions as well as months and official names of holidays should automatically merit the upper case in their first letters, as in “Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,” “Cebu City, Philippines,” “Microsoft,” “Windows 98,” “Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office,” “Civil Service Commission,” “August,” “Rizal Day,” and “Ramadan.” 

Most other uses of the upper case are best left to individual judgment, but any doubt on this should be resolved in favor of the lower case. It grates on the nerves, for instance, to read cloying photo-captions using upper-case letters, like this: “Madame Alyssa [M…], Supreme Patroness of the Arts and Culture in Asia, cuts the Ceremonial Ribbon during the Company’s 25th Anniversary.” The same upper-case mania also looks awful in résumés and job application letters: “Served as Assistant Treasury Manager in an Acting Capacity for Three Months When My Superior was On Trial with the Sandiganbayan.” This tendency to capitalize first letters often reflects deep insecurity and doubt on the intrinsic value of one’s accomplishments.

I hope that this puts everything in the proper perspective for you.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

In writing photo captions, is it correct to include the time element?

Question by Mwita Chacha (June 29, 2013):

I’ve found myself increasingly developing an interest in the journalism field despite the fact I'm a medicine student. Coming across such journalism terms as “lede,” “byline,” and “inverted pyramid” has really been fascinating.

Yesterday, as I was browsing the Internet editions of newapapers published in Senegal where President Obama has just completed his visit, I bumped into a caption explaining a photo of him and his family arriving at an airport that read “U.S. President, along with his wife and daughters, gets off his plane at Dakar international airport on Wednesday.” 

It has struck me as abnormal that the sentence applied a present-tense verb (“get off”) along with a past-tense time element (“Wednesday”), and I’ve wondered if that is the appropriate way journalists have to do in writing photo captions.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Journalism could be an extremely enticing field for people with a knack for writing and with a touch of wanderlust, but if you have the vocation, the fortitude, and the financial capacity to become a doctor of medicine, I don’t think you should allow your fascination for journalism to distract you from getting a medical degree. After all, once you have become a full-fledged and eminently successful doctor, the option will always be open for you to do medical journalism on the side like, say, Dr. Sanjay Gupta who’s now chief medical correspondent for CNN’s Health, Medical & Wellness unit—and an Emmy Award-winning one at that! (I presume you know that the well-qualified Dr. Gupta had even turned down U.S. President Barack Obama’s nomination of him to become U.S. health secretary.) And as CNN chief medical correspondent, of course, Dr. Gupta is able to satisfy what I presume to be his own kind of wanderlust by going on medical fact-finding and reporting assignments to various parts of the world. That, in my book, is having the best of both worlds in your chosen field!

But back to your question about the use of the present tense by the Internet editions of Senegal newspapers in this photo caption about President Obama’s visit to Senegal: “U.S. President, along with his wife and daughters, gets off his plane at Dakar international airport on Wednesday.” Such use of the present tense for what really are past actions or consummated activities is conventional in English-language print journalism and, even more aptly, also in TV news reporting and in web news journalism because, in this latter case, they are capable of showing live images of events in real time. I have not read any textbook explanation for this “abnormal” tense usage as you call it, but I have always thought that using the present tense of verbs in photo captions is perfectly proper considering that the caption statement accompanies a photograph that has figuratively frozen the action in time. By looking at the photograph, therefore, the reader (with the use of some imagination) gets the sense of the instant action taking place before his very eyes, which of course is the sense that the present tense is supposed to evoke. Indeed, how incongruous and logically dissonant it would be if that photo of President Obama and his family were captioned in the past tense this way: “U.S. President, along with his wife and daughters, got off his plane at Dakar international airport on Wednesday”! Admittedly, my mind is strongly influenced by journalistic convention, but that past-tense statement sounds to me not a description of the instant action I’m looking at but the usual news reportage of a past event that more properly belongs to the newsstory proper.

Purely from a semantics standpoint, of course, the present-tense photo caption “U.S. President, along with his wife and daughters, gets off his plane at Dakar international airport on Wednesday” creates what I’d call a logical wrinkle by mismatching the present-tense verb “gets off” with the past-tense “Wednesday” as a time marker. For the sake of brevity and spontaneity of expression, this logical wrinkle is often overlooked or outrightly glossed over by many editors and caption writers—as in the case of the photo caption you presented—with them not feeling guilty about it. However, the more grammatically exacting and scrupulous editors would routinely avoid this logical wrinkle by the simple expedient of banishing the past-tense time marker to a spinned-off sentence, like this: “U.S. President Barack Obama, along with his wife and daughters, gets off Air Force One at Dakar international airport. They arrived Wednesday to begin their first major tour of Africa…” The first sentence of the caption thus becomes a purely present-tense affair, with the second sentence and all other sentences thereafter taking the past tense to establish the correct timeframe. This, to my mind, is a harmless sop to their own grammatical conscience and a halfway concession to the hidebound English grammarians in their midst.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Two often interchangeable forms of the English future tense

Question e-mailed to me by FH, an English teacher in Iran (June 16, 2013):

“What is the difference between the following sentences?

“(A) ‘I will study in the library tomorrow.’
“(B) ‘I am going to study in the library tomorrow.’”

My reply to FH:

The two sentences above are using two different forms of the simple future tense in English. The first uses the modal “will” together with the verb “study” to express the idea that the speaker will do that activity; it’s a simple expression of futurity. The second uses the so-called “be going to + verb” form of the future tense. This form has practically the same sense of futurity as the “will + verb” form, but it adds the element of an intention or plan to do the activity.

While practically interchangeable in the context of the two sentences presented above, these two future-tense forms could have significantly different meanings or nuances in other contexts.   

Generally, the “will + verb” form is used to convey the willingness to do something on one’s own volition, as in “I will sleep early tonight,” or in response to somebody’s request, as in  “I will come tomorrow as you wish.” The “will + verb” form is also used to express a promise, as in “I will meet you at the airport on Tuesday.”

On the other hand, the “be going to + verb” form is used to signify an intention, expectation, or plan to do something, regardless of whether the action or activity has been clearly figured out or is just a wish or conjecture. Clearly figured-out future action: “We are going to tour Europe on our honeymoon.” “Based on the first-month gate receipts, this new horror movie is going to break all box-office records.” Wish or conjecture: “I am going to be a successful doctor someday.” “We are going to be mortal enemies at the rate we are fighting.”  

When used to express the idea of a general prediction or guess about the future, the forms “will + verb” and “be going to + verb” can be used interchangeably to mean precisely the same thing. Compare: “This rainy season will be a perilous time for low-lying areas.” “This rainy season is going to be a perilous time for low-lying areas.” In situations like this, the speaker has little or no control at all on what might happen.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How the meaning of “score” differs from “a number”

Question e-mailed by Mr. Al B., June 18, 2013: 

Dear Mr. Carillo:

If “score” means 20-39 people, how about “a number”?

Thank you.

Regards,
Al B.

My reply to Mr. Al B.:

Traditionally, a “score” is a group of 20 things—not specifically a range of 20-39 people or things—and it’s often used in combination with a cardinal number, as in that famous opening line of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, “Fourscore and seven years ago…”, meaning “87 years ago.” In the plural form “scores,” it means an indefinitely large number, as in the recent world news headline “Turkish police fire tear gas, woundscores of people in worst protests for years.”

On the other hand, “a number” means an indefinite usually large total, as in “A number of students got stranded in Metro Manila Monday night due to flash floods triggered by a heavy downpour.” In the plural form “numbers,” the word means a numerous group, as in “In predominantly Roman Catholic Philippines, the demonstrators came in numbers to protest the new Reproductive Health law.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How can we teach grammar creatively?

Question by melvinhate, Forum member (June 9, 2013):

Sir,

Good day. How can we teach grammar creatively? Thank you.

My reply to melvinhate:

To teach English grammar creatively, we need not just expertise but imagination—the ability to give a touch of personality and magic to what would otherwise be routine, dry-as-bones instruction and ideas. In short, we need to make grammar instruction interesting and attractive to its learners. But teachers like you know very well that this is easier said than done. I can’t claim to have the innate ability myself to teach grammar creatively, but I have watched and listened to a few grammar teachers with the admirable gift for doing it. Aside from having a good command of English and above-average public speaking skills, they have the power to establish strong empathy with their audience—a knack for connecting with each of them and making everyone feel like a special audience of one despite being among many. And good creative grammar teachers—like good creative teachers in any subject or discipline—don’t take themselves so seriously; they are certainly not the unsmiling, look-at-the-ceiling type that parrots out cut-and-dried lessons without even establishing eye contact (much less rapport) with the class. Indeed, creative teachers typically have a strong sense of humor and are not above cracking a joke or two at their own expense, the better to impart to their listeners the sense or nuance of the lesson. After all, grammar and usage is a language thing and teaching it is all about the different shades of meaning created by combining words.

The truth of the matter, though, is that the teaching of English grammar and language in general doesn’t attract the best and the brightest nor the most creative in in our society, the top tier of which invariably aspires to become medical doctors, engineers, or scientists. As for the rest, it is our misfortune as a nation that economic and social forces encourage them to seek to join the already bloated ranks of our thousands upon thousands of lawyers, or otherwise settle for jobs as call-center agents, nurses/caregivers/househelps-for-export, politicians, or entertainers-en-route-to-a-career-in-politics. Despite these adverse circumstances, however, we are very fortunate that computer technology has made possible the development of modern instructional tools for teaching grammar creatively without demanding a very high level of creativity from the teachers themselves. Today, with the use of digital presentation and construction tools like PowerPoint, Adobe Dreamweaver, and Microsoft Paint, for instance, a competent grammar teacher can easily put together various modular digital elements—typefaces of various styles and sizes and colors, attractive off-the-rack graphics and illustrations, photographs, music, and sound effects—to make instructive, interesting, and memorable lessons in English grammar and usage. In my case, for instance, the PowerPoint program enables me to effectively present in just four one-and-a-half-hour lecture modules what would probably take a whole semester of formal coursework in English grammar and usage (and with middling results at that!); indeed, without the currently available computer technology, I wouldn’t even dream nor dare to cover so much ground in just one seminar day. The secret is in using text, graphics, photography, and color in digital form and combining them creatively with vocal instruction to produce concise but highly comprehensive, interactive, and memorable grammar lessons. On top of these instructional tools, of course, teachers can encourage their students to make the web a continuing source of instruction to improve their English grammar and usage; there’s so much creative grammar and usage instruction on the web that the learner can very easily and conveniently avail of, and it’s mostly for free. In sum, whatever problems may be plaguing the country’s educational system, I think there’s no better time than today for resourceful grammar teachers to teach grammar creatively even if they couldn’t really claim to be inherently creative themselves!

RELATED READING:
The Quixotic Quest for Good Teachers

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

What’s the difference between a teacher and a train engineer?

Question e-mailed by Mr. Juanito T. Fuerte, Forum member (June 2, 2013):

Hi, Joe,

In connection with the topic (chiasmus) you discussed the previous week (“A figure of speech that’s often used to subvert reason and logic”), here’s one for you: What is the difference between a teacher and a train engineer? 

Even if you don’t know the answer offhand, I know you can easily figure it out. But, just for fun,  I thought I’d ask the question anyway.  

Take care and all the best, as always.

Juanito T. Fuerte

My reply to Mr. Fuerte:

Dear Juanito:

That’s a very tough question, and I must admit that I had to scratch my head for not just a few minutes, but to no avail. That’s when I said what the heck, I might as well Google it and lo! the following answer popped out of my computer screen in no time at all:

“A teacher trains directors, and a railroad engineer directs trains.”

As you cryptically hinted in your note, that answer is indeed a chiasmus, with the word “trains” repeated—first as a verb in the present tense, then as a noun in the plural form—to yield different ideas in a deliciously parallel juxtaposition.

Thanks for sharing that chiasmus with me!

With my best wishes,
Joe Carillo

Rejoinder e-mailed by Mr. Juanito T. Fuerte, June 4, 2013:

Hi, Joe,

The difference between a teacher and a train engineer? “A teacher trains the mind, and a train engineer minds the train.”

As you can see, the answer you gave and the one I have may be worded differently but the thought is the same. And you’re absolutely right about the key word “train.” In addition, the word “mind” also came in (as a noun and then as a verb) to add tang to what you described as “deliciously parallel juxtaposition.”

Perhaps it would be even more fun (besides enriching) if you could also think of other questions the answers to which are in the form of chiasmus. You then can invite other Forum members to participate by finding or providing the right answers to the questions.

Thanks for playing along, Joe, and have a good day yourself! 

All the best,
Juanito Fuerte

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Is it intellectually dishonest to cite a source one hasn’t really read?

Question e-mailed by a Forum member whom I’ll identify only as MH (May 20, 2013):

Hi! Is it considered dishonesty if I cite a book, journal, etc., in my bibliography without really having seen the actual material but just read it in the Internet? For example, author A cited in his bibliography the book of Author B about innovation. Then, I just Googled author B and cited in my reference his book. Is this in any way being dishonest?

My reply to MH:

Your question is a very sensitive one that needs a highly nuanced answer, and I will presume here that the question is purely a hypothetical one. We have to begin by clarifying what the term “actual material” means in the context of your question. As you know, in the Internet age, some books now come in the form of e-books, which are books composed in or converted to digital format for display on a computer screen or handheld device. The content of a legitimate e-book—meaning one that’s published, distributed, and sold by a reputable publisher—is exactly the same as that of the traditional edition printed on paper; the only difference is the form by which the reader is able to access and read the content. And, of course, some of these e-books or portions of them end up being posted on the web with or without the consent of the author or publisher. From an information-delivery standpoint, however, it makes no difference whether you read the paper edition or e-book edition of any form of intellectual property like, say, a reference book or a work of fiction or nonfiction. The only thing you need to ensure is that you have read the authentic work or the part of it that you are using as a reference.

Now let’s examine your example of the book on innovation by Author B that was cited by Author A in his bibliography. Hypothetically, you say that you just Googled author B and then cited his book as a reference in your own written work. If what you found through Google and subsequently read is Author B’s book on innovation in an e-book or digital form, or at least the actual chapter or authentic part of that book referred to in your own work, then citing Author B’s book as your reference is a perfectly legitimate and honest act. This is particularly the case when you referred to a particular author or work in a curated website like, say, the Perseus Digital Library, where you can read free of charge the authentic texts of a plethora of books on the history, literature, and culture of the Greco-Roman world (including the whole portfolio of William Shakespeare’s works). However, if all you did was Google the name of Author B and then read his biography on Wikipedia simply to check that he had actually written the book on innovation cited by Author A, and if you actually had not read that book or an authentic part of it that you referred to in your written work, then I think it’s intellectually dishonest to make that reference to Author B’s book on innovation. It’s not enough to go through the motions of Googling Author B simply as a salve to a guilty conscience. Indeed, this form of intellectual dishonesty should be scrupulously avoided by every self-respecting netizen.

Rejoinder  from MH (May 22, 2013):

Sir,

Salamat po. 

I am now writing my dissertation, and I don’t want to be dishonest in whatever way. 

I am truly grateful to you. God bless.

MH

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The difference between “stock knowledge” and “stack knowledge”

Question from Mrbraveheart, new Forum member (May 29, 2013):

Hi Jose!

How have you been? Hope you’re happy and healthy! 

I’ve become your disciple after reading English Plain and Simple. As your disciple, I still reckon that I have a great many things to learn. And one of them is the difference between “stock knowledge” and “stack knowledge.” I have searched the Internet but none of the results can give a valid, justifiable and truthful answer. Hope you can help. Thanks heaps!

Grateful,
Mrbraveheart

My reply to Mrbraveheart:

Thank you for your good wishes! I’m fine and doing quite well.

I would define “stock knowledge” as the set of structured, systemic, and contextual information that one has already learned and internalized; it is preexisting knowledge, as opposed to knowledge that one doesn’t have or has yet to learn and understand. 

As to “stack knowledge,” I must tell you that whatever it means isn’t part of my stock knowledge yet. This is my very first encounter with that noun phrase, so I can’t tell you offhand how it might differ from “stock knowledge.” In fact, a cursory search on the web has convinced me that “stack knowledge” doesn’t exist in the English lexicon at all.

You see, there are strings of words in English that are known as collocations—familiar groupings of words that commonly go together and convey meaning by association. To this category of words belong such verb phrases as “feel free,” “make progress,” and “save time”; such noun phrases as “powerful computer” and “strong coffee” (as opposed to “strong computer” and “powerful coffee,” respectively, which are very poor collocations); and such idiomatic expressions as “gone with the wind,” “straight as the crow flies,” and “tempest in a teapot.” 

The noun phrase “stock knowledge” is clearly a strong collocation that consists of the noun “knowledge” modified by the adjective “stock” in the sense of “commonly used or often brought forward.” On the other hand, when looked upon as a noun phrase, “stack knowledge” doesn’t qualify as a collocation because it fails to convey a clear and identifiable meaning by association. Differentiating “stock knowledge” from “stack knowledge” is therefore like differentiating apples from desktop computers, which is clearly not a very meaningful exercise. 

Indeed, “stack knowledge” won’t sound nonsensical only when we look at “stack” as a verb in the sense of “to arrange in an orderly pile or heap,” with “knowledge” as its direct object. We can then use “stack knowledge” in a sentence like, say, “The function of a computer’s hard disk is to stack knowledge in a memory bank for long-term storage.” This is a very unnatural-sounding sentence, of course, but we can make it semantically more precise by replacing the word “knowledge” with “information.” This time, the verb phrase “stack information” works very well because it’s a fairly strong collocation by itself.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

SOS after testy debate on usage of “resulting in” vs. “resulting to”

I received the following e-mailed SOS about a grammar issue last April 26, 2013, from a newspaper columnist-friend whom I won’t identify here to protect his privacy:

Joe,

I corrected somebody’s “resulting to.” I said it should be “resulting in.” “Show me the rule that says it should be ‘resulting in,’” said she, in a piqued and challenging manner. I immediately picked up your book Give Your English the Winning Edge and looked for the relevant rule.  I didn’t see it or I could not find it.  

Please cite me the rule before the lady goes into a rage. Many thanks!

Oscar

My reply to Oscar:

April 26, 2013

Dear Oscar,

I’m afraid that my book Give Your English the Winning Edge doesn’t cite a definitive rule on the usage of the form “resulting in,” but that form does appear in the list of “frequently misused phrases using prepositions” that I provided on Page 196 in my earlier book, English Plain and Simple. In her pique, however, your friend obviously won’t find the mere appearance of “resulting in” in that list as a convincing argument against her preference for “resulting to.”

Let me therefore cite two authoritative sources below to support the strong primacy of “resulting in” over “resulting to” in English usage:

The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus classifies “result in something” as a phrasal verb that means “to cause a particular situation to happen,” as in “The fire resulted in damage to their property” and “Icy road conditions in Teesdale resulted in two roads being closed.”

In the same vein, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs classifies “result in something” as an idiom that means “to achieve something; to bring about something; to cause something to happen,” as in “I hope that this will result in the police finding your car” and “All my effort resulted in nothing at all.”

I must add at this point that I don’t know of any English usage authority that cites or vouches for “result to something” as a legitimate idiom or phrasal verb.

Now, by definition, a phrasal verb consists of a verb and a preposition or adverb that modifies or changes the meaning of that verb; for instance, “give up” is a phrasal verb that means “stop doing” something, which is very different from “give.” The word or words that modify a verb in this manner is also known as a particle.

In the case of the phrasal verb “result in,” the verb is “result” and the particle is “in”; together, they form an idiom or expression with a meaning and nuance distinct from those of the verb “result” alone. Of course, some will argue that the form “result to” can be used as well to yield the same meaning and, admittedly, it would be difficult to refute their argument from a grammar standpoint alone. Among native English speakers, however, the form “result in” is the conventional and well-accepted usage, such that it can safely be said that the correct idiom is “result in” and not “result to.” Thus, those who persist in using “result to” in educated circles put themselves at risk of being deemed uninformed or—at the very least—unidiomatic in their English.

On several occasions, I had called attention to and critiqued the frequent misuse of “result to” by the Philippine print media. You may want to suggest to your friend to check out my English-usage website, Jose Carillo’s English Forum, and read my critiques on that faulty usage and other grammar gaffes. I’m sure she’ll find it interesting to read particularly “Media needs a reporting standard for prophets and plain guessers” (April 24, 2010) and “Very frequent preposition misuse mars today’s English journalism” (June 12, 2011).

I trust that when your grammar adversary is through with these two readings, she would be enlightened and finally relent in her defense of the form “result to.”

With my best wishes,
Joe Carillo

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Difference between “a little” and “little,” between “a few” and “few”

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (April 8, 2013):

I have lots of problems telling the usage difference between “a little” and “little” as well as “a few” and “few.”

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Follow the modification patterns below religiously and you won’t have trouble anymore using those tricky adjectives:

When modifying uncountable nouns, use the adjective “little” to emphasize the lack of something, and “a little” to emphasize that something still remains, as in the following sentences:

“They have little time to run a successful political campaign.” (They don’t have the time to do a successful political campaign.)

“They have a little time left to do their political campaign.” (They have some time remaining to do their political campaign.)

On the other hand, when modifying countable nouns, use the adjective “few” to emphasize the lack of something, and “a few” to emphasize that something still remains, as in the following sentences:

“We have few good people to run the country’s judicial system.” (There are not enough good people to run the country’s judicial system.)

“We still have a few good people to run the country’s judicial system.” (There still remain some good people to run the country’s judicial system.)

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The difference in nuance between the adjectives “all” and “every”

Question e-mailed by MEM from Rome (April 6, 2013):
 
I am not sure that e-mail is the right way to ask you about my doubt. If it isn’t, can you tell me what I should do to get an answer?

What is correct?

(1) “It is worldwide known that alcohol abuse is bad for health. Alcohol is a toxic substance to all organs of the body, in particular brain and liver.”

(2) “It is worldwide known that alcohol abuse is bad for health. Alcohol is a toxic substance to every organ of the body, in particular brain and liver.”

My reply to MEM:

Either e-mailing me your questions or posting them in Jose Carillo’s English Forum is OK with me. It’s no problem at all.

In the two sentence constructions you presented, “every organ” is the correct, idiomatic usage. Using “all organs” is also grammatically correct, “ever” and “all” being practically synonymous in the sense of “being each individual, part, or member of a whole without exception,” but using “every organ” more closely conveys the individual vulnerability of each of them to alcohol. The sense conveyed when “every organ” is used is that the adverse effect of alcohol on a particular organ may be different or may vary in degree compared to its effect on other organs. In contrast, when “all organs” is used, what is conveyed is the collective vulnerability of all of those organs to alcohol. This gives the nuance that all of those organs will be adversely affected by alcohol simultaneously and to the same degree—a sense that, of course, doesn’t sound very realistic.

Your second sentence is therefore the correct choice, but its syntax needs to be improved to make its English beyond reproach and more fluent. I would recommend the following refinement:

“It is known worldwide that alcohol abuse is bad for the health. Alcohol is a substance that is toxic to every organ of the body, in particular the brain and the liver.”

I hope this helps. 

RELATED READINGS:
Must an adjective always precede the head noun of a phrase?
Usage rules for the article “the”
A puzzling variation in the use of the indefinite article “a”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Distinguishing between subjunctives and second conditionals

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (March 28, 2013):

(Spinned off from “How do we incorporate ‘that’ clauses in second conditional sentences?”)

I think I’ve understood everything you’ve explained except that I find myself having misgivings about the grammar of the sentence “If you were not my wife at the time, I would have said you were crazy.” Were I you, I would write it as “If you had not been my wife at the time, I would have said you were crazy.” “Were,” as I understand it, is only reserved for present unreal conditional sentences—subjunctive sentences in this case. But when talking about events of the past, the linking verb “had been” is what becomes appropriate. 

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Your proposed construction of the sentence in question, “If you had not been my wife at the time, I would have said you were crazy,” is faulty both grammatically and semantically. It incorrectly uses the past perfect conditional “If you had not been my wife” to convey the wrong idea that the woman referred to was previously the speaker’s wife but was no longer so (perhaps by divorce or legal separation or whatnot) at the time being referred to. This sense is precisely the opposite of what is intended, which is that the woman was indeed the speaker’s wife at the time referred to, for which reason he knew that she wasn’t crazy and, this being the case, he couldn’t have possibly said she was.

In contrast, by using the subjunctive past-tense “If you were not my wife at the time,” the sentence “If you were not my wife at the time, I would have said you were crazy” correctly describes the hypothetical state or outcome—one thought of by the speaker at some point in the past—of an unreal situation or idea contrary to fact. Here, of course, the unreal situation or idea contrary to fact is “if you were not my wife at the time,” and the hypothetical state or outcome is “I would have said you were crazy.” The “were” in the “if”-clause or premise is the subjunctive “were,” while the “were” in the hypothetical state or outcome is the simple past-tense “were.”

I hope it’s clear by now that in the sentence under discussion, the subjunctive mood works to describe what would inconceivably happen if someone assumes something unreal or untrue. This is distinct from the function of the so-called second conditional or unreal possibility sentence, where the speaker talks about a possible but very unlikely result that the stated future condition will be fulfilled; in short, the stated outcome is an unreal possibility. Indeed, it’s incorrect to say as you have said in your posting that subjunctive sentences are “present unreal conditional sentences” that use the subjunctive “were.” These two are entirely different grammatical constructs altogether.

At this point, to further clarify the issue about this distinction, I’m now posting here “The maverick behavior of verbs in subjunctive sentences,” a subsequent column I wrote for my “English Plain and Simple” column in the March 23, 2013 issue of The Manila Times:

The maverick behavior of verbs in subjunctive sentences

In my column last week, in reply to a question posed in Jose Carillo’s English Forum, I explained the tough and tricky difference between a subjunctive sentence and a second conditional or unreal possibility sentence. I said that subjunctive sentences are those that denote acts or states that are contingent on possible outcomes of the speaker’s wish, desire, or doubt, while second conditional or unreal possibility sentences are those that talk about a possible but very unlikely result that the stated future condition will be fulfilled.

Based on this distinction, I said that the first of the two sentences presented for analysis, “If you were not my wife, I would say you’re crazy,” is the correct subjunctive sentence, one that describes the hypothetical state or outcome of an unreal situation or an idea contrary to fact. In that subjunctive sentence, I pointed out, the verb “be” in the “if”-clause exhibits grammatically deviant behavior by sticking to the past tense “were” regardless of the person and number of the subject. This is why even if the noun “wife” happens to be singular, “be” takes the form of “were” instead of “was” in that subjunctive sentence.

Now, playing the devil’s advocate, let’s imagine what would happen if we used the present tense “are” in the “if”-clause of that sentence: “If you are not my wife, I would say you’re crazy.” We can see that this is neither a subjunctive sentence (which requires the subjunctive “were” in the premise) nor a second conditional sentence (which requires the past-tense “were” in the premise). While the sentence looks grammatically defensible, it is semantically flawed and illogical. Indeed, the speaker making that statement would appear to be blind or suffering from amnesia, or both. He is unable to recognize his very own wife in front of him or, if talking to her over the phone, he can’t even recognize her by her voice.

Subjunctive sentences exhibit two more deviant behaviors of verbs that make them distinct and semantically different from indicative sentences.

The second deviant behavior is that in subjunctive “that” clauses, verbs in the singular third-person don’t follow the subject-verb agreement rule. They drop the “-s” or “-es” at their tail end and take the base form of the verb instead. Thus, it’s incorrect to construct subjunctive sentences this way: “It is essential that she follows the operating procedures.” “The law requires that he terminates all of his private business dealings before assuming public office.”  The verb in the “that” clause of both sentences should drop the “-s” or “-es”: “It is essential that she follow the operating procedures.” “The law requires that he terminate all of his private business dealings before assuming public office.”

The third deviant behavior is exhibited by the verb “be” in subjunctive “that” clauses: “be” doesn’t inflect or change form at all no matter what person or number is taken by its subject. It is therefore incorrect to use the present tense or future tense for the verbs in these subjunctive sentences: “The ombudsman recommended that we are suspended for a month.” “We ask that you are present at the inaugurals.” “She ordered that I will be here tomorrow.” Instead, “be” should be used in all of them: “The ombudsman recommended that we be suspended for a month.” “We ask that you be present at the inaugurals.” “She ordered that I be here tomorrow.”

As we can see from the above examples, subjunctive sentences perform several other tasks aside from describing the outcome of an unreal situation or an idea contrary to fact. They also indicate a possibility given a hypothetical situation, express a wishful attitude or desire, demand that a particular action be taken, raise a question about a hypothetical outcome, and express a request or suggestion…

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How a second conditional sentence differs from the subjunctive

Question from Mwita Chacha, Forum member (March 11, 2013):

How do we incorporate “that” clauses in second conditional sentences? Specifically, which is correct between “If you were not my wife, I would say you’re crazy” and “If you were not my wife, I would say you were crazy?”

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Distinguishing a second conditional sentence from a subjunctive sentence can be tough and tricky, so I can understand why you haven’t been able to classify the following two sentences correctly: 

“If you were not my wife, I would say you’re crazy.”

and

“If you were not my wife, I would say you were crazy.”

To begin with, those two sentences are not second conditional sentences. A second conditional or unreal possibility sentence is one that talks about a possible but very unlikely result that the stated future condition will be fulfilled; in short, the stated outcome is an unreal possibility. To denote this situation, the “if” clause of the sentence states the future condition in the simple past tense, is followed by a comma, then is followed by the future result clause in the form “would + the verb’s base form.” 

Here’s a correct example of a second conditional: “If I finished medical school, I would be a doctor,” or, alternatively, “I would be a doctor if I finished medical school.” We have an unreal possibility situation here because the speaker didn’t finish medical school and didn’t become a doctor.

Now, of the two sentences you presented, the grammatically and semantically correct form is the first: “If you were not my wife, I would say you’re crazy.” As I have already pointed out, however, the sentence isn’t a second conditional. It’s actually a sentence in the subjunctive mood, a form in English that denotes acts or states that are contingent on possible outcomes of the speaker’s wish, desire, or doubt. This is as opposed to denoting acts and states in real-world situations, which is what the indicative mood does. 

One of the functions of the subjunctive is to describe the hypothetical state or outcome of an unreal situation or idea contrary to fact. It has this telltale marker: when the verb “be” is used in the premise or “if”-clause of subjunctive sentences, it exhibits maverick behavior by sticking to the past-tense form “were” regardless of the person and number of its subject, as in these examples: “If I were a billionaire, I would subsidize the college studies of 1,000 bright students from poor families.” “If she were my age when I was in my mid-twenties, I would have married her.” “If you were nothing less than a political genius, you’d be able to solve the awful income-inequality problem in the Philippines.” As we can see, in the subjunctive form, “be” looks and behaves as if it were always in the past-tense plural regardless of the number of the subject.

Interestingly, if constructed in the inverted form, such subjunctive “if”-clause sentences could do away with “if”: “Were I a billionaire, I would subsidize the college studies of 1,000 bright students from poor families.” “Were she my age when I was in my mid-twenties, I would have married her.” “Were you nothing less than a political genius, you’d be able to solve the awful income-inequality problem in the Philippines.”

But what about the other sentence you presented: “If you were not my wife, I would say you were crazy?”? It’s an incorrect construction of the subjunctive. In form, only the premise or “if”-clause can use the subjunctive “were.” The outcome has to be in the conditional form of the appropriate tense of the verb. 

The first sentence you presented, “If you were not my wife, I would say you’re crazy,” is in the present-tense subjunctive. If the speaker wants to refer to precisely the same situation in the past, he needs to put the outcome in the past-tense conditional form to make the sentence semantically correct: “If you were not my wife at the time, I would have said you were crazy.”

I hope that this has adequately clarified the distinction between second conditional sentences and subjunctive “if”-clause sentences for you.

RELATED POSTINGS IN THE FORUM:
The four types of conditional sentences
Tricky subjunctive sentences trip both academic cleric and reporter alike

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

When it is desirable to position adjectives postpositively

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (March 6, 2013):

We are always told that in constructing a noun phrase, an adjective must precede the head noun. Now how this clearly poorly constructed noun phrase has qualified to be a book title?

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

My first English-usage book, English Plain and Simple: No-Nonsense Ways to Learn Today’s Global Language, has been in print since 2004, and I’m gratified to say that over the years, it has received generally positive critical reviews as well as appreciative reader feedback. I was therefore momentarily thrown off-balance when I read your posting above.

Knowing you to be a nonnative English speaker who’s admirably knowledgeable about English grammar and usage, however, I find your indictment of “English Plain and Simple” as a grammatically flawed title perfectly understandable. After all, the prevailing grammar convention in English is that as a rule, adjectives should be positioned before the noun they modify. This is the so-called attributive position, as in the noun phrase “major dilemma” where the adjective “major” works as a premodifier. The polar opposite of this is the so-called predicative position where “major” works as a postmodifier, as in “dilemma major.” To the eyes, ears, and sensibility of a trained English speaker, this is an awful and patently unacceptable position for that adjective. 

Indeed, the general run of English adjectives doesn’t work properly in the predicative or postmodifier position. Think “blunder monumental,” “nonsense absolute,” and “fool incorrigible” and you’ll immediately realize why. In contrast, see and feel how right and proper those noun phrases become when the adjectives are moved to the premodifier position: “monumental blunder,” “absolute nonsense,” and “incorrigible fool.”

However, due to the influence of French and other Romance languages (as a rule, they position adjectives after the nouns being modified), English has accumulated a sizable number of adjectives that sound right, look right, and feel right positioned after the nouns they modify. They are known as postpositive adjectives, and here are just a few noun phrases using them: “heir apparent,” “time immemorial,” “body politic,” “devil incarnate,” “accounts payable,” “words unspoken,” “poet laureate,” and “court martial.” Through force of repeated usage over the centuries, these phrases have established themselves as perfectly legitimate grammatical constructions in English. 

Native English speakers will therefore now find it terribly out of line saying these phrases the normal prepositive but unidiomatic way. However, many nonnative speakers or learners of English will understandably say them or insist in having them said precisely that way—“apparent heir,” “immemorial time,” “incarnate devil,” “laureate poet.” Little do they know that they are showing instead their lack of awareness that some adjectives can work postpositively.

Now, discounting the fact that English phrases using postpositive adjectives exist, is there any practical use at all for breaking the premodifier norm for adjectives? The answer is a definite yes. Normally, when the information an adjective contains isn’t the main focus of the noun phrase, the adjective takes the attributive or premodifier position, as in “all bright and beautiful things, all great and small creatures, all wise and wonderful things.” On the other hand, when the objective is to emphasize or dramatize the information supplied by those adjectives, it is desirable—if the syntax allows it—to position those adjectives postpositively. 

We can clearly see and feel the intended emphasis—in this particular case, the elevation of language and poetic flourish—that the postpositive positioning of the adjectives provides to these lines from Cecil Frances Alexander’s 1848 inspirational hymn:

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

I used precisely the same mechanism of language to lift the title of my book above the mundane and commonplace. Avoiding the plain-Jane form “Plain and Simple English,” I came up with the much more catchy postpositive “English Plain and Simple” instead.

Rejoinder by Mwita Chacha (March 11, 2013):

I’m most grateful, Sir, for the response; it has really been an eye opener. Before this, I had always been confused by adjective-following-nouns constructions. From now on I’lL try whenever possible to construct my noun phrases in that way, assuming there are no “hard-and-fast rules” that govern such positioning of adjectives.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Situations when the present tense is wrongly applied

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (March 6, 2013):

This question is related to this newspaper sentence: “Two people are killed after their car veers off the road and crashes into a roadside lamppost.” When I saw it, it struck me outright as grammatically wrong because it uses the simple present tense where a simple perfect or simple past would be appropriate. So why do you think the writer of the story was so careless as to not remember that we never use a simple present tense for an action as already completed as the death of those two people? 

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

As a matter of style and to heighten the sense of immediacy of a statement, many established English-language newspapers use the present tense for news story summaries and photo captions. I have a feeling that the sentence you presented, “Two people are killed after their car veers off the road and crashes into a roadside lamppost,” is one such news summary, which is normally set in a bigger typeface in boldface or italics before the news story proper or lumped together with other news summaries in a boxed format. I’m sure you’ve come across many such news summaries in the daily newspapers in your own country and elsewhere. The writers and editors of those news summaries are deliberately using the present tense for past events and are certainly not being careless with their English grammar and usage.

As a rule, newspaper writers and editors also use the present tense for photo captions. For immediacy’s sake, they use the present tense when describing the action in the photograph, as in this caption for a photo in today’s online edition of The Manila Times:

ANGRY MNLF FIGHTERS SAILING TO SABAH. Malaysia’s Defense Minister Zahid Hamidi shows a picture of dead Filipino gunmen at Tanduo Village after the air and ground assault launched on Tuesday against up to 300 invaders.

Usually, after rendering the first sentence of a photo caption in the present tense, the caption writers and the editors revert to the past tense for subsequent sentences in the caption that describe past actions or events.

The main news story related to the photo will, of course, always use the past tense for the actions and events being reported as having already happened. 

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Grammatical dilemmas posed by the usage of possessive pronouns

Question by mioorphosed, new Forum member (February 25, 2013):

Reading a teacher’s manual and saw these sentences. I am confused as to which is proper: Should it be “Guide the pupils in making their portraits” or “Guide the pupils in making their portrait”? Should I consider the nature of the object here—noncount or count noun?  Please help.

My reply to mioorphosed:

Let me restate your question for greater clarity: Should the number—whether singular or plural—of an object be always made to agree with the number of the possessive pronoun? Specifically, in the two alternative sentence constructions you presented, should an object’s being singular (“portrait”) or plural (“portraits”) always determine whether the possessive pronoun be correspondingly in the singular or plural form, too?

The answer is a categorical “no.” Whether the possessive pronoun should take the singular or plural form is grammatically independent of whether the object it modifies is singular or plural. What determines the number to be taken by the possessive pronoun is the sense intended by the writer or speaker. Thus, in the kind of sentence construction you presented, the possessive pronoun can theoretically take these various forms that vary not only in number but also in gender:

(1) “Guide the pupils in making their portraits.”
(2) “Guide the pupils in making their portrait.”  
(3) “Guide the pupils in making his portraits.”
(4) “Guide the pupils in making his portrait.”
(5) “Guide the pupils in making her portraits.”
(6) “Guide the pupils in making her portrait.”

The sentences above clearly show that the possessive pronoun is independent in number from that of the object it modifies. Also, we need to find out precisely to whom the possessive pronoun refers, for it’s possible that the subject could be someone or people not even mentioned in the sentence itself. In fact, it sometimes can only be inferred from the preceding sentences of the exposition.

Now, in the particular case of these instructional sentences, “Guide the pupils in making their portraits” and “Guide the pupils in making their portrait,” which of them has the correct object—the one with the plural “portraits” or the one with the singular “portrait”? As I earlier pointed out, it depends on what the speaker or writer specifically has in mind. And I must hasten to add that none of those two sentence constructions is precise enough to convey an unmistakable sense; indeed, we need to grammatically tweak both to ensure that the pupils won't misunderstand the instruction.

Here are the possible tweaks we can do to those sentences to make them crystal clear:

If the possessive pronoun refers to the pupils themselves, and those pupils have been tasked to individually do a single portrait of someone other than themselves, then the correct form is “Guide the pupils in making their portrait of __________” (plural possessive pronoun referring to the pupils themselves, singular object other than any of the pupils themselves).

If the possessive pronoun refers to the pupils themselves, and those pupils have been asked to individually do portraits of themselves, then the correct form is “Guide the pupils in making portraits of themselves” (plural possessive pronoun, plural object referring to the pupils themselves). However, to make it unmistakable that the portrait each pupil has to do is that of himself or herself, it is highly advisable to qualify the object as follows: “Guide the pupils in making their respective portraits of themselves” (plural possessive pronoun referring to the pupils themselves, plural object referring to the pupils themselves).

Although rather unlikely using the alternative sentence constructions you presented, it’s also conceivable that the possessive pronoun “their” refers to subjects of the portrait other than the pupils themselves. In that case, those sentences should take either of these two forms for clarity: “Guide the pupils in making a portrait of the subjects individually assigned to them” or “Guide the pupils in making portraits of the subjects individually assigned to them.

I didn’t want to make things appear so complicated, but these are actually some of the many grammatical dilemmas we will encounter when we construct sentences involving possessive pronouns and their object or objects. To ensure grammatically and semantically correct sentences, we just need to be doubly sure not only of the antecedent noun of the possessive pronoun being used but also its relation to the object being modified by the possessive pronoun. We should avoid guesswork and never leave things to chance when using possessive pronouns.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Which is correct: “am I not” / “ain’t I” or “aren’t I”?

Question by nutcracker, new Forum member (February 6, 2013):

The tag-question is taught as early as in grade school and as far as I can recall, we add the tag-question based on the verb used in the first part; e.g., “I have given you the result, haven’t I?” (it follows the rule “positive-negative; negative-positive”).

However, I often read in fiction stories this form: “I am a burden to you, aren’t I?” Is this accepted in the Western English language? Been trying to find the rule in this case until I chanced upon your very informative forum.

My reply to nutcracker (February 7, 2013):

In spoken English, as we know, a tag question is a usually contracted interrogative fragment that immediately follows a declarative or imperative main clause, as in “You are now of voting age, aren’t you?” The speaker adds the tag question—in this case the contracted “aren’t you?” for “are you not?”—to get a quick response from the listener. 

The uncontracted equivalent of “aren’t you?” in the first-person singular is, of course, “am I not?”, as in “I am now a qualified voter, am I not?” This isn’t the way educated native English speakers normally say it, though. Almost always, they would contract the verb in both the main statement and in the tag question. In this case, they’d say “I’m now a qualified voter, aren’t I?
   
From the sound and look of it, “aren’t I?” is obviously not the contraction of “am I not?” Its more logical contracted form is “ain’t I?” or “amn’t I?”, but admittedly, both sound and look so awkward that educated English speakers don’t feel comfortable using them. Even if “ain’t I?” and “amn’t I?” are used colloquially in some areas of the United States and the United Kingdom, they are actually deemed nonstandard and improper in polite society or educated circles.

This is why in fiction books and in most other published works, you’d almost always come across the statement “I am a burden to you, aren’t I?” instead of its deeply colloquial equivalents “I am a burden to you, ain’t I?” and “I am a burden to you, amn’t I?” Indeed, most grammar authorities of American and British English consider “aren’t I?” standard usage, so those who habitually use “ain’t I?” and “amn’t I?” as tag questions risk being looked down as uneducated.  

As you pointed out, tag questions normally use the opposite polarity rule for the verb in the main statement, as in this example you presented, “I have given you the result, haven’t I?” However, this rule isn’t followed when people are strongly expressing sarcasm, disbelief, surprise, concern, shock, or anger. Instead, they are apt to use positive tag questions instead: “You think you’re God’s gift to mankind, do you?” “Oh, you will really quit the speakership, will you?” “So you think I’m being funny, do you?” And as a mark of civility or politeness, a speaker can very well attach a positive tag question to a positively stated request: “See me now, will you?” “Do that, will you?” “Please send me the audit report, will you?

The opposite polarity rule for tag questions is also not followed when there’s a breakdown of civility or when people are expressing downright hostility and combativeness. In such situations, negative tags are used for negative main statements: “So you don’t respect me at all, don’t you?” “You really didn’t like my proposed amendment, didn’t you?” “So you don’t think political dynasties are good for this country, don’t you?” In such cases, a negative tag is used instead of a positive tag to express contempt or displeasure or to make the listener uncomfortable about his or her position. 

FURTHER READINGS ABOUT TAG QUESTIONS IN THE FORUM:
“Saying our tag questions right”

Rejoinder by nutcracker (February 7, 2013):

Thank you so much for your very comprehensive response to my query. I’ve been doing my readings in the forum. I admit that the questions raised  here were those that I also encounter regarding English grammar. Your explanations are quite helpful and easy to digest.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The real score on the disputed usage of “who” and “whom”

Response of hill roberts, Forum member, on who’s “a native English speaker” (February 16, 2013):

Kat, who are you referring to when you say, “a native English speaker”? Are you referring to the British in general? or the Americans or Australians/New Zealanders? If you can specify that “all native English speakers” speak the same grammatical way, then you are sadly mistaken. However much you say, “native English speaker,” these people don’t speak standard English in the real sense of the word—grammar included.

Rejoinder by kat, new Forum member (February 17, 2013):

Surely you mean “whom”...?

Admonition to Kat by Joe Carillo (February 17, 2013):

Two things, kat:

First, I think that as a matter of courtesy in this Forum, you owe hill roberts answers to her questions, not try to deflect the issue with your snide question casting doubt on the correctness of her usage of the relative pronoun “who.”

Second, I think you also owe not only hill roberts but all other Forum members an explanation why you think “whom” and not “who” is the correct usage in that posting of hill roberts. 

Response from Mwita Chacha, Forum member (February 17, 2013):

Kat seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing. And as a nonnative English learner holding high opinion of the Forum, I don’t assume this is the right venue for that.

Intervention by Joe Carillo (February 18, 2013):

ON THE DISPUTED USAGE OF “WHO” AND “WHOM”

I agree with Mwita Chacha’s sentiment that this Forum shouldn’t be allowed to become a venue for arguing for the sake of arguing. 

At any rate, in what seems to me like thwarted and deflated hubris, Kat is unable to respond to Hill Roberts’s and Mwita Chacha’s comments about his or her snide posting. Indeed, in contrast to his or her viciously quick stab at Hill’s usage of the pronoun “who,” Kat is now strangely taking such a long time to justify his or her derisive insinuation that Hill’s usage is grammatically wrong. Unfortunately, Hill herself seems unavailable at the moment to post a rejoinder, so some Forum members might get the impression that Hill has found her usage of “who” faulty and indefensible. I am therefore taking the liberty of clarifying the “who vs. whom” usage by simply posting the usage notes of two leading English grammar authorities from both sides of the Atlantic. This is for the benefit of Forum members who’d rather get the usage right without fuss than to be needlessly dragged by a vicious flamer into debating it ad nauseam.

Here are the usage notes:

OxfordDictionaries.com (For British English):

“Who” or “whom”?

There’s a continuing debate in English usage about when you should use “who” and when to use “whom.” According to the rules of formal grammar, “who” should be used in the subject position in a sentence, while “whom” should be used in the object position, and also after a preposition. For example: 

Who made this decision? [here, “who” is the subject of the sentence]
Whom do you think we should support? [here, “whom” is the object of support]
To whom do you wish to speak? [here, “whom” is following the preposition to]

Some people do still follow these rules but there are many more who never use “whom” at all. The normal practice in current English is to use “who” in all contexts, i.e.:

Who do you think we should support?
Who do you wish to speak to?

From Oxford Dictionaries: “Who or whom?”

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (For American English):

Usage Note: The traditional rules for choosing between who and whom are relatively simple but not always easy to apply. Who is used where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, that is, for the subject of a verb or for a predicate nominative; whom is used for a direct or indirect object or for the object of a preposition. Thus, we write the actor who played Hamlet was there, since who is the subject of played; and Whom do you like best? because whom is the object of the verb like; and To whom did you give the letter? because whom is the object of the preposition to. • It is more difficult, however, to apply these rules in complicated sentences, particularly when who or whom is separated from the verb or preposition that determines its form. Intervening words may make it difficult to see that Who do you think is the best candidate? requires who as the subject of the verb is (not whom as the object of think) and The man whom the papers criticized did not show up requires whom as the object of the verb criticized (not who as the subject of showed up). Highly complex sentences such as I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite require careful analysis—in this case, to determine that whom should be chosen as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses away. It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward have often interchanged who and whom. Nevertheless, the distinction remains a hallmark of formal style. • In speech and informal writing, however, considerations other than strict grammatical correctness often come into play. Who may sound more natural than whom in a sentence such as Who did John say he was going to support? —though it is incorrect according to the traditional rules. In general, who tends to predominate over whom in informal contexts. Whom may sound stuffy even when correctly used, and when used where who would be correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? whom may betray grammatical ignorance. • Similarly, though traditionalists will insist on whom when the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom is at odds with the relative informality associated with this construction; thus they contend that a sentence such as Who did you give it to? should be regarded as entirely acceptable. • Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the woman that wanted to talk to you or the woman who wanted to talk to you. • The grammatical rules governing the use of who and whom in formal writing apply equally towhoever and whomever and are similarly often ignored in speech and informal writing.

From American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: “Who”

For those who remain doubting Thomases even after studying these usage notes, I would suggest visiting the following sites for many interesting opinions and examples about the “who vs. who” usage:

1. About.com Guide by Richard Nordquist
2. “Grammar: Whom do you trust?” in The Economist, April 5, 2012

I hope this settles the matter of “who vs. whom” at least in this Forum once and for all.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Which is correct: “am I not” / “ain’t I” or “aren’t I”?

Question by nutcracker, new Forum member (February 6, 2013):

The tag-question is taught as early as in grade school and as far as I can recall, we add the tag-question based on the verb used in the first part; e.g., “I have given you the result, haven’t I?” (it follows the rule “positive-negative; negative-positive”).

However, I often read in fiction stories this form: “I am a burden to you, aren’t I?” Is this accepted in the Western English language? Been trying to find the rule in this case until I chanced upon your very informative forum.

My reply to nutcracker (February 7, 2013):

In spoken English, as we know, a tag question is a usually contracted interrogative fragment that immediately follows a declarative or imperative main clause, as in “You are now of voting age, aren’t you?” The speaker adds the tag question—in this case the contracted “aren’t you?” for “are you not?”—to get a quick response from the listener. 

The uncontracted equivalent of “aren’t you?” in the first-person singular is, of course, “am I not?”, as in “I am now a qualified voter, am I not?” This isn’t the way educated native English speakers normally say it, though. Almost always, they would contract the verb in both the main statement and in the tag question. In this case, they’d say “I’m now a qualified voter, aren’t I?
   
From the sound and look of it, “aren’t I?” is obviously not the contraction of “am I not?” Its more logical contracted form is “ain’t I?” or “amn’t I?”, but admittedly, both sound and look so awkward that educated English speakers don’t feel comfortable using them. Even if “ain’t I?” and “amn’t I?” are used colloquially in some areas of the United States and the United Kingdom, they are actually deemed nonstandard and improper in polite society or educated circles.

This is why in fiction books and in most other published works, you’d almost always come across the statement “I am a burden to you, aren’t I?” instead of its deeply colloquial equivalents “I am a burden to you, ain’t I?” and “I am a burden to you, amn’t I?” Indeed, most grammar authorities of American and British English consider “aren’t I?” standard usage, so those who habitually use “ain’t I?” and “amn’t I?” as tag questions risk being looked down as uneducated.  

As you pointed out, tag questions normally use the opposite polarity rule for the verb in the main statement, as in this example you presented, “I have given you the result, haven’t I?” However, this rule isn’t followed when people are strongly expressing sarcasm, disbelief, surprise, concern, shock, or anger. Instead, they are apt to use positive tag questions instead: “You think you’re God’s gift to mankind, do you?” “Oh, you will really quit the speakership, will you?” “So you think I’m being funny, do you?” And as a mark of civility or politeness, a speaker can very well attach a positive tag question to a positively stated request: “See me now, will you?” “Do that, will you?” “Please send me the audit report, will you?

The opposite polarity rule for tag questions is also not followed when there’s a breakdown of civility or when people are expressing downright hostility and combativeness. In such situations, negative tags are used for negative main statements: “So you don’t respect me at all, don’t you?” “You really didn’t like my proposed amendment, didn’t you?” “So you don’t think political dynasties are good for this country, don’t you?” In such cases, a negative tag is used instead of a positive tag to express contempt or displeasure or to make the listener uncomfortable about his or her position. 

FURTHER READINGS ABOUT TAG QUESTIONS IN THE FORUM:
“Saying our tag questions right”

Rejoinder by nutcracker (February 7, 2013):

Thank you so much for your very comprehensive response to my query. I’ve been doing my readings in the forum. I admit that the questions raised  here were those that I also encounter regarding English grammar. Your explanations are quite helpful and easy to digest.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The correct usage of the apostrophe-s to show possession

Question by clementejak, Forum member (February 7, 2013):

Is it correct that when a word ends in “s” and has 2 syllables, “‘s”  should be added. Like: “Lucas’s dog.”

and

If the word ends in “s” with only one syllable, only apostrophe should be added. Like Kris’ son.

Thank you. Please enlighten me on the rule.

My reply to clementejak (February 7, 2013):

I must admit that it’s the first time that I’ve heard of such rule for forming possessives in English. What I know is this general rule: To form the possessive of a singular noun that doesn’t end in the letter “s,” simply affix an apostrophe-s (‘s) to that noun, as in “Lea’s blouse” and “Rigoberto’s excuse.” However, if the noun is plural or already ends in “-s”, just affix an apostrophe (‘), as in “the mayors’ entourage” and “the winners’ prize” (for plural nouns) and “Ces’ TV show” and “the hippopotamus’ snout” (for singular nouns ending in “-s”). I’m not aware of any rule that makes a noun’s syllable count as a determinant for the use of either the apostrophe-s or just an apostrophe.

There are several special cases that deviate from this general rule, though. For the possessive of names ending in “-s”, it’s possible for the written form to either affix apostrophe-s to the noun, as in “Jones’s dilemma” and “Harris’s itinerary,” or just an apostrophe, as in “Jones’ dilemma” and “Harris’ itinerary.” It’s a stylistic choice that once made, needs to be used consistently. We also must keep in mind that for the spoken form in both cases, the /z/ sound must be added to the name to evoke the plural.   

Applying this rule to the examples of possessives that you provided, we have the following stylistic choices: “Lucas’ dog” and “Kris’ son” (using apostrophe only), or “Lucas’s dog” and “Kris’s son” (using apostrophe-s). We actually have the same stylistic choices for proper names with any number of syllables, such as “Mercedes’ gown” and “Amaryllis’ hairstyle” (using apostrophe only) or “Mercedes’s gown” and “Amaryllis’s hairstyle” (using apostrophe-s). As you can see, the same rule for making the possessive applies regardless of the number of syllables in the noun.  

For a more comprehensive discussion of forming possessives in English, particularly with respect to special cases, click this link to the CCC Foundation Grammar Guide to Writing. I’m sure the site can clarify for you many aspects of this simple but sometimes tricky aspect of English grammar.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The role of the bracket in the English system of punctuation

Posted in my personal message box by forces20, Forum member (February 2, 2013):

Hello, Sir Carillo!

Do we have any topic in this forum discussing the use of punctuation bracket? I cannot find one. 

Thank you.

My reply to forces20:

Yes, there’s a detailed discussion in the Forum on the usage of the bracket. It’s part of my series of three postings in September-October 2010 presenting a unified approach to the use of punctuation in English. For a comprehensive understanding of the place and function of the bracket in the English system of punctuation, I suggest that you read all three parts of the series, as follows:
 
1. “The parenthesis and its uses: parenthesis by comma” (September 17, 2010)

2. “The parenthesis and its uses: the appositive phrase” (September 24, 2010)

3. “The parenthesis and its uses: parenthesis by dashes and parenthesis by parentheses” (October 1, 2010)

And to round off the discussion on punctuation, I recommend that you also read “A grammar conversation on parenthetical usage” to get a better feel of punctuation in actual practice (September 7, 2010). 

When you’re done, I’m sure that you’d have already acquired a clear systems view of punctuation in English and can put it to good use in your expositions.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Which of the indefinite pronouns are singular or plural?

Question by spelling, Forum member (January 9, 2013):

Hi there!

Happy New Year!

Can you please clarify the following;

Do the following words take singular verbs and other singular forms like “is,” “does,” “has?”: “anything,” “anybody,” “anyone,” “somebody,” “someone,” “everybody,” “everyone,” “no-one,” “all of them,” “another one,” “each,” “either.”

Do the following words take plural verbs and other plural forms like, “are,” “do,” “have?”: “both,” “few,” “many,” “others,” “several.”

My reply to spelling (January 10, 2013):

The answer to both of your questions is undoubtedly yes, but I think it will be more instructive if those words that you enumerated are formally identified and classified according to usage.

Those words are indefinite pronouns—pronouns that refer to an unspecified person, thing, or amount, such as “anybody” or “anyone” for no matter what person, “anything” for no matter what thing, and “enough” for as much or as many as needed. They are distinct from definite pronouns, which replace nouns whose identity has been clearly given, such as the personal nouns ”I,” “you,” and “she” for specifically named or identified persons; and the demonstrative pronouns ”this” and “that” for a person, thing, or idea that’s present or near or that has just been mentioned.

By function, indefinite pronouns are classified into quantifiers or modifiers that limit number or quantity, such as “some,” “any,” or “several”; universals or modifiers that refer to an entire group or concept, such as “all,” “every,” and “each”; and partitives or modifiers that indicate a non-specific quantity, such as “either,” “neither,” and “anyone.” Many of the indefinite pronouns can also serve as determiners, which are words or group of words that introduce a noun to denote an indefinite quantity or a definite but unknown people and objects, such as “several” in “several ships” and “a lot of” in “a lot of participants.” 

Having already mapped the domain of indefinite pronouns, we can now take up the matter of which of them are always singular and which are always plural.

The indisputably singular indefinite pronouns are these: “another,” “anybody”/”anyone,” “anything,” “each,” “either,” “enough,” “everybody”/”everyone,” “everything,” “less,” “little,” “much,” “neither,” “nobody”/”no one”, “nothing,” “one,” “other,” “somebody”/”someone,” and “something.” They always take the singular form of verbs, as in “You’ve made so many mistakes today and another is unacceptable” and “Nothing scares me more than meeting a drug-crazed gunman in the street.” 

On the other hand, the indisputably plural indefinite pronouns are the following: “both,” “few,” “fewer,” “many,” “others,” “several,” and “they.” They always take the plural form of verbs, as in “You can assign me to Manila or Jakarta; both are acceptable to me” and “Fifty applicants applied for the job and several have been shortlisted.”

There are indefinite pronouns, though, that can be singular or plural depending on context. They are “all,” “any,” “more,” “most,” “some,” and “such.” For instance, “all” is singular in sense in the sentence “All is fair in love and war” but plural in sense in “We expect exactly 120 participants in this convention; all have arrived.” In the same token, “more” is notionally singular in “This is all the money I have right now but there is more in our joint savings account” but notional plural in “Only six trainees are with us now but more are joining us this next week.”

Still debated today is whether the indefinite pronoun “none” should always be treated as singular. Since “none” means “no one” and “one” is obviously singular, some argue that it should always take a singular verb in the context of countable nouns, as in “We interviewed nine applicants but none has met our expectations.” Grammatically, however, there’s nothing wrong in using “none” in the plural as well depending on context and emphasis, as in “We interviewed nine applicants but none have met our expectations.”

Rejoinder by spelling (January 11 , 2013):

Hi there! 

My goodness, or, as we say in Afrikaans:
“Sjoe!” It will take me days to study your answer!!! Cheesy

Thank you very much.

I sent an e-mail to the person that is handling the orders for your books.  He has not replied yet.  Must I give some more time? Will he get back to me?

Have a nice day!

Related question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (February 2, 2013):

I’ve failed to understand why “they” has been mentioned in this thread in the same breath as other indefinite pronouns. My sense is that “they” falls under the category of definite pronouns, pronouns used to represent a noun that has been mentioned before already.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

You’re correct in your appreciation of “they” as falling under the category of definite pronouns. Indeed, it’s a third person pronoun that’s normally and commonly used in the sense of “those ones.” As such, it serves as the plural of “he,” “she,” or “it” or is used to refer to a group of two or more individuals that are not all of the same sex or gender. However, “they” in the generic sense of “people” is also used as an indefinite subject without an antecedent, as in this sentence used to begin an exposition: “They are the happiest people on earth, and I’m referrring to those who are truly loved and are truly loved in return.” Here, the pronoun “they” actually has no antecedent noun, and even the pronoun “those” that refers to it later is also an indefinite pronoun.

It is in grammatical situations like this that “they” works as an indefinite pronoun. Of course, some grammarians object to this usage on the ground that every pronoun must have an antecedent pronoun, but in actual usage, the indefinite pronoun “they” is considered standard and valid for all kinds context.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How would an exam be reflective of one’s English proficiency?

Question by moumi, new Forum member (January 28, 2013):

How would an exam be more reflective of the actual proficiency of a learner?

My reply to moumi:

Check out this posting in the Forum, “How criterion-referenced tests can help improve your English.” It explains how English-language tests are designed to measure the actual proficiency of learners. There are several other postings in the Forum’s “Preparing for English Proficiency Tests” that discuss the proficiency-measuring mechanisms of tests like the TOEIC, TOEFL, and G-TELP. For good measure, why not take the sample tests provided in the Forum yourself?

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)




Copyright © 2010 by Aperture Web Development. All rights reserved.

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Page last modified: 06 September, 2013, 8:40 p.m.