Jose Carillo's Forum

BADLY WRITTEN, BADLY SPOKEN

This page seeks to promote good English usage in everyday life—whether at home, at school, in the workplace, in public platforms, in the mass media, in books, and anywhere else where the printed or spoken word is used. In short, this page will serve as some sort of grammar police against blatant or grievous public misuses of English.

So, whenever you encounter such misuse, share it through this page in the spirit of constructive criticism. Our ultimate goal, of course, is to bring the misuse to the attention of those responsible so they can make the necessary correction.

Can “meantime” be uttered at the beginning of a sentence?

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (March 24, 2014):

Can “meantime” be uttered at the beginning of a sentence?

That’s what the sportscaster I had a crush on said this morning. Shouldn’t it have been “in the meantime” if that adverb is used at the start of a sentence?

My reply to Miss Mae:

No, I don’t think that “meantime,” which has the same sense as “meanwhile,” should be uttered at the beginning of a sentence, and neither should it be used as a stand-alone adverb anywhere else in a sentence. For it to work properly, “meantime” has to be prefaced with the words “in the” to form the prepositional phrase “in the meantime,” which is the exact equivalent of the adverb “meanwhile.” You don’t say “It’s still three minutes before the start of the ballgame. Meantime, here’s a rundown of the team rankings so far.” Instead, you say: “It’s still three minutes before the start of the ballgame. In the meantime, here’s a rundown of the team rankings so far” or, even more succinctly, “It’s still three minutes before the start of the ballgame. Meanwhile, here’s a rundown of the team rankings so far.”

And while we are at the subject, although both “in the meantime” and “meanwhile” can be used at the start of a sentence, I would like to emphasize that they work properly only if that sentence immediately follows a sentence that states another event, action, process, or period, as in these examples: “You do the groceries now. In the meantime, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” “You do the groceries now. Meanwhile, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” Of course, you’ll also recall that each of those two sentences can be combined into just one sentence by linking the component clauses with a semicolon, as follows: “You do the groceries now; in the meantime, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” “You do the groceries now; meanwhile, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” All of these examples clearly show that both “in the meantime” and “meanwhile” denote a transition between a “before” and an “after” scenario; without a “before” scenario as an opening statement, neither “in the meantime” nor “meanwhile” can function properly as a transitional device.

So while there’s nothing wrong with starting an “after” sentence with either “in the meantime” or meanwhile,” that sportscaster-crush of yours would be ill-advised to ever begin a sportscast with an opening spiel that starts with the words “in the meantime” or “meanwhile.” Without a “before” statement or scenario preceding it, that statement definitely will make that sportscaster sound silly, even nonsensical. And for him to do that habitually would be proof that perhaps his English isn’t good enough for sportscasting—a sorry state of affairs that, well, might just vaporize your crush on him.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section



Previous Feature:

Do we use “most expressively” or “more expressively”?

Question by Espie C., visitor of the Forum’s Facebook page (March 10, 12014):

Hi, do tell which of these two sentences is correct because I myself am not sure:
  
“The last contestant sang most expressively than the other contestants.” 

“Most” or “more”?

My reply to Espie C.:

In that sentence, either “most” or “more” can be used to yield practically the same sense, as follows:

1. “The last contestant sang more expressively than the other contestants.”
2. “The last contestant sang most expressively among the contestants.”

(Note that the word “other” has to be knocked off in Sentence 2 to make its syntax beyond reproach.)

I’d say though that using “more expressively than” is more idiomatic than using “most expressively among.”

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

How to construct sentences with multiple subordinate clauses

Question from Miss Mae, Forum member (February 23, 2014):

Is there a rule or something on using subordinate clauses more than once in a sentence, as in the example below?

“Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” ~weekly newspaper

My reply to Miss Mae:

Whether a sentence only has a single subordinate clause or several subordinate clauses, there definitely are rules for linking them with the main or independent clause. Remember that by definition, a subordinate or dependent clause is a clause that augments an independent clause with additional information, but which cannot stand alone as a sentence. In a particular sentence, a subordinate clause either modifies the main (independent) clause or serves as a component of it. The subordinate clause will typically be introduced by a subordinating conjunction, as what “when” does in the sentence “The workers decided to strike when management rejected their demand for higher pay,” or by a relative pronoun, as what “who” does in “The military academy dismissed the cadet who came to class two minutes late.” In the first sentence, the main clause is “the workers decided to strike” and the subordinate clause is “when management rejected their demand for higher pay”; in the second sentence, the main clause is “the military dismissed the cadet” and the subordinate clause is “who came to class two minutes late.”

Now, depending on the additional information needed to put a sentence in the proper context, it’s perfectly possible for a sentence to have two or more subordinating clauses. For example, the first sentence presented above could take this expanded form: “The workers decided to strike when management swiftly rejected their demand for higher pay and when labor officials summarily ignored their union’s demand for arbitration.” Note that in the expanded sentence, the addition of the second subordinate clause “when labor officials summarily ignored their union’s demand for arbitration” didn’t require any punctuation after the first subordinate clause “when management swiftly rejected their demand for higher pay.”

The second sentence, on the other hand, could take this expanded form: “The military academy dismissed the cadet who came to class two minutes late, who allegedly lied about the reason why, and who later questioned the harsh punishment meted him by an honor committee.” In this expanded sentence, the three relative clauses—“who came to class two minutes late,” “who allegedly lied about the reason why,” and “who later questioned the harsh punishment meted him by an honor committee”—are each set off by commas for structural soundness and clarity. Based on how this expanded sentence was structured, we can say that one rule to follow when there are two or more relative clauses in a sentence is that they must be properly punctuated for grammatical and structural correctness.

Now we are in a position to analyze the sentence that you quoted from a weekly newspaper: “Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” This sentence actually doesn’t fit the bill of a sentence with more than one subordinate clause; in fact, it only has one subordinate clause, “although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” The clause “but adults are not exempted” is not a subordinate clause but a coordinate clause that uses the coordinating conjunction “but” to link it to the main clause “bronchial asthma is common among children.” This linkage means that the clause “bronchial asthma is common among children” and “adults are not exempted” are coordinate clauses; together, they form a compound clause, “bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted,” which becomes a compound-complex sentence when the subordinate clause “although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former” is linked to them.

For clarity, however, I would think that it would be highly advisable to punctuate the compound-complex linkage with a comma, as follows: “Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted, although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” Even with this correction, though, I must say that the sentence suffers from a wrong word choice. “Exempted” is definitely not the right word; “immune from it” would be closer to the intended sense. I would therefore rewrite that sentence this way: “Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not immune to it, although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” 

Having answered your specific question, I don’t wish to leave the subject giving the impression that this is all there is to know about subordinating clauses, whether there’s only one or multiples of them. I therefore would like to show two more examples of how punctuation plays a major role in the construction of sentences with two or more subordinate clauses. 

To begin with, a subordinate clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction can be positioned either after or before the main clause. 

Here’s an example of subordinating clauses positioned after the main clause: “The foreign student was denied admission to law school even after she passed the entrance exams and although she had already paid the school fees.” If the subordinating clauses are positioned before the main clause, here’s how that sentence would be structured: “Even after she passed the entrance exams, and although she had already paid the school fees, the foreign student was denied admission to law school.” It’s perfectly all right not to punctuate the two subordinate clauses with a comma, but as we can see, the statement becomes more emphatic if the subordinate clauses are punctuated with a comma.

Admittedly, subordinate clauses introduced by the relative pronouns “who,” “whose,” “which,” and “that” are much tougher to handle than those introduced by subordinating conjunctions. The need for a comma to punctuate the link between the main clause and the relative clause or clauses is dependent on whether those clauses are restrictive (essential) or nonrestrictive (nonessential). As this is a pretty complicated grammar aspect, I won’t attempt to take up the matter in detail here; instead, I would like to refer you to the very comprehensive discussion of relative clauses in the following earlier postings of mine in the Forum:

Getting to know the relative clauses better - I

Getting to know the relative clauses better - II

I trust that this has adequately clarified the matter of handling multiple subordinate clauses for you.

Click to post a comment or read comments

Click here to see all postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Rejoinder by Miss Mae, December 28, 2013:

It seems that I have more than my grammatical lapses to think of in my quest for achieving good English.

As you had pointed out, the reason I have thought something was amiss in the sentence below is that it is constructed in British English meant for British English-speaking readers:

Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.

So would it be wise if we just stick to one kind of English? Globalization is just around the corner, after all...

My reply to Miss Mae:

Even with globalization, my advice is to stick to American English anywhere in the Philippines and when speaking or writing for target audiences in American English-speaking countries. When intending to live, work, or study in Great Britain or in any of the Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, etc.), you’ve got to learn to speak and to write British English as well as you can. You’ll be amazed by its many differences from American English in vocabulary, spelling, idioms, and syntax. I don’t think there’s any way for British English or American English to meld into just one kind of English. Regardless of globalization, there’s just too much national pride and prejudice involved on both sides of the language divide for that to happen in the foreseeable future.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

When using a parenthetical is necessary in a sentence

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (February 8, 2014):

Is the parenthetical necessary in the sentence below?

“For all its contradictions—maybe even because of them—the region has something for everyone.” (From a government web portal)

My reply to Miss Mae:

Before taking up your question, let’s clarify first what a parenthetical is.

By definition, a parenthetical is any amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence that’s set off from a sentence by some form of punctuation. Its distinguishing characteristic is that the sentence remains grammatically correct even without it, but it isn’t necessarily optional or semantically expendable. It may be needed to put the statement in a desired context, to establish the logic of the sentence, or to convey a particular tone or mood for the statement. Whether it’s optional or necessary largely depends on the kind of punctuation chosen for it.

The most basic parenthetical is one that’s set off from the sentence by a pair of commas, like this one: “Jose Rizal, who was the seventh of 11 children, was born in 1861 to a prosperous haciendero couple in the Philippines.” Here, the parenthetical is the nonrestrictive relative clause “who was the seventh of 11 children.” Recall that a nonrestrictive clause provides information that’s not absolutely needed to understand the sentence; in other words, it is nondefining information. Thus, the sentence will remain grammatically and semantically intact even without it: “Jose Rizal was born in 1861 to a prosperous haciendero couple in the Philippines.” 

A second type of parenthetical is one that’s set off from the sentence by a pair of dashes, as in the sentence you presented: “For all its contradictions—maybe even because of them—the region has something for everyone.” Here, the pair of dashes folds into the main sentence this subordinate idea, “maybe even because of them.” The pair or dashes provides a much stronger break in the thought or structure of the sentence than that provided by a pair of enclosing commas. 

Such parentheticals won’t work when punctuated by a pair of commas instead of a pair of dashes: “For all its contradictions, maybe even because of them, the region has something for everyone.” What we have here is a run-on sentence—a comma splice—because the pauses provided by the pair of commas are much too brief to indicate the sudden shift from the major developing thought to the subordinate idea.

This brings us to the third kind of parenthetical, one that’s set off from the sentence by the curved marks we know as the parenthesis. The question, though, is if the punctuation provided by the parenthesis will work in the sentence you provided. Let’s see: “For all its contradictions (maybe even because of them), the region has something for everyone.” Well, the sentence obviously remains grammatically airtight, but the use of parenthesis instead of dashes clearly implies that the writer or speaker doesn’t attach as much importance to the qualifying idea as he would when he uses double dashes instead.

Now we are ready to answer the question you asked at the outset: Is the parenthetical necessary in that sentence?

It really all depends on the writer’s intention or style. By using the pair of dashes as punctuation, the writer evidently wanted to dramatize the alternative or contrasting idea expressed by the phrase “maybe even because of them.” But note that the writer could as well have chosen to be just matter-of-fact about that alternative by using the conjunction “or” to indicate it, as follows: “For all its contradictions or maybe even because of them, the region has something for everyone.”

This time we find it’s not absolutely necessary to use the phrase “maybe even because of them” as a parenthetical after all.

FURTHER READINGS ON PARENTHETICALS:
A unified approach to the proper use of punctuation in English - Part I
A unified approach to the proper use of punctuation in English - Part II
A grammar conversation on parenthetical usage
---------
This essay first appeared in Jose Carillo’s “English Plain and Simple” column in the February 15, 2014 issue of The Manila Times © 2014 by Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click to post a comment or read comments

Click here to see all postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Rejoinder by Miss Mae, December 28, 2013:

It seems that I have more than my grammatical lapses to think of in my quest for achieving good English.

As you had pointed out, the reason I have thought something was amiss in the sentence below is that it is constructed in British English meant for British English-speaking readers:

Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.

So would it be wise if we just stick to one kind of English? Globalization is just around the corner, after all...

My reply to Miss Mae:

Even with globalization, my advice is to stick to American English anywhere in the Philippines and when speaking or writing for target audiences in American English-speaking countries. When intending to live, work, or study in Great Britain or in any of the Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, etc.), you’ve got to learn to speak and to write British English as well as you can. You’ll be amazed by its many differences from American English in vocabulary, spelling, idioms, and syntax. I don’t think there’s any way for British English or American English to meld into just one kind of English. Regardless of globalization, there’s just too much national pride and prejudice involved on both sides of the language divide for that to happen in the foreseeable future.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section



Certain peculiarities of syntax aren’t necessarily bad grammar

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member, December 19, 2013:

I could only guess that the words are and the are missing in the sentence below. Right?

“Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.” (Gayle Tzemach Lennon, The Dressmaker of Khair Khana)

My reply to Miss Mae:

No, Miss Mae, I’m afraid you didn’t get it right.

Lifted out of its context, the following sentence does look and sound as if it’s missing the linking verb “are” and the article “the,” giving the impression of being run-on, truncated, and nonsensical: “Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women's health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.” But I was able to trace that sentence back to its source, an excerpt from Gayle Tzemach Lennon’s book The Dressmaker of Khair Khana, and have determined that it’s a grammatically airtight sentence. 

The more I dug around, the more I realized that Kamila was only one of many young women who had worked throughout years of the Taliban regime. Driven by the need to earn money for their families and loved ones when Kabul’s economy collapsed under the weight of war and mismanagement, they turned small openings into large opportunities and invented ways around the rules. As women throughout the world always had, they found a way forward for the sake of their families. They learned how to work the system and even how to thrive within it.

Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue. Doctors could still work. And so could women who helped other women to learn basic hygiene and sanitation practices. Some taught in underground schools, leading courses for girls and women in everything from Microsoft Windows to math and Dari, as well as the Holy Q’uran… (italicization mine)

Now, in the excerpt above, note that the indefinite pronoun “some” that starts the second paragraph actually refers to working women in Kabul who are described in the first paragraph; in effect, the author uses “some” as an intrinsic or implicit paragraph transition—a summary word for the major operative idea (“working women in Kabul”) of the preceding paragraph. (Refer to my posting on “Basic and advanced techniques for doing paragraph transitions.”) The transition word “some” could be rendered in full—and make the sense clearer—as “some working women in Kabul,” but the author didn’t do so as a stylistic decision, trusting that the reader would clearly understand its sense from the preceding paragraph. 

Assuming though that the author had used “some working women in Kabul,” the sentence would have read as follows: “Some working women in Kabul staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.”

It’s tempting to think that “are” and “the” would be needed to make the main clause of that sentence read correctly as “Some working women in Kabul are the staff of foreign NGOs,” or, in the elliptical or shortened form, as “Some are the staff of foreign NGOs.” However, it is evident that the author used “staff” as a transitive verb that means “to serve as a staff member of,” in which case “foreign NGOs” becomes a direct object of the past-tense “staffed.” That main clause therefore wouldn’t need “are” and “the” at all, whether in the full form “Some working women in Kabul staffed foreign NGOs” or in the shorter form “Some staffed foreign NGOs.” 

There has therefore been no inadvertent omission of “are” and “the” in that clause, which is grammatically and semantically aboveboard in every way.

Rejoinder by Miss Mae, December 19, 2013:

I had thought are and the should have been placed in that sentence, as follows:

“Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women's health, which are the organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.”

What must be the reason I have found it grammatically and semantically false?

My reply to Miss Mae’s rejoinder:

I don’t really see anything grammatically and semantically wrong with the syntax of the relative clause in the following sentence:

“Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.”

The words “are” and “the” are not needed in the qualifying phrase “which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.” In fact, the presence of those words in your suggested version gives the wrong impression that foreign NGOs are specifically the only organizations permitted by the Taliban to continue in Afghanistan. Nothing in the excerpt from the author’s narrative warrants that conclusion.

I think the reason you thought that something was amiss in that qualifying phrase is that it’s apparently a British English construction meant for British English-speaking readers. As I pointed out in a posting about differences in American English and British English, the two differ in their use of “that” and “which” as relative pronoun or subordinating conjunction (“Why it's tough choosing between ‘that’ and ‘which’ to link relative clauses”). I won’t go at length about their differences in usage here; suffice it to say that in American English, that sentence would use “that” instead of “which” in the following manner:

“Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, that the Taliban has permitted to continue.”

In British English, that sentence can also be alternatively constructed using “which” as follows:

“Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which the Taliban permitted to continue.”

So I’d say that there’s nothing wrong with the grammar and semantics of the original sentence in both its main clause and modifying relative clause. It’s simply that the author wrote it using the British English Standard for a publication primarily targeting UK readers.

Click to post a comment or read comments

Click here to see all postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Rejoinder by Miss Mae, December 28, 2013:

It seems that I have more than my grammatical lapses to think of in my quest for achieving good English.

As you had pointed out, the reason I have thought something was amiss in the sentence below is that it is constructed in British English meant for British English-speaking readers:

Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.

So would it be wise if we just stick to one kind of English? Globalization is just around the corner, after all...

My reply to Miss Mae:

Even with globalization, my advice is to stick to American English anywhere in the Philippines and when speaking or writing for target audiences in American English-speaking countries. When intending to live, work, or study in Great Britain or in any of the Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, etc.), you’ve got to learn to speak and to write British English as well as you can. You’ll be amazed by its many differences from American English in vocabulary, spelling, idioms, and syntax. I don’t think there’s any way for British English or American English to meld into just one kind of English. Regardless of globalization, there’s just too much national pride and prejudice involved on both sides of the language divide for that to happen in the foreseeable future.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

When a complex sentence can’t drop the relative pronoun “that”

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (October 23, 2013):

Do you think the sentence below needs “that”?

“Northern Light Infantry pay stubs and ID cards Indian later claimed to have found on dead soldiers insinuate a different story.”
(Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin)

It could have been constructed this way:

“Northern Light Infantry pay stubs and ID cards that Indian later claimed to have found on dead soldiers insinuate a different story.”
(Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin)

My reply to Miss Mae:

Yes, you are absolutely right! That sentence needs the relative pronoun “that” (but followed by the definite article “the”) to functionally link the noun phrase “Northern Light Infantry pay stubs and ID cards Indian later claimed to have found on dead soldiers” with the relative clause “Indian later claimed to have found on dead soldiers insinuate a different story.” That linkage would have made it crystal clear that the fusion of that noun phrase and relative clause constitutes the subject of the sentence, with “insinuate” as operative verb and “a different story” as noun complement.

In the original sentence construction, however, the writer or editor had yielded to the trigger-happy tendency of some foreign news-service agencies to eliminate the relative pronoun “that” in complex sentences of that type. They do it ostensibly to streamline the construction of such sentences and make them easier to read. When done judiciously, that process does yield what’s known as an elliptical sentence—a sentence that’s supposed to read right and sound right even with some of its grammatical parts obviously missing, with the reader expected to just mentally supply them. 

However, when that process is carried out so recklessly in a longwinded sentence like the one you presented, the construction collapses in an incomprehensible heap of words. Indeed, a more circumspect and sensitive writer or editor would have sensed the danger of such grammatical surgery and would have decided to retain the “that” in the sentence, in which case it would have read clearly in the manner you suggested (but with the article “the” added after “that” to get rid of the ambiguous sense of its use), as follows:

“Northern Light Infantry pay stubs and ID cards that the Indian later claimed to have found on dead soldiers insinuate a different story.”

But even if that sentence is now grammatically, semantically, and structurally airtight, it remains extremely difficult to comprehend because of its unfamiliar syntax. Note that its subject (the noun phrase “Northern Light Infantry pay stubs and ID cards that the Indian later claimed to have found on dead soldiers”) is so unnaturally long, and its verb (“insinuate”) not only so delayed in coming but deeply buried as well under that extended noun phrase. If I were the writer or editor of that sentence, in fact, I would have constructed that sentence in the passive voice for clarity and better reading comprehension, as follows:

A different story is insinuated by the Northern Light Infantry pay stubs and ID cards that the Indian later claimed to have found on dead soldiers.”

This is in keeping with the rule that the earlier the verb is delivered by a sentence, the clearer the sentence and the easier it is to understand.

RELATED READINGS:
Deconstructing and understanding those puzzling elliptical sentences
The excessive use of ellipses beclouds the sense of sentences

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

When are the portion nouns like “percent” singular or plural?

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

There’s this quote from a news report of The Manila Times that haunted me. I put the subject in italics and the predicate in boldface.

At least 91 percent of DAP releases for 2011 and 2012 was channeled to projects under various government agencies and local government units. Only nine percent of total DAP releases for the same period was released to projects identified by legislators,” the DBM [Department of Budget and Management] said.

But if you’re referring to a percentage, what determines the verb that should be used is its object, right? And since the object is the “DAP releases for 2011 and 2012,” the verb should have been “were channeled.” Right?

My reply to Miss Mae:

You’re right. The verb for the first sentence of that passage should take the plural form “were channeled,” so that sentence should be corrected as follows: “At least 91 percent of DAP releases for 2011 and 2012 were channeled to projects under various government agencies and local government units.”

The rule is that in a noun phrase that indicates a portion of a whole—in particular of a portion of the noun “percent,” “fraction,” “part,” “majority,” “some,” “all,” “none,” or “remainder”—what determines whether the noun phrase is singular or plural is whether the object of the preposition “of” that follows the portion word is singular or plural. 

If that object of the preposition “of” is plural, the verb should be also be in the plural form to ensure subject-verb agreement, as in this corrected form of the sentence you presented: “At least 91 percent of DAP releases for 2011 and 2012 were channeled to projects under various government agencies and local government units.” Here, since the object of the preposition “of” is the plural-form phrase “DAP releases for 2011 and 2012,” the verb for that noun phrase should also be in the plural form, “were channeled.”

On the other hand, if the object of the preposition “of” is singular, say if we change the plural-form phrase “DAP releases for 2011 and 2012” to the singular form “the DAP release for 2011,” the sentence will now have to use the singular verb form “was channeled,” as follows: “At least 91 percent of the DAP release for 2011 was channeled to projects under various government agencies and local government units.”  

To get a good feel of this subject-agreement scheme for portions, practice forming other sentences by replacing “per cent” with “fraction,” “part,” “majority,” “some,” “all,” “none,” and “remainder” and then alternatively using singular and plural forms for the noun phrase that serves as the object of the preposition “of.” You’ll soon get the hang of it and routinely avoid the subject-verb agreement mistake you found in that news story. 

RELATED READING ON SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT:
How the mass media can lick errors in subject-verb agreement for good

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

Critique of the awful English of a college magazine in India

Forum member Miss Mae did the grammar critique below of the awful English of the foreword of a college magazine published by the NMSSVN College in Nagamalai, Madurai, India. A scanned copy of the foreword was sent to the Forum last August 8, 2013 by Prof. R. Muthukumar, a business administration professor in that college.

MISS MAE’S CRITIQUE:

There seems to be a problem with how this “Foreword” was written. It should have introduced Prof. R. Muthukumar’s college magazine. So how could a page of acknowledgements pass for one?

Anyway, there are nine other problems in this “Foreword,” namely (boldfacing of problematic grammatical element mine):

1. Capitalization: “We are very delighted to say that Our Magazine is an outcome of hard work of credential people to bring out a veritable publication.” (“O” in Our and “M” in Magazine should not be in capital letters.) 

2. Word Usage: “We are very delighted to say that our magazine is an outcome of hard work of credential people to bring out a veritable publication. (The word should be “credible” instead.) 

3. Wrong Spelling: “It is an anunciation that our college have a collection of versatile people who have an acuity and acumen to speak about prevalent issues of the society.” (It must be how it should be spelled in British English. But I checked. “Annunciation” is really misspelled here.)

4. Wrong Tense: (Same sentence as in Item 3 above) “It is an annunciation that our college have a collection of versatile people who have an acuity and acumen to speak about prevalent issues of the society.” (“College” is singular and should be paired instead with “has,” the singular form of “have.”) 

5. Misuse of article: “The articles strike a propinquity in dealing with sensitive and unique ideas.” (As you have explained in When do we need to use the article “a”, the articles a and an should be used with count nouns only. “Propinquity” is an abstract non-count noun.)

6. Word Meanings: “Kudos to the Editorial board members for meritorious and sincere effort into bringing out a meticulous publication.” (According to thefreedictionary.com, “meritorious” is an adjective describing an action that deserves reward or praise. “Sincere,” on the other hand, is an adjective denoting an action that is genuine and true. But should the Editorial Board members really be congratulated for preparing excessively and publishing a magazine without any pretense?) 

7. Word Usage: “Indebt gratitude should be showered on the management for their encouragement and co-operation rendered for the publication of this Annual Book.” (There’s no such word as “indebt” in thefreedictionary.com;  there’s the phrase “in debt” though and the participial form “indebted.” But even if the word “indebt” is acceptable—or the phrase “indebt gratitude,” for that matter—I still think that it was such a highfalutin expression of praise for something the school’s management should really have done. )

I also find peristrephic too big a word for a Foreword in this sentence: “They have been peristrephic and alert all the time to tap out the talents of the faculty.” (“Peristrephic” means turning around, according to thefreedictionary.com.) 

8. Spelling: “Hence once again we bow down our heads for their untiring efforts taken for the upliftment of the staff members and for the progress of our college.” (Upliftment is an Indian English word meaning “improvement of a person's moral or spiritual condition.” Shouldn’t the Editorial board members stick to one variant of English only?)

9. Inclusion: “We also thank the Edison Printers for having done this work in an excellent manner.” (But this is a Foreword!)

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

After 3 years, the English of a college organ in India remains awful

Here’s clear, incontrovertible proof that whether individually or institutionally, achieving proficiency in English simply doesn’t happen overnight but takes years of continuing study, rigorous application, and sustained practice.

A little over three years ago, on August 8, 2010, Prof. R. Muthukumar, a business administration professor of NMSSVN College in Nagamalai, Madurai, India, sent to the Forum the following scanned image of the foreword page of the college magazine:

THEN (circa 2010):

Last August 8, 2013, Prof. Muthukumar sent to the Forum the scanned image of the foreword page of the 2013 issue of that same magazine, shown below, with the following note: “With an indomitable spirit my college Editorial Board has done it again—in this year’s Magazine!”

NOW (circa 2013):

Comments about the English of the foreword above will be most welcome.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

The problem with the chosen test answer is its faulty syntax

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (June 19, 2013):

Could you please explain why C is the correct answer?

American artist Grant Wood is famous for iconic images such as paintings as 
      A                                              B                                       C
“American,” which became one of the most parodied artworks within American popular culture.
                                                                                                         D
My answer: D
Correct answer: C

Note: The sentence was from TOEFL Structure and Written Expression Test #1.

My reply to Miss Mae:

Your question is about Test Item #78 of TOEFL Structure and Written Expression Test #1. It belongs to the tests under Part B. Written Expression. The directions for these tests are as follows:

In these tests, each sentence has four underlined words or phrases. The four underlined parts of the sentence are marked A, B, C and D. Identify the one underlined word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. Then, on your answer sheet, find the number of the question and fill in the space that corresponds to the letter of the answer you have chosen.

Now, Test Item #78 is as follows:

78.  American artist Grant Wood is famous for iconic images such as paintings as  
             A                                              B                                      C
      “American,” which became one of the most parodied artworks within American popular  
                                                                                                              D
      culture.      

      Answer: (A) (B) (C) (D)

The correct answer choice for this test is the underlined word or phrase that must be changed in order to be correct; in other words, it is the grammatically wrong part of the sentence. By inspection, we will find that there’s nothing grammatically wrong with how each of these grammatical elements are used in the sentence: (A) “American,” (B) “famous,” and (D) “within.” In the case of (C) “such as,” however, there’s something wrong with the syntax of the expression formed by using it: “…famous for iconic images such as paintings as ‘American’.” Specifically, the form “such as paintings as” is grammatically faulty and awkward. For the whole sentence to express its idea correctly, that form needs to be grammatically corrected as follows: “…famous for iconic images in such paintings as ‘American’.” Answer Choice (C) “such as,” which is grammatically faulty, is therefore the correct answer.

It’s possible that you got confused in answering that particular test question because the explicit directions for both Part B. Written Expression and Part A. Structure were inadvertently not provided for this particular set of TOEFL practice tests. We are sorry for this oversight, and we have now provided those explicit directions for the benefit of those who’d be likewise taking these practice tests.

Thank you for your question and for the opportunity it has given us to find out that the directions to those two parts of the test have been overlooked.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

Watch out for subject-verb agreement in incomplete sentence tests

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (June 17, 2013):

Could you please explain why the dependent clause in the sentence below requires the past form of continue?

As strong winds and torrential rains __________ to threaten lives on the Vietnam mainland, the government advised the residents to evacuate immediately.
 
        (A) continued
        (B) continuing
        (C) continuously
        (D) continues

My answer: D
Correct answer: A

Note: The sentence was from TOEIC Practice Test #1 - Incomplete Sentences

My reply to Miss Mae:

Based on its construction, the sentence in question needs a verb to make sense. Answer Choice “(B) continuing” couldn’t be the correct answer because the progressive form of the verb is grammatically faulty here. Answer Choice “(C) continuously” is an adverb and doesn’t fit into the sentence construction. This leaves only Answer Choice “(A) continued” and Answer Choice “(D) continues” as the only possible answers.

On inspection, we find that the subject of the dependent clause is the compound subject “strong winds and torrential rains.” This subject is plural, so Answer Choice “(D) continues” will result in a subject-verb disagreement; of course, it could have been a correct answer if it were in the present-tense plural form “continue.” This being the case, Answer Choice “(A) continued,” with the verb in the past tense, is the only possible correct answer. Recall that in English grammar, the past tense form of the verb is the same regardless of whether the subject is singular or plural.

Rejoinder from Miss Mae (June 18, 2013):

So if the answer listed in D is “continue,” it would be right?

My reply to Miss Mae:

Yes, absolutely. In English-testing parlance, such an answer choice is called a distractor—ananswer that can be correct in an altered context. It is meant to test grammatical proficiency and sensitivity to the nuances of the language.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

“Sick books” issue goes off the deep end, then bubbles up again

There was this story in two of the broadsheets last November 9 that Education Secretary Armin Luistro visited “sick books” crusader Antonio Calipjo Go recently and encouraged him to resume his terminated crusade. This was after Mr. Go announced a few days back that he was shelving his one-man advocacy for good, having been intensely pilloried instead of being thanked for it by the publishers, authors, and editors of the targeted textbooks.

Well, what a coincidence! Just two days before that, a new member of Jose Carillo’s English Forum—his username is pedestrian—asked me to explain what those textbook errors were all about in the first place. He was belatedly responding to a June 6, 2009 editorial of The Manila Times that commented on the several dozens of questionable English passages that Mr. Go had found in six locally produced English-language textbooks. Pedestrian was saying that since there was no explanation for those errors, it’s difficult for him to learn from them.

I told pedestrian that then and now, I just didn’t have the time to critique all those problematic textbook passages, but I consented to doing the following four samplers just to give him some idea of what the problem is all about:

(1) “The rain and storm are needed to snuff out the heat in the air.” There’s nothing wrong with the grammar of that sentence, but its sophomoric use of the phrasal verb “snuff out” makes it sound infantile. To “snuff out” is much too strong and emotional a verb phrase in that statement, for it means “to extinguish (as in smothering the flame of a candle), make extinct, kill, or execute.” And to say that the rain and storm are “needed” to do that snuffing out action on heat is unwarranted personification, or inappropriately representing rain and storm as humans. Here’s a more objective, level-headed way of wording that sentence: “The rain and storm remove heat from the air.”

(2) “Just remember this acronym—DOCSiShQACNMN to make it easy for you to remember the order of adjectives in a series.” It should be obvious even to a preschooler that this is ridiculous advice—to use a tangled, tongue-twisting, terribly-hard-to-recall acronym as a mnemonic for remembering the order of adjectives in a series. We normally expect to get such advice from simpletons, not educators or textbook writers.

(3) “Robert Louis Stevenson wrote the novels ‘The Treasure Island’ and ‘The Kidnapper.’” This factually erroneous sentence is the result not only of the ignorance and laziness of the textbook writer but also the carelessness and cluelessness of the textbook editors. The correct titles of those very popular novels are Treasure Island—without the article “The”—and Kidnapped—not “The Kidnapper.” It’s really unthinkable for the author of that book not to know this, and this kind of factual error makes that textbook statement sound almost like a sick joke.

(4) “My sister is old. She can accompany me to the outing.” This statement is semantically faulty and almost laughable. It gives the idea that old age is a prerequisite for someone to qualify as a companion to an outing. This time, the problem is both semantic and grammatical. What the writer obviously wanted to say is, “My sister is old enough. She can accompany me to the outing.” The adjective “enough” would have been enough to make that statement logical, but the textbook writer evidently didn’t have enough semantic sensitivity to make that distinction.

I told pedestrian in closing that I wish someone would pick up after me and find time to dissect the remaining problematic textbook passages, which I daresay won’t be remedied by simply providing supplemental notes to the flawed textbooks, as had been done by the DepEd. Those textbooks should be withdrawn from circulation as soon as practicable, then replaced with textbooks written by semantically competent authors.

Read The Manila Times editorial on the textbooks with erroneous English!

Read “Luistro backs Go crusade” in the Philippine Daily Inquirer now!

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section


And we thought we’d find typos only in newspapers and books!

Mispelled Road Sign

I don’t think we can blame this one on the influence of too much short-cut texting on the mobile phone.

What do you think?

Here’s the story from Yahoo!

Cringe-inducing typo outside N.C. school
By Brett Michael Dykes

Well, here's something to make your old English teacher gasp in horror: A road contractor hired to paint the word “school” on a freshly paved stretch of road near Southern Guilford High School in North Carolina rendered the traffic area in question a “school” zone.

But fear not for the (surely confused) youth of Greensboro! The contractor, a company called Traffic Markings, has already corrected the error.  Here's visual evidence, courtesy of local TV station WXII.

WXII had some fun with the typo on the air too:

This isn’t the first such mishap on record. Last year, for instance, a Miami-area road crew offered the variant spelling of “scohol,” while in 2007, a team in Kalamazoo, Mich., managed the same “h” and “c” reversal.

Chalk it all up to a bad day’s wrok.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

Reporting English misuse:

You can report the English misuse by e-mailing a verbatim transcription or an image in GIF or JPEG format to jcarilloforum@gmail.com. When doing so, please be mindful of the laws against libel and oral defamation. Our interest is not to humiliate English-language offenders but to help them rectify the error, so there’s no need to identify them in your messages. Just indicate the city, district, street, and general location where you saw or found the particular English misuse to make it easier for those concerned to be alerted about it.

We will also need your full name, residence, e-mail address, and telephone number so we can confirm with you before the posting is made on this page. Just let us know if you don’t want to be identified in the posting so we can withhold your identity. Please keep in mind that this page will be moderated and will not entertain scurrilous reports nor those sent in by anonymous sources.

That said, you can now get started in doing volunteer police work for the sake of good English! It should be a truly gratifying educational experience and you and other English lovers can have lots of fun besides!




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

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Page last modified: 21 April, 2014, 1:40 a.m.