YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

How conditional indicative sentences differ from subjunctives

Question e-mailed by Edsel Ocson, who describes himself as an interested reader (April 12, 2014):

In your recent article about media people and the subjunctive mode (“Some recurrent misuses of the English subjunctive”), I found the following sentence: “It would really be a shame if an otherwise well-written reportage or well-argued commentary is needlessly undermined by faulty subjunctive construction.”

Don’t you think the word “is” in the above sentence should be changed to “were”?

My reply to Edsel Ocson:

No, the “is” in that sentence of mine shouldn’t be changed to “were” because it’s not a subjunctive sentence but a conditional sentence in the indicative mood. A conditional sentence is the type of sentence that conveys the idea that the action in the main clause can take place only if the condition in the subordinate clause—the “if”-clause—is fulfilled; its mood is indicative because it denotes acts and states in real-world situations, as in that sentence of mine that you are asking about. On the other hand, a subjunctive sentence is one that denotes acts or states that are contingent on possible outcomes of the speaker’s wish, desire, or doubt; it is in subjunctive sentences using an “if”-clause that the verb “be” exhibits maverick behavior, sticking to the past-tense subjunctive form “were” all throughout, regardless of the person and number of its subject.

This sentence of mine is in the indicative mood because, as I indicated earlier, it denotes an act and a state in a real-world situation: “It would really be a shame if an otherwise well-written reportage or well-argued commentary is needlessly undermined by faulty subjunctive construction.” It belongs to the type of conditional sentence called the zero conditional (certainty), which denotes a condition whose result is always true and always the same. In such conditional sentences, the “if” clause states the condition in the simple present tense, is followed by a comma, then is followed by the result clause also in the simple present tense, as in this basic example: “People get dehydrated if they don’t drink water” or, in the inverted form, “If people don’t drink water, they get dehydrated.” The sentence of mine that’s in question here has precisely the same conditional form: “It would really be a shame if an otherwise well-written reportage or well-argued commentary is needlessly undermined by faulty subjunctive construction” or, in the inverted form, “If an otherwise well-written reportage or well-argued commentary is needlessly undermined by faulty subjunctive construction, it would really be a shame.” (Here, as a nuance, I used “would” as a weaker form of the present-tense indicative “will.”)

Now I will explain why the word “is” in that sentence of mine can’t be changed to “were,” a change that conceivably would make it a subjunctive sentence. It’s because that sentence describes the outcome of an act or state in a real-world situation, making it indicative in the conditional sense. If we revise that sentence to describe the outcome of an unreal situation or idea contrary to fact, then it would become a subjunctive sentence that uses the subjunctive “were” instead of the indicative “is.” A usual way to do that is to express the condition as a wish: “Deeply embarrassed, the reporter wished that his otherwise well-written reportage or well-argued commentary were not needlessly undermined by faulty subjunctive construction.”

That sentence describing an outcome of an unreal situation or idea contrary to fact is just one of the many kinds of subjunctive sentences in which the verb “is” exhibits deviant behavior, consistently taking either the form of “were” or “be” regardless of the person and number of its subject. It will take so long to discuss all those types of sentences now but I’ll be taking them up in detail in the subsequent installments of my column in today’s issue of The Manila Times, “Some recurrent misuses of the English subjunctive.” Of course, you have the option of going to Jose Carillo’s English Forum now to check out my previous postings on conditional sentences (start with “Do better than a calculated guess in handling conditional sentences”) and subjunctive sentences (start with “When are subjunctive sentences called for and how are they constructed?”). Doing that now will definitely give you a head start and an edge in attaining mastery of these rather confusing and tricky aspects 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)

Using euphemism to cushion the blow of request rejections

It’s tempting to say that plain, simple, and forthright English is the best way to phrase a response, but there are highly sensitive situations when it could be such a terrible aggravation. For such situations, we need to take recourse instead to euphemism—an indirect, gentler phrasing of our message so it won’t cause offense or arouse hostility. This is the kind of English that I would advise when, say, rejecting applications for a requested service like a credit card, a postpaid smart phone facility, or perhaps a car or housing loan.

Let’s hear from DMP, a customer service representative who asked for advice last March 20, 2014 on how to deal with such tough on-the-job communication situations:

My reply to DMP:

When turning down somebody’s service application for reasons that are sensitive in nature, you will need to say it in something other than plain, simple, and forthright English. You have to take recourse to euphemistic language, or an agreeable or inoffensive statement that won’t suggest something unpleasant. This, of course, is nothing less than applied diplomacy—the skill of handling affairs without arousing hostility. It’s an art form that needs to be learned and practiced purposively and rigorously both in words and in action.

Let’s see how you might euphemistically phrase your responses to the three situations you presented:

1. Rejection due to bankruptcy status: “We regret that we will be unable to approve your service application at this time due an unfavorable report we have obtained about (your, your company’s) current credit status.”

2. Rejection due to impending company closure: “We regret that we will be unable to approve your service application at this time due to advice we received that your company will be ceasing operations in the immediate future.”

3. Rejection due to negative feedback from the applicant’s family: “We regret that we will be unable to approve your service application at this time due to unfavorable advice we received from your family regarding the need for the service.”

General statements like these are usually designed to redirect the onus of the rejection from the entity making the rejection to an agency other than the applicant himself or herself. The statement need to be phrased in a way that doesn’t pointedly pass judgment on the applicant but encourages a quiet, nondefensive self-reappraisal of why he or she can’t be given what is being requested or asked for.

I trust that these thoughts will be of help to you in fashioning your service rejection letters.

Click to read responses or post a response

Why are legal documents and contracts hard to understand?

Question by bonruiz, Forum member (March 5, 2014):

Sir, I hope you can enlighten me on why legal documents and contracts use too many unnecessary words that are not direct to the point and hard to understand? 

Is this a lawyer’s standard procedure so he can be the only one who can interpret and make money out of it? 

Most legal contracts and documents are too wordy, not direct to the point and confusing (terrible grammar). Is this standard practice in law? Why can’t they make it simple and precise?

My reply to bonruiz:

Your first question is why legal documents and contracts use too many unnecessary words, words that you say are not direct to the point and are hard to understand.

The answer is that these legal documents and contracts use a language that’s called legalese—the jargon or specialized language that lawyers use to communicate with fellow lawyers and other members of the legal community, particularly justices, judges, and paralegals. This language presumes that the target audience—whether readers or listeners—is adequately knowledgeable with legal concepts and the legal system. This is why to laypersons not equipped with or are not privy to this knowledge, legalese would read and sound much too wordy for comfort and, very often, beyond understanding and comprehension.

Your next question is whether the use of legalese is a standard procedure of lawyers so that only they can interpret the document or contract and thus be able to make money from those who need or have use for those documents and contracts.

I think that this is a very harsh assessment of the motivation of lawyers in writing or speaking in legalese. Here, from a lawyer who writes under the username WiseGeek, is I think a fair, levelheaded justification for legalese:

In contrast, here’s a more candid justification for the complexity of legalese from a lawyer who blogs under the username SoMeLaw Thoughts:

Now, your third question is whether it’s standard practice in law to make most contracts and documents too wordy, not direct to the point, confusing—and also to have terrible grammar.

I doubt if it’s standard practice in law to deliberately and viciously make contracts and documents very wordy, not direct to the point, confusing—and also to make their grammar terrible. Legalese is, I think, simply the present-day outcome of centuries of overcareful, overzealous, overprecise, overwrought, and overbearing formulation, implementation, interpretation, and application of the law in evolving societies. It’s an arcane, stultifying language that generations of lawyers and other legal practitioners have not seen fit or bothered to simplify for clarity of expression and for easier understanding by laypeople. Indeed, for no better reason than convenience, modern-day legal practitioners still resort to and freely use many of the English-language legal templates and language quirks that date back to Victorian England and even earlier. They do so as if totally oblivious of the evolution of the English language in our Telecommunication Age towards accuracy, brevity, and clarity. I also think this is precisely why you’ve gotten the wrong impression that most contracts have terrible English grammar. Actually, on close examination, their English grammar would most often be aboveboard, except that their syntax and construction are those of a long bygone era, when those documents were still laboriously composed by longhand using quill and ink. In a very real sense, then, most contracts and legal documents today are composed by lawyers as if they are living in a time warp, making them—both the documents and the lawyers—sound terribly outdated, even archaic.

Your last question is whether it’s possible to make contracts and legal documents simple and precise. My personal answer is that, particularly in a democratic country like ours, it’s not only possible but highly desirable. In recent years, in fact, there has been a growing movement in North America and in the United Kingdom to use plain and simple English not only in contracts and legal documents but also in court litigation and in legislation, the better for laypeople to understand, appreciate, and follow the law as well as to assert their rights and fulfill their responsibilities as members of society. Read, for instance, “Lawyers Should Use Plain Language,” an article by Carol M. Bast in the Florida Bar Journal for a comprehensive discussion of the plain language trend and legislation in the United States. 

Let’s just hope that the plain language movement and legislation will soon catch on in the Philippines as well.

--------------
For a much richer appreciation of how legalese differs from plain and simple English, read:
“A Visit from St. Nicholas” (’Twas the Night Before Christmas), a poem by Clement Clarke Moore
then compare to:
“The Night Before Christmas, Legally Speaking” (Parody)

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Precision in expressing various levels of academic distinction

Question posted by Michelle F. Villanueva in the Forum’s Facebook page (February 22, 2014):

Please enlighten me because here in my new school, they keep on saying “with highest honors.” Is this correct? I believe this must be “with the highest honors.”

My reply to Michelle:

The precise phrasing is actually “with highest honors,” which is English for the Latin term summa cum laude. In comparison, “with high honors” is magna cum laude, and “with honors,” cum laude. In this context, the phrasing “with the highest honors”—made emphatic by the definite article “the”—doesn’t correspond to a specific honor level and rather sounds like a gratuitous stretch, perhaps even a boastful exaggeration.”

Check the posting in Jose Carillo’s Facebook Page

EARLIER RELATED QUESTION:
Should we use “First Honors” or “First Honor” in grade school?

Question e-mailed by Paul Gubac, Forum member (January 21, 2014):

What is the difference between “First Honors” and “First Honor”?

Is it right to use “First Honor” to refer to a Grade I pupil who has earned the highest distinction in class during Recognition Day? What is the appropriate or correct one to use, the one without “s” or the one with “s”?

My reply to Paul:

In the primary school system in the Philippines, the predominant usage is the singular form “First Honor.” I’m sure no one will question the use of “First Honor” for a Grade I pupil who has earned that highest distinction in class; it’s the norm for as back as I can remember. As an adult, however, a recipient of that distinction might be unable to resist the temptation to pluralize it to “First Honors” in a résumé or curriculum vitae, but it will most likely be an affectation—a vain attempt to overvalue what that honor is really worth.

In contrast, the usage of the term “First Honors”—plural—is pretty well standard in the undergraduate educational system of Great Britain and such Commonwealth countries as Australia, Canada, Republic of Ireland, and New Zealand as well as former colonies of England in Africa that are now independent nations. It’s part of an academic recognition system where a degree may be awarded “with honours” or “without honours” (note the “u” after the second “o,” a unique feature of British English spelling). In that system, there’s a class of honours degrees (based on a weighted average mark of the assessed work that a candidate has completed) classified as follows:

First class honours (1st)
Second class honours, upper division (2:1)
Second class honours, lower division (2:2)
Third class honours (3rd)
Ordinary degree (pass)

So, unless we are talking about undergraduate achievement in the UK and the Commonwealth countries, it would be highly advisable to just use the singular “First Honor.” To pluralize it to “First Honors” particularly in the Philippines could very well be perceived as an attempt to exaggerate the distinction, thus only serving to debase rather than emphasize it.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The usage of “can” and “could” and “will” and “would”

A Hong Kong-based contributor to Jose Carillo’s English Forum, Isabel E., e-mailed me the following questions a few days ago:

“Joe, have you tackled ‘can’ and ‘could,” which are often misused? Come to think of it, ‘will’ and ‘would’ can also get confusing sometimes. And while I’m at it, have you ever discussed the quaint use of ‘sir’ before male first names by Filipino underlings towards their bosses? This is obviously a colonial hang-up that’s comical in its obsequiousness.”

My reply to Isabel E.:

Yes, I’ve tackled “can” and “could” and “will” and “would” several times in the Forum, but for those who still get baffled by these modals, I’ll now quickly discuss their usage by way of review.

As we learn early in English grammar, “can” and “could” convey the idea of ability, possibility, permission, or potential; “can” is the present-tense form, as in “She can play the piano,” but it inflects to “could” in the past tense,” as in “There was a time when she could play the piano.”

On the other hand, “will” and “would” convey the idea of desire, choice, willingness, consent, or habitual or customary action; “will” is the present-tense form, as in “We will follow his orders without question,” but it inflects to “would” in the past tense, as in “During his first year in office, we would follow his orders without question.” We must keep in mind that the modal use of “will” is distinct from its use for expressing simple futurity, as in “She will leave for Singapore at noon tomorrow.”

Apart from these basic uses, these four modal forms can convey various other senses and nuances.

In particular, “can” is also used (a) for declaring what can be perceived by the senses, as in “I can taste a hint of lime in this drink”; (b) for saying what can possibly be done: “You can sleep all day if you want”; (c) for conveying the idea of of being allowed to do something or having the right or power to do something: “You can live in my apartment while I’m away”; and (d) as a mark of civility or politeness when making spoken requests or when offering or suggesting something: “Can you tell me how to refuse his offer without offending him?” (This is in contrast to bluntly saying, “Tell me how to refuse his offer without offending him.”).

On the other hand, “could” is used to make a deferential or more polite request, offer, or suggestion: “Could you tell me how to refuse his offer without offending him?” This use of “could” instead of “can” is largely dictated by the speaker’s awareness that the person being addressed is of superior rank or higher social station.

In the same token, the modal “would” is used to express politeness and deference in conveying intent or desire, as in “Would you consider my daughter’s application for internship?” This is as opposed to the straightforward suggestion or pointed request conveyed by “Will you consider my daughter’s application for internship?”

One more thing: the past-tense modals “would” and “could” are used in indirect speech that’s introduced by a verb in the past tense. This is the case in “Archimedes declared that he could move the world if only he had the lever to lift it” and in “The erring chief executive pledged that he would stop any more unlawful spending.”

These are about all that we absolutely need to know regarding the usage of the modals “can” and “could” and “will” and “would.”

As to the the quaint use of “sir” before male first names by Filipino underlings towards their bosses, I find it disagreeable myself but I don’t feel qualified to discuss it. Perhaps some astute Filipino social scientist can enlighten us about this quirk in the language of the Philippine workplace.
----------
This essay first appeared in Jose Carillo’s “English Plain and Simple” column in the February 8, 2014 issue of The Manila Times © 2014 by Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

FURTHER READINGS:
“Can” and “could”

Uses and meanings of “would” in the present tense

Click to read responses or post a response

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

When does it become a must to split infinitives for clarity's sake?

Question raised by C. Gordon Hale regarding the splitting of infinitives (January 11, 2014):

Mr. Hale posted this response to my January 4, 2014 column in The Manila Times, “Putting an end to the ‘at the end of the day’ plague”:

Thank you for condemning the excessive use of “at the end of the day” and similarly annoying clichés. But not only in the Philippines have both spoken and written English become badly corrupted by vulgar colloquialisms and abysmal grammar. The state of contemporary English usage in the U.S. is truly lamentable!

Please forgive me, but I couldn’t help but react to the split infinitives in your paragraphs 9 and 10—“to never again”—really?

My reply to C. Gordon Hale:

I expressed my appreciation to Gordon for sharing my serious concern over the “at the end of the day” plague, and as to my use of split infinitives, I commented in passing: “I actually split them at will for stylistic purposes, but I’m also aware that splitting infinitives indiscriminately can be bad for prose.”

Let me now address more fully the matter of splitting infinitives.

To put things in context, I would like to emphasize that although most authorities in modern English grammar have dropped the objection to split infinitives, their usage continues to invite controversy. My personal position though is that unless splitting an infinitive results in bad syntax or semantics, taking recourse to it shouldn’t be cause for debate. 

Consider the two instances where I appear to have split an infinitive in the paragraphs referred to by Gordon (italicizations below mine):

In the first paragraph, Gordon appears to consider the phrase “to, among others, curb their predilection for using ‘at the end of the day’” as an infinitive phrase split by the adverbial “among others.” Grammatically, however, it’s not a split infinitive phrase at all, for its “to” is actually not an infinitive marker but a preposition of purpose that links the verb “designed” to its complement “curb their predilection.” Even assuming for the sake of argument that the form in question is an infinitive phrase, it still would be necessary to split it for clarity’s sake. For when unsplit, that phrase would read as follows: “an English reorientation program designed, among others, to curb their predilection...” This gives the wrong idea that several English reorientation programs were designed for one purpose, not only one program designed for several purposes.

In the second paragraph, to make the statement more emphatic, I split the infinitive phrase “to invite talk-show guests” by inserting “never again,” resulting in the genuine split infinitive “to never again invite talk-show guests who habitually spout them.” Now see how confusing that statement becomes when the infinitive phrase is unsplit and the adverbial “never again” is placed ahead of it: “…TV and radio network owners should seriously consider never again to invite talk-show guests who habitually spout them.” Here, “never again” has become a squinting modifier, seemingly modifying both the verb “consider” and the infinitive “to invite.” 

That statement gets even more troublesome in tone and syntax when, just to avoid splitting the infinitive, “never again” is positioned after it: “…TV and radio network owners should seriously consider to invite talk-show guests never again who habitually spout them more than, say, twice in a row during a particular show.”

We thus can see that unless splitting the infinitive results in bad syntax or semantics, it really should be considered airtight usage.   
---------    
This essay first appeared in the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, January 11, 2014 issue © 2014 by Manila Times Publishing. All rights reserved.

RELATED READINGS:
Splitting infinitives and the misuse of “whom”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Should we use the term "First Honors" or "First Honor" in grade school?

Question e-mailed by Paul Gubac, Forum member (January 21, 2014):

What is the difference between “First Honors” and “First Honor”?

Is it right to use “First Honor” to refer to a Grade I pupil who has earned the highest distinction in class during Recognition Day? What is the appropriate or correct one to use, the one without “s” or the one with “s”?

My reply to Paul:

In the primary school system in the Philippines, the predominant usage is the singular form “First Honor.” I’m sure no one will question the use of “First Honor” for a Grade I pupil who has earned that highest distinction in class; it’s the norm for as back as I can remember. As an adult, however, a recipient of that distinction might be unable to resist the temptation to pluralize it to “First Honors” in a résumé or curriculum vitae, but it will most likely be an affectation—a vain attempt to overvalue what that honor is really worth.

In contrast, the usage of the term “First Honors”—plural—is pretty well standard in the undergraduate educational system of Great Britain and such Commonwealth countries as Australia, Canada, Republic of Ireland, and New Zealand as well as former colonies of England in Africa that are now independent nations. It’s part of an academic recognition system where a degree may be awarded “with honours” or “without honours” (note the “u” after the second “o,” a unique feature of British English spelling). In that system, there’s a class of honours degrees (based on a weighted average mark of the assessed work that a candidate has completed) classified as follows:

First class honours (1st)
Second class honours, upper division (2:1)
Second class honours, lower division (2:2)
Third class honours (3rd)
Ordinary degree (pass)

So, unless we are talking about undergraduate achievement in the UK and the Commonwealth countries, it would be highly advisable to just use the singular “First Honor.” To pluralize it to “First Honors” particularly in the Philippines could very well be perceived as an attempt to exaggerate the distinction, thus only serving to debase rather than emphasize it.

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 help?

Question by Nathan_Yell, Forum member (January 7, 2014):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

I’ve been a member of the forum since 2011. And I am truly grateful for the wealth of knowledge you share on your site. I want to know if there’s anyway I can help the site so it would keep running? 

Thank you.

My reply to Nathan_Yell:

Thank you for asking if there’s any way you can do to help keep this Forum running. Still the best way is this: Whenever you come across a particularly objectionable English misuse (whether in the traditional and social media, in books, or in public forums), don’t hesitate to make a posting in the Forum about it. Quote the material and provide a link to its source. That way, the Forum can further widen its dragnet for instances of English misuse, put more of them up for scrutiny in the Forum’s discussion boards, and share the correct usage with Forum members and with everybody else seeking to write or speak English better.

Another way is to share your views or insights, whether pro or con, whenever a debatable point about the English language is raised in the discussion boards. This will ensure lively two-way or three-way, even four-way discussions in the Forum—the more discussants, the better. In truth, I don’t wish to be the only one answering questions raised in the Forum or responding to challenges to the validity of a particular English usage. I’d like to emphasize that I don’t have a monopoly of wisdom in the English language; indeed, I’ll be forever a student of English, always striving—like most everybody else—to write it better and speak it more fluently even as I share whatever learnings about English I’ve acquired in the course of my work as a writer, editor, and communicator.

And one more thing, Nathan_Yell: As you must have noticed, the Forum isn’t confining its discussion boards to the written word alone. Let me therefore take this opportunity to invite Forum members to also contribute particularly instructive or telling photos, audio-visuals, artworks, and cartoons on English use and misuse from published sources. Links to published visuals, with proper attribution to the author and source publication, can be directly posted in the discussion boards.  

Again, Nathan_Yell, thank you for your offer to help. With greater participation by members like you, the Forum definitely can keep its wealth of knowledge growing and become even more useful to learners and researchers of English grammar and usage.

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 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:

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)