USE AND MISUSE

A clarion call for simplicity in written communication

A friend, Charlie Agatep of the PR and advertising agency Agatep Associates in the Philippines, is sharing with Forum members the following e-mail he sent to the agency’s writers:

Dear All,

We’ve always said that Euro RSCG Agatep* is a university. We create a community of learning among our employees and our clients. We strive to do better tomorrow than we are doing today.

As part of our learning, I’d like to quote writer William Zinsser on the value of simplicity in written communication. He said:

“Clutter is the disease of... writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon.

“Our national tendency is to inflate and thereby sound important. The airline pilot who announces that he is presently anticipating experiencing considerable precipitation wouldn’t think of saying... ‘it may rain.’

“BUT THE SECRET OF GOOD WRITING IS TO STRIP EVERY SENTENCE TO ITS CLEANEST COMPONENTS. EVERY WORD THAT SERVES NO FUNCTION, EVERY LONG WORD THAT COULD BE A SHORT WORD, EVERY ADVERB THAT CARRIES THE SAME MEANING THAT’S ALREADY IN THE VERB, EVERY PASSIVE CONSTRUCTION THAT LEAVES THE READER UNSURE OF WHO IS DOING WHAT... THESE ARE THE THOUSAND AND ONE ADULTERANTS THAT WEAKEN THE STRENGTH OF A SENTENCE.

“Simplify, simplify. Thoreau said it, as we are so often reminded, and no American writer more consistently practiced what he preached. In his book, Walden, Thoreau said:

“‘I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not,  when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.’”

Zinsser continues:

“Writers must therefore constantly ask: what am I trying to say? Surprisingly they don’t know. Then they must look at what they have written and ask: have I said it? Is it clear to someone encountering the subject for the first time?

“Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no accident. Very few sentences come out right the first time, or even the third time. Remember this in moments of despair. If you find that writing is hard, it is because it is hard.”

Thank you for your precious time.

Charlie A. Agatep

-------
*Euro RSCG Agatep PR (Agatep Associates Inc.) is an integrated marketing communications company specializing in strategic PR solutions for building, enhancing, and protecting corporate identity and brand reputation. It is part of the international PR network of the Paris-based Havas Group, a leading public communications company with operations in the USA, Europe, Middle East, and Asia Pacific.—Joe Carillo

Click to read comments or post a comment

The use of the expression “way back”

Feedback from Menie, Forum member (June 7, 2011):

I often see the phrase “Way back in 19xx...”  and I cringe because I think the writer should have just said “In 19xx...”  For me, a person who uses “way back” in this manner sounds verbose.  And, for some reason, I always associate this term with people who were one generation older than me, those who grew up and were educated during the American time.  

The following sentence from “Rotting fish due to fish-kills: another food for thought” By Dr. Flor Lacanilao is what set me thinking about this:

“Way back in 1961-1964, when there were no fishpens in the Lake, the annual catch of small fishers there was 80,000-82,000 tons.”

Does the use of “way back” here give any added value, or should the writer have said “From 1961 to 1964, when there were...”?

My reply to Menie:

The idiomatic expression “from way back” means “from far in the past” or “from a much earlier time.” It’s a rhetorical device to convey a long sweep of time between the present and some point in the past—a sense that may not come through as clearly if the writer or speaker simply used a particular date or numeric time frame. Figurative expressions like “from way back” certainly gives added value to exposition—I’d call it flavor—by counteracting the numerical blandness and tedium of matter-of-fact phrasing like “From 1961 to 1964…”

I don’t think it’s verbose to use “from way back” in exposition, but I agree with you that this expression does associate its users with people older than the reader or listener. Its users may not necessarily be people “who grew up and were educated during the American time”—any time frame for their growing up and education actually will apply to that usage—but by using that expression, they are often deliberately but subtly asserting their primacy over their reader or listener by virtue of their being older. That, to me, is a semantic bonus that goes with the use of “from way back” in personal narratives instead of just plain numeric chronology.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Do you need the IELTS to work or study in the US and Canada?

Question by zabi, new Forum member (June 2, 2011):

Is IELTS, the English exam, really needed for you to work or study in US, Canada, UK, Australia, and etc.? Or is there any other way? I am planning to learn English online, then to take IELTS exam if it is really needed by those countries.

My reply to zabi’s question:

IELTS, the acronym for the English Language Testing System, is an English-proficiency exam primarily designed for those who wish to work or study in the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It’s the preferred exam for those destinations, but some of the British Commonwealth countries are now also using or about to use United States-based English proficiency tests. In particular, for student visa purposes, Australia now also uses the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) and will also be using the Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE Academic) later in 2011.

To be sure of the English-proficiency test you need to review for, check with the company or school in the foreign country of your choice.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Is it grammatically correct to use “will’s” in a sentence?

Question from Mark Kenneth Lopez, Forum member (May 22, 2011):

Sir,

Is it okay to use two “will’s” in one sentence?

Are the following sentences grammatically correct:

(1) “He will marry her before he will travel to Australia.”
(2) “He will marry her before he travels to Australia.”

My reply to Mark Kenneth:

The second sentence is correct:

“He will marry her before he travels to Australia.”

In complex sentences using “before” as subordinating time conjunction, it’s not grammatically correct to render two separate, independent, and nonsimultaneous future actions—one in the main clause and the other in the subordinate clause—both in the future tense. Doing so would make them appear to be simultaneous future actions (contrary to the premise that they are nonsimultaneous), as in the first grammatically flawed sentence you presented above:

“He will marry her before he will travel to Australia.”

When two clauses denoting future actions are linked by the subordinating conjunction “before,” those two actions obviously won’t be simultaneous, so the sentence must make it clear that one of the actions will occur earlier than the other. This sense is conveyed by making the earlier of the two actions take the future tense and the later action, the present tense. This was the case in the first sentence you provided, which is the grammatically correct construction:

“He will marry her before he travels to Australia.”

Conversely, when two clauses denoting future actions are linked by the subordinating conjunction “after,” the later action takes the future tense and the earlier action, the present tense, as in this sentence:

“He will travel to Australia after he marries her.”

These, as I said earlier, are the proper ways of using the tenses in complex sentences involving nonsimultaneous future events.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Gobbledygook na Ingles at Tagalog
(“Inday ng Buhay Natin”)

Nawawala si Inday ngayon, kanyo? Nawawala nga. Ito, ikukuwento ko sa inyo, ang bahagi ng kanyang nagdaan sa bahay ng kanyang amo at may update din ako kung ano ang nangyari sa kanya:

Magsimula tayo noong mag-apply si Inday ng trabaho sa naging amo niya. Dumaan sa interview si Inday.

Amo: Kailangan namin ng katulong para  maglinis ng bahay, magluto, maglaba, mamalantsa, mamalengke, at  magbantay sa mga bata. Kaya mo ba ang lahat ng ito?

Inday: I believe that my acquired skills, training and expertise in management with the use of standard tools, and my discipline and experience will significantly contribute to the value of the work that you want done. My creativity,  productivity, and work-efficiency and the high quality of outcome I can offer will boost the work progress.

[Nag-nosebleed ang amo pero tinanggap naman ng amo si Inday.]

Makaraan ang dalawang araw, umuwi ang  amo, nakitang may bukol si Junior.

Amo: Inday, bakit may bukol si Junior?

Inday: Compromising safety with useless aesthetics, the not-so-well-engineered architectural design of our kitchen lavatory affected the boy’s cranium with a slight boil at the left temple near the auditory organ. Moreover, if you look more closely, he has rashes, too.

Amo: Ha?!!? Bakit?

Inday: Elementary, ma’am. Allergens triggered the immune response. Eosinophilic migration occurs in the reaction site & release of chemotactic & anaphylotoxin histamine & prostaglandins. This substance results in incomplete circulation to the site, promoting redness.

Amo: Ah, ganon ba? O, sige, ok. Sori, ha? [Sabay pahid ng kanyang dugo sa ilong]

Kinagabihan, habang naghahapunan…

Amo: Inday, bakit naman maalat ang ulam natin?

Inday: The consistency is fine. But you see, it seems that the increased amount of sodium chloride… the scientific name of which is NaCl…affected the taste drastically and the chemical reactions are irreversible.  I do apologize.

[Nosebleed na naman ang ilong]

Amo: Bakit tuwing pag-uwi ko, nararatnan kitang nanunuod ng TV?!

Inday: Because I don’t want you to see me doing absolutely nothing.

[This time may kasabay pang himatay ang nosebleed.]

Isang gabi, may nag-text kay Inday—si Dodong, ang driver ng kapitbahay. Gustong makipagtext- mate. . .

Inday (to driver): To forestall further hopes of acquaintance, my unequivocal reply to your request is irrevocable denial.

Driver (to Inday): Inday, your perception has no substantial bearing on what the deep recesses of my being is contemplating. May I therefore assiduously move for your benevolent reconsideration. I was merely attempting to expand my network of interests by involving you in my daily experiences. Heretofore, however, if you so desire, you can expect an end to any verbal articulation from me!

Eh, narinig pala lahat-lahat ng amo ang pag-uusap nina Inday at ng driver.

Amo: Mula ngayon, walang magsasalita ng gobbledygook na Ingles sa pamamahay ko. Bakit di ka bumili ng libro ni Jose A. Carillo na English Plain and Simple? Reasonable price lang. Kung di mo kayang bumili dahil kuripot ka, hayaan mo’t ibibili kita. Ang sinumang magpadugo ng ilong ko at ng anak ko, palalayasin ko sa pamamahay na ito pagkatapos kong basagin ang bunganga!

Inday: Ang namutawi sa inyong bibig ay mataman kong ilalagak sa kasuluk-sulukan ng aking balintataw, sa kaibuturan ng aking puso, at palagi kong gugunam-gunamin. Sakbibi ng madlang lumbay kung mapapalis sa gunita yaring inyong tinuran.

Amo: Leche! Hindi kami sinauna! Ayaw ko ring makarinig ng gobbledygook na Tagalog! Yung  makabagong wika at salita ang gusto kong gagamitin dito sa bahay ko!!

Inday: Tarush! Pachenes pa 'tong chorva eklavubo chuva tabayishki kun suplandish!

[Nasa ospital na raw ang amo. At hindi na ngayon mahagilap si Inday.]

---------
HERE’S AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THAT DIALOGUE:

“Inday of Our Life”

You say that Inday is missing? Indeed she is! So here, I’ll tell you the story of her past work in her lady employer’s household and I’ll also give you an update of what happened to her.

Let’s start when Inday applied for work with her employer. She had to go through a job interview.

Lady Employer: We need a househelp to keep the house clean, cook, do the laundry, iron clothes, do the groceries, and take care of the children. Can you do all that?

Inday: I believe that my acquired skills, training and expertise in management with the use of standard tools, and my discipline and experience will significantly contribute to the value of the work that you want done. My creativity,  productivity, and work-efficiency and the high quality of outcome I can offer will boost the work progress.

[The employer had nosebleed listening to all that English gobbledygook, but she hired Inday nevertheless. (“Nosebleed” is slang for being assaulted with hard-to-understand language.) ]

After two days, the employer came home and found her son Junior with a big lump in the head.

Lady Employer: Inday, why does Junior have a big lump in the head?

Inday: Compromising safety with useless aesthetics, the not-so-well-engineered architectural design of our kitchen lavatory affected the boy’s cranium with a slight boil at the left temple near the auditory organ. Moreover, if you look more closely, he has rashes, too.

Lady Employer: What?!!? Why?

Inday: Elementary, ma’am. Allergens triggered the immune response. Eosinophilic migration occurs in the reaction site & release of chemotactic & anaphylotoxin histamine & prostaglandins. This substance results in incomplete circulation to the site, promoting redness.

Lady Employer: Oh, really? Well, OK. I’m sorry then. [She wipes the blood from her nose.]

That evening, at dinner…

Lady Employer: Inday, why is our food salty?

Inday: The consistency is fine. But you see, it seems that the increased amount of sodium chloride… the scientific name of which is NaCl…affected the taste drastically and the chemical reactions are irreversible.  I do apologize.

[The lady employer gets nosebleed again.]

Lady employer: Why is it that whenever I come home, I always catch you watching TV?! 

Inday: Because I don’t want you to see me doing absolutely nothing.

[This time the employer not only gets nosebleed but faints.]

One night, somebody sent Inday a text message—Dodong, the neighbor’s driver. He wanted to be Inday’s textmate… 

Inday (to driver): To forestall further hopes of acquaintance, my unequivocal reply to your request is irrevocable denial.

Driver (to Inday): Inday, your perception has no substantial bearing on what the deep recesses of my being is contemplating. May I therefore assiduously move for your benevolent reconsideration. I was merely attempting to expand my network of interests by involving you in my daily experiences. Heretofore, however, if you so desire, you can expect an end to any verbal articulation from me!

[Well, it so happened that the lady employer heard every word of the conversation between Inday and the driver.]

Lady Employer: From now on, I won’t allow anybody to speak in gobbledygook in this household anymore. Why don’t you buy Jose Carillo’s book, English Plain and Simple? The price is reasonable. If you can’t afford it because you’re a cheapskate, let me buy you a copy. Whoever gives me and my children nosebleed again, I’ll smash her mouth and drive her out of this house!

Inday: (Roughly, her reply in Tagalog gobbledygook translates to English as follows): The words that issued from your lips I’ll keep in the deepest recesses of my mind, in the innermost sanctums of my my heart, and I’ll always ponder them ever so deeply. I’ll be very sad and it would be most unfortunate indeed if what you said gets erased from my memory.)

Lady Employer: Damn! We’re not old-timers here! I forbid you also to speak in Tagalog gobbledygook! What I want to hear in this house is modern-day language using modern-day words!!

Inday: Tarush! Pachenes pa 'tong chorva eklavubo chuva tabayishki kun suplandish!*

[The lady employer was hospitalized after this conversation. Inday is nowhere to be found.]

----------
*This is deep, demeaning gayspeak describing the lady employer as, among other insults, fat and haughty.

Click to read comments or post a comment

When three almost identical headlines say different things

Question sent in by e-mail by Ms. Ivy Mendoza (April 25, 2011):

Hello Mr. Carillo,

Which is correct among the three newspapers below with almost identical heads for their banner stories?

My reply to Ms. Ivy Mendoza:

Let’s take a closer look at those three news headlines in text form:

Manila Bulletin: Hopes dim for miners
Philippine Daily Inquirer: Hope dims for survivors
Philippine Star: Hopes dim for 17 miners

As headlines go, given the grammatical liberties usually taken by headline writers and the tolerance of readers for imprecise English in headlines, I think all three headlines do a fairly good job of capturing the essence of that news story in capsule form.

Grammatically and semantically, however, I think only the Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star versions would pass the litmus test. In these two headlines, “Hopes dim for miners” and “Hopes dim for 17 miners,” the word “dim” has the virtue of being interpreted either as an adjective in the sense of “faint” or as a verb in the sense of “to become faint.” When we think of “dim” as an adjective, the noun “hopes” can be taken as a subject (in the abstract sense of “expectations”) modified by “dim for miners” as an adjective phrase. In this sense, the act of “hoping” in that headline can be attributed to everybody who has a stake in the survival of the miners buried by the landslide: the miners themselves and their kin, the mining company, and the public at large. On the other hand, when we think of “dim” as a verb in that headline, the word “hopes” can be taken as a noun that does the intransitive action of “dimming.” In this alternative sense of that headline, the noun “hopes” can likewise be understood as the collective action of everybody who has a stake in the survival of the buried miners.

I would say, though, that the Philippine Star headline is more semantically precise than the Manila Bulletin’s because it qualified the reference of the headline only to the “17 miners” and not to all the miners who figured in that landslide. This semantic qualification is significant in that the miners who survived that landslide should, strictly speaking, no longer be counted among the objects of the hopes of being rescued.

Now, as to the Philippine Inquirer’s headline, “Hope dims for survivors,” it suffers from a semantic wrinkle because of its use of “dims” as a verb and of “hope” as the doer of the action of that verb. In that headline, the sense is not made clear as to who is doing the “hoping.” The apparent intent of that headline, though, seems to be that the “survivors” are the ones doing the “hoping,” but we can see right away that this is a wrong idea because the known “survivors” of that landslide are alive, already above ground,  and no longer needs rescuing.

One cure I can see for this semantic wrinkle is to rewrite that Inquirer headline as follows: “Hope for survivors dims.” In this construction, the noun phrase “hope for survivors” clearly becomes the subject followed by “dim” as an intransitive verb. Here, it’s clear that what has dimmed is the expectation of saving more of the buried miners, and that it isn’t the “survivors” who are doing the “hoping” but everybody who has a stake in the survival of those buried miners.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Identifying sentences by type and their direct and indirect objects

Question by Sky, Forum member (April 11, 2011):

1. “Could you give me some advice and tell me how to deal with the dilemma?”
2. “Some upperclassmen have warned us that no one can expect to get passing grades without efforts.”
3. “My excellent performances in high school kept me in the headmaster's honor list.”

What are the direct and indirect objects of the sentences above?
What is the usage of "that" in sentence 2?
How can we apply the S+V+O1+O2 (Subject+Verb+Object1+Object2)?

My reply to Sky:

Regarding your questions, Sky:

Sentence 1: “Could you give me some advice and tell me how to deal with the dilemma?”

This is a compound sentence with two coordinate clauses in the interrogative mood, linked by the coordinating conjunction “and”:
(a) Coordinate clause 1: “Could you give me some advice?”—subject: “you”; verb: “give”; indirect object: “me”; direct object: “some advice”
(b) Coordinate clause 2: “(Could you) tell me how to deal with the dilemma?”—subject: “you”; verb: “tell”; indirect object: “me”; direct object: the noun phrase “how to deal with the dilemma.”

Sentence 2: “Some upperclassmen have warned us that no one can expect to get passing grades without efforts.”

This is a complex sentence that consists of a main clause and a subordinate clause linked by the subordinating conjunction “that” :
(a) Main clause: “ Some upperclassmen have warned us”—subject: “upperclassmen”; verb: “have warned”; direct object: “us.”
(b) Subordinate clause: “that no one can expect to get passing grades without efforts”—subject: “no one”; verb: “expect” with modal “can”; direct object: the infinitive phrase “to get passing grades without efforts”

Sentence 3: “My excellent performances in high school kept me in the headmaster's honor list.”

This is a simple sentence consisting of the following:
(a) Subject: the noun phrase “my excellent performances in high school”
(b) Verb: “kept”
(c) Direct object: “me”
(d) Prepositional phrase: “in the headmaster's honor list” (functioning as an adverbial phrase modifying the verb “kept”)

Click to read comments or post a comment

What do we do with Manny Pacquiao’s far from perfect English?

Manny Pacquiao is no doubt the world’s greatest and most accomplished boxer today, but some people don’t look kindly at the far-from-perfect English grammar they are seeing in his Twitter account.

In “Pacman blasts grammar critics,” a news story by Barry Viloria in abs-cbnNEWS.com datelined March 17, 2011, Pacquiao is reported to have retorted on Twitter: “Its doesn’t matter of the grammar as long they understand the message thanks.”

DEWEY NICKS FOR TIME MAGAZINE

The news story quotes Pacquiao as having continued his Tweet: “Tyong lhat pinoy ang slita ntin ay tgalog we should use our language we’re nt american, jpan,chna,atbp. They’re using there own language…We should proud in our language that’s the real pinoy yan ang tama thank you God Bless everyone.”¹

It’s for this English that Pacquiao has been the target of some harsh criticism, among them this posting by someone who goes by the username tugakbatan: “It is the perception of a majority of Filipinos that ‘fluency’ in the English Language is the yardstick for education and/or intelligence. Kaya naman itong si Congressman Pakyaw ay English nang English kahit na mali-mali ang grammar. Pare ‘Tagalog’ na lang. Kagaya ni Lito Lapid. Bakit? Ano ba ang gusto mong palabasin? Alam naman namin na hindi masyadung malayo a narating mo sa pag-aaral. Pero sikat ka naman at sa buong mundo pa at naging congressman ka rin. Pare, I think there is nothing that you should prove more. Bibihira ang Filipinong maka-achieved nang ganyan. Kaya, mag-Tagalog ka nalang. No offense.”²

But Pacquiao and his English are definitely not lacking in defenders, among them someone with ther username 1STSACPCSAF who made this posting: “Leave Manny alone he’ll get better down the road Are’nt you guys proud we have a kababayan³ like Manny If you don't have any good things to say about Manny move to Africa and root for Monkeyweather.”

And this posting by jimsangco that’s summarily dismissive of the critics of Pacquiao’s English: “Wag mong intindihin un hayaan mo n lng sya...at hindi mo kelangan magpaliwanag at humingi ng pasensya...dahil pinoy k at tagalog ang language natin period.”⁴
------------
¹This mix of Tagalog and English roughly translates into English as follows: “All of us Pinoys [Filipinos] speak Tagalog. We should use our language. We aren’t Americans, Japanese, Chinese, or others who use their own language…We should be proud of our language. That’s the real Pinoy, that’s the correct way. Thank you and God bless everyone.”

²The second to the last sentence of this passage roughly translates into English as follows: “But Congressman Pakyaw persists in speaking in English despite his faulty grammar. Chum, why not just speak in Tagalog. Like Lito Lapid [another congressman in the Philippines]. What are you trying to prove? After all, we know that you have not gone far in your formal education. Still, you are famous the world over and you have become a congressman besides. Chum, I think there is nothing that you should prove more. It’s so rare for a Filipino to have achieved that much. So please just speak in Tagalog. No offense.”

³The word kababayan is Tagalog for countryman.

⁴This Tagalog roughly translates into English as follows: “Don’t mind them and just let them be…and you don’t have to explain and say you’re sorry…because you are Pinoy and Tagalog is our language. Period.”

P.S. (March 23, 2011) The latest is that Manny Pacquiao has closed his Twitter account after a tiff with people who expressed dismay over his latest Tweets.

Read "Piqued Pacquiao throws in the towel on Twitter" in GMANewsOnline now!

Click to read comments or post a comment

The present progressive often denotes immediate future action

Question e-mailed by Miss Mae (March 13, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

Good day, Sir!

I just wondered. In your post replying to a question I sent by e-mail last week, “A Forum member’s comments on GMA 7’s ‘concised reporting’,” you changed “we are subscribing” to “we subscribe.” I thought the past progressive tense works just fine in that sentence.

Here is that part of my letter:

And here is the edited version:

Of course, I do not have any doubt that you were right. I just wish to understand what I thought I had done properly. 

Respectfully,
Miss Mae

My reply to Miss Mae:

Dear Miss Mae,

In English, the present progressive form of an intransitive verb like “subscribe” very often conveys intent or a plan to do or undertake something in the immediate future. When we say “We are subscribing to The Manila Times,” for example, the sense is that of the future tense “We will subscribe to The Manila Times sometime soon” and not the continuing sense of the present tense “We subscribe to The Manila Times.” For this reason, if we receive the service of a cable-TV provider regularly on order, we don’t say “We are subscribing to a different cable-TV provider” (which means you intend to change your cable-TV provider with another one) but say “We subscribe to a different cable-TV provider” instead.

With my best wishes,
Joe Carillo

Click to read comments or post a comment

Is the question “Are you writing?” grammatically correct?

Question sent in by e-mail by Grace N. Toralde (February 20, 2011):

Dear Sir,

I would just like to ask something. Is the question “Are you writing?” correct?

If I ask someone “Are you writing also?”, am I using the correct tense?

My reply to Grace:

The question “Are you writing?” can be taken to mean in at least two ways. 

The first is in the context of the speaker asking the person who is unseen or isn’t physically present—perhaps the question is asked over the phone or through a letter or e-mail—if he or she is currently doing some form of professional writing like, say, literature or journalism. The speaker knows that the person being addressed is a writer by profession or avocation and by asking that question, wants confirmation that the person being addressed is, in fact, pursuing that profession or avocation.  

The second sense of “Are you writing?” is in the context of the speaker asking the person face to face if he or she is going to write the speaker sometime soon, in the same sense as that of the sentence “Will you write me soon?” or “Will you write me sometime soon?” In this particular case, the speaker is using the interrogative progressive tense form as the semantic equivalent of the interrogative future tense form—a usage that’s perfectly acceptable among native English speakers.

Both of the two senses above of the question “Are you writing?” likewise apply to the question “Are you writing also?” This time, however, the speaker is asking another person the same question he or she had earlier asked someone, and this someone happens to be within hearing distance when the question is asked the second time around. The adverb “also” is added by the speaker to convey the idea that the person he had earlier asked that question answered in the affirmative.

In all the situations described above, the questions “Are you writing?” and “Are you writing also?” are grammatically correct and in the right tense.

Click to read comments or post a comment

What’s the correct usage for the verbs “brought” and “taken”?

Question from Isabel Escoda in Hong Kong (February 13, 2011):

Hey Joe—I hope you can help me out regarding a verb that’s been bothering me for a long time, one which I believe is always used in the wrong way by Pinoy journalists. It’s the past tense of the verb “bring”—“brought.”

Today a friend in Manila forwarded an article about Gen. Angelo Reyes who committed suicide.   The story had that pesky word in this sentence: “His body will be BROUGHT to Camp Aguinaldo…”

Shouldn’t the verb be TAKEN since the reporter is writing about something that isn’t being delivered to HIM (the reporter) but to somewhere else? In other words, someone BRINGS something to me, while one TAKES something to a point away from me. Am I explaining this clearly?

Other journalistic examples: “He was BROUGHT to the police station” is always used (when it should be TAKEN); “She was BROUGHT to the hospital”—again, that should be TAKEN.  One is dealing with coming and going—so why do folks get this wrong so often?

Cheers,
Isabel

My reply to Isabel:

The verbs “bring” and “take” are actually synonymous in the sense of “to convey, lead, carry, or cause to go or come along to another place,” but the choice between the two depends on the point of view or position of the speaker in relation to the action described. When the movement is clearly toward the place from which the action is being regarded or where the speaker is, was, or will be, “bring” is conventionally used, as in “Bring your friend here” and “Your mother brought me a slice of carrot cake yesterday.” On the other hand, when the movement is clearly away from which the action is being regarded or where the speaker is, was, or will be, “take” is conventionally used, as in “Take your friend to the zoo” and “Your sister took some gardenias from my garden this morning.”

In the case of most news stories, however, the speaker is usually an absent third-person narrator objectively describing the action; as such, he or she is an observer who makes it a point not to get involved or doesn’t intrude into the action. In short, in news told objectively, the news reporter is neither here nor there, and this is when the usual distinctions between “bring” and “take” no longer apply. Such is the case of the news reporter who, as you quoted from that article about Gen. Angelo Reyes’s suicide, wrote “His body will be brought to Camp Aguinaldo…” Now, you ask if “brought” is incorrectly used here and if “taken” should be used instead. I think that from the news reporter’s point of view as an absent spectator, “brought” and “taken” are both correct and can be used interchangeably. 

For the same reason, the two other journalistic examples you presented, “He was BROUGHT to the police station” and “She was BROUGHT to the hospital,” are also grammatically airtight, but, of course, so are these versions that use “taken” instead of “brought”: “He was TAKEN to the police station” and “She was TAKEN to the hospital.” From the standpoint of the objective reporter, the “brought” versions and the “taken” versions aren’t dealing with coming and going. Indeed, they are not dealing with actions towards or away from the speaker, but with lateral actions in front of his eyes, as if on a stage tableau. In such situations, as I said earlier, the distinctions between “bring” and “take” don’t apply.

Click to read comments or post a comment

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