Jose Carillo's Forum

MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

If you are a new user, click here to
read the Overview to this section

Team up with me in My Media English Watch!

I am inviting Forum members to team up with me in doing My Media English Watch. This way, we can further widen this Forum’s dragnet for bad or questionable English usage in both the print media and broadcast media, thus giving more teeth to our campaign to encourage them to continuously improve their English. All you need to do is pinpoint every serious English misuse you encounter while reading your favorite newspaper or viewing your favorite network or cable TV programs. Just tell me about the English misuse and I will do a grammar critique of it.

Read the guidelines and house rules for joining My Media English Watch!

A terribly garbled sentence about the “hostage-taking” of cadavers

The four major Metro Manila broadsheets fared admirably well with their English grammar and usage during the past week except for one terribly garbled sentence about the “hostage-taking” of cadavers, two stubborn misuses of the perfect tenses, and the misuse of an infinitive phrase as direct object of the verb “envisions.”

Let’s take a close look and dissect those specimens of flawed English grammar and usage:

(1) Manila Bulletin: Terribly garbled sentence

Hospitals, morgues’ ‘hostage-taking’ scored

MANILA, Philippines — A Visayan lawmaker Thursday sought to penalize the “hostage-taking” practice of some hospitals, morgues and funeral parlors of remains of deceased persons due to unpaid medical or funeral services.

Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone filed House Bill (HB) 5035 prohibiting the “detention” of cadavers and human remains by hospitals, morgues, funeral parlors and medical grounds due to non-payment of hospital bills, medical expenses, and funeral services.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed while reading it, something’s atrocious about the lead sentence above other than its grisly subject. It’s so mixed up that it doesn’t make sense. As the Tagalog saying goes, “Mukhang naghalo ang balat sa tinalupan” (“It looks like the peels have gotten mixed up with the peeled”). Until now, in fact, I’m still at a loss how to categorize the grammar mayhem committed by that sentence. All I can say is that both reporter and desk editor seem to have been so overwhelmed by the macabre subject of that sentence as to completely lose control of both its grammar and semantics.

After giving it a lot of thought, though, I finally figured out that the problem with that lead sentence is that the reporter had gotten so fixated with the attention-grabbing term “hostage-taking” that he or she just decided to use it without a clear idea of how to link it with both the doer and the receiver of the action in that sentence. The result is what I’d call a “stranded” object of the preposition in the form of the noun phrase “remains of deceased persons due to unpaid medical or funeral services,” detached by as many as eight words from its antecedent verb phrase “sought to penalize the ‘hostage-taking’ practice.” As we can see, the sentence was rendered meaningless and unintelligible by this stranding of the object of the preposition.

Now see how that lead sentence suddenly makes sense when that object of the preposition is moved to its proper place adjacent to the antecedent verb phrase, as follows:

“A Visayan lawmaker Thursday sought to penalize the “hostage-taking” of the remains of deceased persons by some hospitals, morgues and funeral parlors due to unpaid medical or funeral services.” 

I trust that the lesson from this grammar and semantic repair job is clear: When the object of the proposition happens to be a long noun phrase, never, never detach it from the operative verb or verb phrase if you want to avoid grammatical and semantic bedlam!

(2) The Philippine Star: Misuse of the present perfect tense; mixed tense usage

Noy accepts tourism chief’s resignation

MANILA, Philippines - Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim announced yesterday that President Aquino has accepted his resignation that takes effect on Aug. 31.

But Lim denied rumors that he was one of three Cabinet members who had been giving Aquino a headache.

The lead sentence above not only misuses the present perfect tense but also mixes the tenses improperly.

That sentence is, of course, of the kind known as reported speech, and the basic rule in reported speech is this: When the reporting verb is in the past tense, the operative verb of the reported utterance “backshifts”— takes one step back—from the present into the past. In that sentence, in particular, since the reporting verb “announced” is in the past tense, the verb of the reported utterance shouldn’t be the present perfect “has accepted” but the past perfect “had accepted” instead. Also, since the relative clause “that takes effect on Aug. 31” is part of the reported utterance, that verb shouldn’t be in the present tense but in the future conditional form “would take effect” instead. (Of course, a much simpler alternative to the future conditional form is the adjective phrase “effective Aug. 31.”)

The grammatically correct rendering of that lead sentence is therefore as follows:

“Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim announced yesterday that President Aquino had accepted his resignation that would take effect on Aug. 31.”

Here’s a simpler, more elegant construction:

“Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim announced yesterday that President Aquino had accepted his resignation effective on Aug. 31.”

(3) Manila Bulletin: Misuse of the present perfect; improper phrasing

Social Security System collections hits P8.4 billion in Visayas, Mindanao

CEBU CITY, Cebu, Philippines – The Social Security System (SSS) has collected a total of P8.4 billion in contributions in Visayas and Mindanao during the first half of this year. The amount is an 11 percent increase from the P7.41 billion over the same period in 2010, according to SSS President and Chief Executive Officer Emil de Quiros, Jr. said.

De Quiros said for Central Visayas alone, collections came to P2.84 billion while those from Southern Mindanao provinces totaled P2.19 billion; he was not able to give a breakdown of figures comprised of the remainder on the aggregate figure he quoted.

The lead sentence above misuses the present perfect “has collected” because the period of collection referred to (January-June 2011) is now over by as much as two months. The present perfect applies only to actions completed at the time of speaking. In this case, the appropriate tense is the past perfect “had collected,” denoting a continuing action as completed at or before a past time spoken of.

In the second paragraph of the lead passage above, the noun phrase “a breakdown of figures comprised of the remainder on the aggregate figure he quoted” is improperly worded. The verb phrase “comprised of” is grammatically wrong; the correct form for it is the present-participle modifier “comprising.”

Here then are the flawed sentences in that lead passage as corrected:

“The Social Security System (SSS) had collected a total of P8.4 billion in contributions in Visayas and Mindanao during the first half of this year.

***
“De Quiros said for Central Visayas alone, collections came to P2.84 billion while those from Southern Mindanao provinces totaled P2.19 billion; he was not able to give a breakdown of the figures comprising the remainder on the aggregate figure.”

(4) Philippine News Agency: Misuse of infinitive phrase as object of the verb

Eco islands

ZAMBOANGA CITY, Philippines (PNA) — The city government here envisions to transform the Greater and Little Sta. Cruz Islands into an “island-ecosystem that is responsibly and sustainably managed,” developed, and protected for the “maintenance and preservation of the natural biological, physical diversities of the environment, and for ecotourism promotion.”

If you noticed that the lead sentence above looks peculiar and reads badly, it’s because it misuses the infinitive phrase “to transform the Greater and Little Sta. Cruz Islands into…” as direct object of the verb “envisions.” In English grammar, “envisions” just happens to be one of those transitive verbs that can only take nouns, noun phrases, and pronouns as well as gerunds and gerund phrases as direct object—not  infinitives and infinitive phrases. (I know that this peculiar aspect of English grammar needs a more comprehensive explanation, but you can take my word for it in the meantime.)

See how that lead sentence reads much better with that infinitive phrase converted to a gerund phrase:

“The city government here envisions transforming the Greater and Little Sta. Cruz Islands into an ‘island-ecosystem that is responsibly and sustainably managed,’ developed, and protected for the ‘maintenance and preservation of the natural biological, physical diversities of the environment, and for ecotourism promotion.’”

Nominalizing that infinitive phrase—making it a noun phrase with “transformation” as head noun—also does as good a job in that sentence:

“The city government here envisions the transformation of the Greater and Little Sta. Cruz Islands into an ‘island-ecosystem that is responsibly and sustainably managed,’ developed, and protected for the ‘maintenance and preservation of the natural biological, physical diversities of the environment, and for ecotourism promotion.’”

WHEN THE TIME OF THE ACTION GETS “STRANDED” IN A SENTENCE

This feedback was e-mailed to me by Mr. Juanito T. Fuerte, Forum member:

Hi, Joe,

The following is the first paragraph of a news item published in today's (8/12/11) issue of The Philippine Star:

“Miss Earth 2008 Karla Paula Henry was attacked by a drunk helper at a Mandaluyong City condominium where she owns a unit yesterday morning.”

Joe, I have a strong haunch that the writer meant to say the attack took place “yesterday” although the sentence seems to associate the word with owning a condo unit. What do you think?

In the third paragraph of the same news story, the report said “Henry shouted and was heard by security guards...”

I’m not an expert in this field but, since the story didn’t say what the subject shouted for or about, would it have been more appropriate if it had used the word "screamed" in place of "shouted"?

You're the maestro, Joe. You can take it from here.

All the best,

Juanito T. Fuerte

My reply to Juanito:

You’re right in your feeling that there’s something grammatically wrong in this lead sentence from that Philippine Star news story:

“Miss Earth 2008 Karla Paula Henry was attacked by a drunk helper at a Mandaluyong City condominium where she owns a unit yesterday morning.”

The problem is what I’d call a “stranded” time of occurrence—“yesterday morning.” It got detached from the operative verb—“was attacked”—by total of 14 words, in effect making it a misplaced modifying phrase that wrongly attaches itself to the verb phrase “owns a unit.”

A simple fix for that badly constructed sentence is to bring that stranded time of occurrence as close as possible to that operative verb, as follows:

“Miss Earth 2008 Karla Paula Henry was attacked by a drunk helper yesterday morning at a Mandaluyong City condominium where she owns a unit.”

From a grammatical standpoint, an even better construction is to move that time of occurrence right beside that operative verb, as follows:

“Miss Earth 2008 Karla Paula Henry was attacked yesterday morning by a drunk helper at a Mandaluyong City condominium where she owns a unit.”

I would say that this is the optimal sentence construction for this particular situation. In terms of news immediacy, however, the journalist’s usual priority for mention in that passive-voice new lead is “subject first (“Miss Earth 2008 Karla Paula Henry”), operative verb next (“was attacked”), doer of the action next (“by a drunk helper”), and complement next (“at a Mandaluyong City condominium where she owns a unit”). The journalist’s logic here is that the doer of the action is more important than the time element, so it needs to be mentioned ahead of the latter.

This is why the first sentence reconstruction I offered above—even if the verb and doer of the action are still separated by five words (“by a drunk helper”)—is more advisable than the second version from a news immediacy standpoint.

Now, regarding this sentence from that news story: “Henry shouted and was heard by security guards...”

Of course, that news report would have been much more informative if it mentioned the exact words shouted by the assailant. However, even if that were the case, I don’t think that it would automatically warrant replacing the verb “shouted” with “screamed.” This is because the news story didn’t specify whether the victim shouted before or after the stabbing. If the former is the case, it’s possible that the shouting itself could have provoked the stabbing; if the latter is the case, the shouting could have been a pained cry for help after the victim was stabbed—and thus merit the use of the verb “screamed.” As it is, though, we simply don’t know exactly what happened based on that report, so from a semantic standpoint, I think the reporter did right by using the generic verb “shouted.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section




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

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!

Page last modified: 14 August, 2011, 1:50 p.m.