Jose Carillo's Forum

YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

Jose Carillo’s English Forum invites members to post their grammar and usage questions directly on the Forum itself, but every now and then, readers of my “English Plain and Simple” column in The Manila Times e-mail their questions directly to me. I make an effort to reply to every question individually. When the answer to a question is particularly instructive and of wide interest, however, I find it such a waste not to share it with users and learners of English in general. It’s for that purpose that I opened this special section. I hope Forum members will find reading it informative and enjoyable.

Shouldn’t verbs in “there was” clauses be singular all the time?

Question from dantreys (March 23, 2010):

Hi, Joe! An opinion writer in one of the major broadsheets wrote an article yesterday that contained this sentence:

“There was once a time when there was more than one exchange existing all at the same time.”

I feel a bit queasy about the sentence because something tells me the correct verb right before “more” should be “were” since it refers to “more than one exchange,” which, notionally, is a plural subject. What do you think?

Thanks and good day!

Danny

My reply to dantreys:

“There was once a time when there was more than one exchange existing all at the same time.”

The sentence above, Danny, is an example of a construction that uses the so-called “anticipatory ‘there’ clause” twice. The pronoun “there” is, of course, the anticipatory subject in each case. In such constructions, “there” carries little or no independent meaning but simply points forward to the notional subject which is placed later in the sentence for reasons of end weight or emphasis. In the particular sentence above, the notional subject is the noun phrase “once a time” for the first anticipatory “there” and “more than one exchange” for the second anticipatory “there.”

Now, your question is: Since the operative verb “was” refers to “more than one exchange,” which is a plural subject, shouldn’t that verb take the plural form “were” instead to ensure subject-verb agreement?

My personal preference is to use the singular “was” rather than “were”; in effect, I’m saying that the use of “was” by the broadsheet’s opinion writer is grammatically correct. This is the descriptivist position in a usage that continues to be debated until today, a position explained by one of its proponents as follows: “Since the ‘there is’ combination is followed in the great majority of sentences by a singular subject, it has become a standard way of introducing a subject, whether singular or plural, another example of the victory of usage over logical grammar.” I might also add here that in American English, when a compound subject follows the verb in a “there is” construction, the verb very often takes the singular form, as in this sentence: “There is shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office.” See and feel how badly that sentence sounds when “there are” is used instead: “There are shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office.”

The prescriptivist position, on the other hand, recommends that after the expletive “there,” the verb is singular or plural according to the number of the subject that follows. This is the position you have taken; you are more comfortable constructing that sentence as follows: “There was once a time when there were more than one exchange existing all at the same time.” It looks and sounds a little bit awkward to me, but I’m not saying that it’s grammatically wrong. So long as you are consistent with the usage and you know and can explain your position about it, I don’t think there should be any problem.

Having said that, however, let me say that English teachers of the traditional bent discourage the use of the expletives “there is” (and “it is” as well) among students, arguing that this usage fosters lazy thinking. My own position is that expletives are tolerable when used sparingly and judiciously—perhaps no more than once or twice every one or two pages of the standard manuscript page. But when the anticipatory “there” is used twice in a row in the same sentence, as in the case of that opinion writer’s sentence, the resulting construction is decidedly awkward and convoluted. So, as an editor, I always suggest to my clients to routinely avoid “there is” constructions because of its needless and oftentimes confusing complexity.

Indeed, we can actually eliminate the second anticipatory “there” clause in that opinion writer’s sentence by reconstructing it as follows: “There was one time when more than one exchange existed all at the same time.” And although the folksiness would admittedly be lost, we can actually make this bare-bones version of that sentence with both anticipatory “there” clauses dropped: “One time, more than one exchange existed all at the same time.”

At any rate, some writers prefer take recourse to the anticipatory “there” clause to make their writing sound folksy and informal. This is intended to make the exposition or narrative sound more spontaneous; indeed, it’s meant to give the reader the feeling that the writer is talking off the cuff and isn’t really on the alert about what should follow in what he or she is saying (and that being the case, he or she really won’t be bothered with ensuring perfect subject-verb agreement and such grammar things). When the writer overuses the anticipatory “there” clause in an essay or novel, however, I would get the nagging feeling that here, indeed, is one more lazy thinker whose laziness has gotten out of hand and is about to ruin what would otherwise be a good expository or narrative performance.

Click to read responses or post a response

If “none” means “nothing,” isn’t saying “none of them are” wrong?

Question from Forum member vinzvonvan (March 25, 2010):

There’s this example from an English book using the word none in a sentence. It says there: “All the women are fat, none of them are thin.” There’s no explanation from the book and I’m also confused myself. To say “none” means “nothing” but why "none of them are”? Shouldn’t it be none of them is? Thank you so much for your solution to my problem! Wink

My reply to vinzvonvan:

Although a lot of people think that the pronoun “one” is singular and as such should
be followed by a verb in the singular form, it has always been either singular or plural in construction since the beginnings of English. Specifically, when the sense of the statement is “not any persons or things,” the plural usage is more commonly used. This is precisely the sense of the example you presented from that English book, “All the women are fat, none of them are thin.” We can therefore be confident that the plural usage here, “none of them are thin,” is correct—with practically every major grammar authority backing that usage.

In contrast, the singular form of the verb is used when “none” is intended to mean “not one” or “not any,” as in the following example: “Of the four leading candidates, none is a clear winner at this time.” To avoid being needlessly challenged in your usage in such sentences, however, it would be wise to use “not one” instead of “none is”: “Of the four leading candidates, not one is a clear winner at this time.” It’s absolutely no contest for the singular usage of “none” here.

Of course, it could also be that your idea is that more than one of the candidates are not clear winners. In that case, that sentence could very well use the plural form of “none,” as follows: “Of the four leading candidates, none are clear winners at this time.” It would be foolhardy for anyone to challenge your plural usage of “none” in this case.

Click to read responses or post a response

Can the article “the” be dropped if it refers to a specific noun?

Question from Babing20, new Forum member (March 18, 2010):

Hi! I don’t know the section for which my question is most suitable so I chose to send you a personal message instead. I think this has something to do with articles.

Is this sentence correct?

“A request is already indicated in FedEX system.”

As far as I know, the said statement should have the article “the,” since the speaker is referring to a specific system by FedEX, so it should read as follows: “A request is already indicated in the FedEX system.”

My reply to Babing20:

Strictly speaking, the sentence “A request is already indicated in FedEX system” is grammatically incorrect. As you say, the article “the” should precede the noun “FedEX system” to indicate that it’s a specific system rather than a generic one. The sentence should then be corrected to read as follows: “A request is already indicated in the FedEX system.”

In journalism and lately also in SMS messages, however, there’s a prevalent “telegraphic” practice of eliminating linking verbs and articles in sentences for brevity’s sake; in some cases, even prepositions are eliminated. We often see this in newspaper headlines, which need very brief, catchy statements to fit limited space; and we are also constrained to do it in composing text messages in a hurry. Even so, this practice has rules and a discipline of its own to indicate to the reader that the practice is indeed being used.

In particular, in the sentence “A request is already indicated in the FedEX system,” both the verb “is” and the articles “a” and “the” would all be dropped, such that the bare-bones statement will read as follows: “Request already indicated in FedEX system.”

In this sense, telegraphic statements like the following would be considered sloppy because they break those rules and that discipline:

“Request is already indicated in FedEX system.”
“Request already indicated in the FedEX system.”
A request already indicated in FedEX system.”

In the same token, when we come across a sentence like “A request is already indicated in FedEX system,” it’s clear that what we have isn’t a “telegraphic” sentence but a grammatically erroneous one.

Click to read responses or post a response

Which is correct: “You and me are…” or “You and I are…”?

From Dessang, a new Forum member (March 6, 2010):

I work in an International School. My colleagues (teachers) who are native English speakers always say, “You and me are...” or “Me and my friend are going to...” or “Between you and I…” This confuses me because I was taught that it should be “You and I are…” or “My friend and I are going to…” and “Between you and me.” Did I learn something wrong or miss out something in school? Or is the native English speaker’s usage of “me” and “I” grammatically correct and I am wrong?

Help…

My reply to Dessang:

Even if those colleagues of yours are native English speakers, they are definitely grammatically wrong in how they compounded the subjects in “You and me are...”, wrong in how they compounded the doers of the action in “Me and my friend are going to...”, and wrong again in how they compounded the objects in “Between you and I.” The correct way to compound them is, as you’ve pointed out, as follows:

Compound subject: “You and I are…”
Compound doers of the action: “My friend and I are going to…”
Compound objects: “Between you and me…”

It seems to me that your colleagues think they have the upper hand in grammar and usage simply because they are native English speakers, but they are wrong in that belief. They seem to be unaware of the importance of avoiding mixed-case usage in English. By being too colloquial and cavalierly with the language, they are obviously not practicing what they are preaching to their students. And if they have managed to confuse you with their errant grammar, they must be confusing their students as well. I just hope that this situation in your school will not go on uncorrected.

It will be a bit complicated to show that your colleagues are wrong, but let’s make the effort and go through the process now. I’m sure it will be worthwhile for you and for others who may not be conversant with the grammar rules involved here. So here goes…

The Matter of Case

Remember the matter of case in English? Case is any of the three forms that a noun, pronoun, or modifier takes to indicate its functional role in a sentence, whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive. We need to understand these case forms very well to be able to combine nouns and pronouns properly when constructing sentences.

  1. Nominative or subjective case – Nouns or pronouns are in the nominative case when they perform the verb’s action (doer of the action), and are in the subjective case when they act as the subject of the sentence.

Example:

Nominative:
“The woman slapped him.”
[The noun “woman” is in the nominative case because it is the doer of the action]

She slapped him.”
[The pronoun “she” is in the nominative case because it is the doer of the action]

Subjective:  
“The woman is lovely.”
[The noun “woman” is in the subjective case because it is the subject of the sentence]

She is lovely.”
[The pronoun “she” is in the subjective case because it is the subject of the sentence]

  1. Objective case – Nouns or pronouns are in the objective case when they receive the verb’s action or act as the direct or indirect object of a sentence.

Examples:
“The woman slapped Mario.”
[The noun “Mario” is in the objective case, serving as a direct object of the verb “slapped”]

“The woman slapped him.”
[The pronoun “him” is in the objective case, serving as a direct object of the verb “slapped”]

“The woman slipped Mario a note.”
[The noun “Mario” is in the objective case, serving as the indirect object of the verb “slipped”]

“The woman slipped him a note.”
[The pronoun “him” is in the objective case, serving as an indirect object of the verb “slipped]

  1. Possessive case – Nouns or pronouns are in the possessive case when they indicate who or what possesses or owns something.

Examples:
“This seat is mine while that one is yours.”
[Both “mine” and “yours” are possessive pronouns]

Theirs is the glory while ours is the hard work.”
[Both “theirs” and “ours” are possessive pronouns]

As I’m sure you already know very well, the possessive case is actually the simplest of the three cases in English. They are virtually no-brainers so we need not take them up in detail here.

The Case Rule in English  

Now, so we can properly compound nouns and pronouns or use them in combination as subjects, doers of the action, or direct or indirect objects, we must observe the so-called case rule in English.

Before discussing the case rule, however, we need to keep in mind this very important characteristic of nouns in English: even if nouns do take a particular case when used in sentences, they don’t change form or inflect except in the possessive case; in contrast, the pronouns change form or inflect in all of the cases.

Specifically, nouns don’t change form or inflect at all in the nominative or subjective case as well as in the objective case. For instance, the noun “Elvira” will be “Elvira” in all those three cases. (In the possessive case, of course, the noun changes form or inflects to “Elvira’s.” That’s all.)

With this qualification about the difference between nouns and pronouns, we are now ready to take up the case rule in English.

The case rule: A noun and pronoun being used in combination to form a compound subject, a compound doer of the action, or a compound object of the verb should both be in the same case; otherwise, the sentence will be grammatically incorrect.

In practice, we don’t have to consciously apply the case rule in the following situations: when the compound subject of the sentence consists of both nouns, when the compound doer of the action consists of both nouns, and when the compound receiver of the action consists of both nouns. This is because nouns don’t inflect or change at all in all such cases, as I explained earlier.

It is actually when a noun and pronoun—or a pronoun and another pronoun—are combined to form compound subjects, compound doers of the action, or compound objects or receivers of the action that the proper application of the case rule becomes crucial. The case rule provides that we can’t mix a noun and pronoun—or a pronoun and another pronoun—that are in different cases. When we do, the resulting sentence construction becomes grammatically incorrect.

Here are examples of disallowed case mixing:

  1. Mixing a noun and the objective-case pronoun “me”

Wrong:
Jenny and me like each other.”
(The noun “Jenny” is in the nominative case but the pronoun “me” is in the objective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
Jenny and I like each other.”
(Both the noun “Jenny” and the pronoun “I” are now in the nominative case.)

  1. Mixing the nominative-case pronoun “you” with the objective-case pronoun “me”

Wrong:
You and me should travel together sometime.”
(The pronoun “you” is in the nominative case and the pronoun “me” is in the objective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
You and I should travel together sometime.”
(Both “you” and “I” are in the nominative case.)

This brings us to your colleagues’ mixed-case construction:
Me and my friend are going to...”
(The pronoun “me” is in the objective case while the noun “my friend” is in the nominative case, resulting in case-mixing.)

Correct:
I and my friend are going to…”
(Both the pronoun “I” and the noun “my friend” are now in the nominative case.)

Better still (as matter of good form):
My friend and I are going to…”

  1. Mixing the objective case “you” and the nominative case “I”

Wrong:
“Our neighbors are nasty to you and I.”
(The pronoun “you” is in the objective case while the pronoun “I” is in the
subjective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
“Our neighbors are nasty to you and me.”
(The pronouns “you” and “me” are now both in the objective case.)

  1. Mixing the objective case “me” and the subjective case “they”

Wrong:
“I wish they were nicer to me and they.”
(The pronoun “me” is in the objective case while the pronoun “they” is in the subjective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
“I wish they were nicer to me and them.”
(The pronouns “me” and “them” are now both in the objective case.)

I think we’re done now in clarifying the case rule in English. All we need to do now is to see if your colleagues’ usage of “Between you and I…” is correct. It’s true that some grammarians still insist that the use of the nominative case “I” in this phrase is correct, but it’s now generally accepted that the objective case pronoun “me” is the formally correct usage here, as in this sentence: “This secret is just between you and me.”

So, Dessang, you absolutely didn’t learn something wrong or miss out something in school. It’s your colleagues who are definitely wrong in their mixed-case constructions. They are evidently clueless about the case rule and English and it will be great if you can somehow bring this discussion to their attention—the sooner, the better.

Click to read responses or post a response

What does “sic” in brackets mean when used in articles?

From ruelski, a Forum member (February 26, 2010):

Hello, Mr. Carillo, I’ve been reading your postings in this excellent website for more than a year now, reading everything, especially your English grammar lessons/corrections. I cannot lie to you sir, the moment I read your lessons and articles I became an instant fan of yours, and one of these days I’m going to buy one of those books of yours. I would say that you’re doing a great job running this website especially for self-taught English learners and future call-center agents.

My simple question to you now, sir, is—I’m not sure if this question has been asked already—what does it mean when we see the term “sic” in brackets in articles we come across in our everyday readings?

My reply to ruelski:

The bracketed notation “sic” in quoted material is used to indicate the intentional verbatim reproduction of an incorrect or unusual word, spelling, phrasing, or grammatical construction. It is meant to highlight the fact that the material is not an error in transcription, typography, or proofreading. The brackets that set off “sic” are meant to indicate that the notation is not an integral part of the quoted material. Usually, the bracketed “sic” is set in italic type, like this: [sic]

Here are the usual uses of the “sic” notation:

1. When quoting verbatim grammatically flawed material from a major government or legal document: 

Example:
The introduction to the history of the Philippine Senate says: “Long before the Spanish rulers came to the Philippines, the people in their barangays were already governed by a set of rules by their chief [sic].”

Here, I use the “sic” notation to indicate the flawed and awkward grammatical construction of the phrase “were already governed by a set of rules by their chief.” It’s my way of indicating that I’m not responsible for the bad grammar of the phrase.

Assuming that I’m actually making a grammar critique of that sentence, I probably would suggest the following correction right after:

“Long before the Spanish rulers came to the Philippines, the people in their barangays were already governed by a chief who strictly enforced a set of communal rules.”

2. When faithfully reporting an uncommon or archaic usage:

Example:
The biographical movie, which starred Will Smith in the title role, was entitled The Pursuit of Happyness [sic].

The “sic” notation here—I didn’t italicize it because the term being “sicced” is already in italics—is meant to indicate that I’m aware that the spelling of “happyness” departs stylistically from the standard “happiness,” and is not to be construed as a spelling error. It is also meant to alert typesetters, proofreaders, and copyeditors that the unusual spelling should be left uncorrected.

3. When one would like to ridicule or question the judgment of the author or source of a doubtful or flawed quoted material:

Example:
Would you believe, that job applicant with a PhD in comparative literature wrote this sentence in his application letter: “After nine years of teaching the European literary classics at the Sorbonne, I quitted [sic] my tenured job to accept a professorial chair at Harvard University.”

That would be a way of indicating one’s misgivings or contempt for the doubtful English proficiency of that highly experienced professor, for the irregular, uninflected past-tense “quit” is more commonly used than the regular past-tense form “quitted.” This latter form isn’t grammatically wrong, but in academic and professional circles, the clause in question is expected to be normally be written as “I quit my tenured job to accept a professorial chair at Oxford University.”

Click to read responses or post a response

The virtue of elliptical sentence constructions

From Isabel Escoda in Hong Kong (February 22, 2010):

Hello there! As you’ll see below, my brother in SF and I have been discussing your work. He tutors some foreign students in the US. Please explain why he can’t get into your forum, and answer our question about the verb “is” after situation. Many thanks!

Isabel attached to her e-mail the following exchange of e-mails between her and her brother in San Francisco, California:

On Feb 22, 2010, Isabel wrote:

Hi, Dick—have I ever sent you this fine website? It’s a big help for English teachers.

Dick Taylor replied: 

I like him but in trying to subscribe to his service, I can’t seem to get beyond “What color is each letter....” —I don’t understand why this is asked to begin with. Will keep trying.

By the way, are you comfortable with his sentence: “The situation then and now are largely the same.”

Isabel replied:

I’m sure that sentence must be a typo error—though the "then & now" probably calls for a plural verb. Good point, I must ask him.

My e-mailed reply to Isabel:

About this sentence construction: "From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and now are largely the same."

Now that you have brought up the point, I realize that this construction indeed could make some people uncomfortable. I am therefore offering the explanation below.

Semantically, two situations are referred to in that sentence—the situation before, and the situation now. They are two distinct and separate entities. The scrupulously grammatical way to write that sentence is therefore this: “From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and the situation now are largely the same. “Here, it’s obvious that two nouns are being compounded into a plural subject, which would then require the plural form of the verb. (It’s not the adverbs “then” and “now” that are being compounded but the two mentions of the noun “situation” as distinct entities.) 

The sentence construction I used is what is called the elliptical version of that sentence: “From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and now are largely the same.” It deliberately dropped the second use of the term “the situation” on the presumption that it’s already understood to be there, so there’s no need to repeat it; the reader, who is presumed to be conversant with English, is expected to just supply the missing words in his or her mind. This is done by professional writers to make their sentences more concise and streamlined.

Elliptical sentence constructions use the ellipsis, which by definition is the omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete. There are at least five forms of the ellipsis: (1) the routinely omitted “that” in modifying clauses, (2) the elliptical noun phrase, (3) the ellipsis of the verb and its objects and complements, (4) the medial ellipsis, and (4) the ellipsis of clause.

I'll tick off one example of each to show how the ellipsis works:

1. The routinely omitted “that” in modifying clauses:

Normal:  “They knew that two years would be the shortest time that they would need to subdue the enemy forces.”

Elliptical:  “They knew […] two years would be the shortest time […] they would need to subdue the enemy forces.”

2. The elliptical noun phrase:

Normal:  “Jennifer asked for the pink blouse but the salesclerk gave her the red blouse.”

Elliptical: “Jennifer asked for the pink blouse but the salesclerk gave her the red […].”

3. The ellipsis of the verb and its objects and complements:

Normal:  “The beleaguered Supreme Court chief justice will fight it to the very end if he could fight it to the very end.”

Elliptical:  “The beleaguered Supreme Court chief justice will fight it to the very end if he could […].”

4. The medial ellipsis:

Normal: “Arlene will take care of the girls and Eduardo will take care of the boys.”

Elliptical: “Arlene will take care of the girls and Eduardo […], the boys.”

5. The ellipsis of clause:

Normal: “They can leave now if they want to leave now.”

Elliptical: “They can leave now if they want […].”

It takes some practice to get the hang of elliptical usage, but once you get the hang of it, it sounds even better and more idiomatic than normal usage. It’s more professional sounding, too!

Click to read responses or post a response

 

Should it be “take back the unit” or “take the unit back”?

From jolie_frondosa, new Forum member (February 20, 2010):

Hello, just a quick question:

In this sentence, “When did they take back the unit?”, is the syntax incorrect? Surely, “When did they take the unit back?” sounds better. I am not sure of what grammar or syntax rule applies to this. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!

My reply to Jolie:

Yes, the syntax is correct in the sentence “When did they take back the unit?” Its syntax is actually as good as that of “When did they take the unit back?” I have not seen myself any grammar or syntax rule on which construction is better, but I can tell you that even if the second construction does sound better than the first in this particular case, the first construction is actually more flexible and versatile than the second.

Why do I say this?

In both sentence constructions, the object of the verb is the single-word noun “unit.” Both sentences work beautifully whether the noun-form “the unit” comes after the verb phrase “take back”—“take back the unit”—or is positioned in-between the verb phrase—“take the unit back.” However, you will discover that this syntax works only when the object of the verb is a single-word or at most a two-word noun. When that object is a multiword noun phrase—say, “the unit with the defective billing” (modified by a prepositional phrase), “the unit awaiting repairs” (modified by a participial phrase), or “the unit that was delivered yesterday” (modified by a “that”-clause)—the second construction that you favor can no longer work properly.

Look: “When did they take the unit with the defective billing back?” “When did they take the unit awaiting repairs back?” “When did they take the unit that was delivered yesterday back?” In all three cases, the syntax fails miserably; in fact, the modifier ends up as a misplaced modifier.

Now see what happens if we use the first construction: “When did they take back the unit with the defective billing?” “When did they take back the unit awaiting repairs?” “When did they take back the unit that was delivered yesterday?” Everything is in its proper place.

We can summarize the rule as follows: In sentence constructions using the “take back” verb phrase, when the object is a single-word or at most a two-word noun, you can sandwich the object of the verb between “take” and “back”; when the object is a multiword noun phrase, however, you need to position the noun phrase after the verb phrase “take back” to ensure proper syntax. (Of course, the same rule would apply to similar verb phrases like “bring back,” “send back,” “buy back,” and “call back.”)

This sounds like a very complicated rule for a simple question, but as in war, Jolie, doing the simplest could be the most difficult.

Click to read responses or post a response

 

Is “fiscalizer” a legitimate word in the English language?

From Fred Natividad in Livonia, Michigan (February 5, 2010):

Upon receipt of the Yahoo group e-mail below, Fred sent me a copy with this laconic question: “Any comments, Joe?”

The e-mail message runs as follows:

“Ever heard the word ‘fiscalizer’ used extensively on Philippine TV by politicians esp. senators and their supporters?

“Well, sorry to burst the bubble, but ‘fiscalizer’ is another IMBENTO NG PINOY!!

Follow this link to read on the history of the word... :)

My reply to Fred:

I checked out the site indicated in the e-mail above and found it very informative, if a tad too partisan for my taste. I’d like to be as dispassionate as possible about English vocabulary matters, you see.

Anyway, what I know is that “fiscalizer” isn’t really a new Filipino neologism; if my memory serves me well, it was already in vogue way back in the late ’60s and would resurface every time a national election or a showdown in the Philippine Senate or in the Lower House was in the offing. I know that some politicians way back then would appropriate the word to describe themselves or media would tack on the name on one, then both would liberally use it for its strong publicity recall. This would be regardless of whether “fiscalizer” really fit the self-image or the public image of a righteous fighter, or whether they had first checked the word out with a reputable dictionary to find out exactly what it means. What’s important is for the politician so labeled to develop a reputation as a fierce combatant for some cause or anything worth ranting or railing against. Of course, all the while I knew that no respectable dictionary had recognized it yet as an English word, but then who had ever stopped an enterprising Filipino wordsmith or politician from inventing a new English word from scratch—words like, say, “salvage” for “kill” (which actually means the opposite)?

Just to be doubly sure, I checked my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary a while ago and found that it still has no entry for either “fiscalize” or “fiscalizer.” All it has is this entry for “fiscal”:

fiscal
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin fiscalis, from fiscus basket, treasury
Date: 1563

1 : of or relating to taxation, public revenues, or public debt  <fiscal policy>
2 : of or relating to financial matters
fiscally adverb

I would imagine that since the adjective “fiscal” denotes money things and not fighter things, the most appropriate meaning “fiscalize” could have is “monetize,” and “fiscalizer,” well, “monetizer.” Of course, I’m sure none of the self-proclaimed fiscalizers would want this meaning to stick; it’s, ummh, so demeaning—as if an honest-to-goodness fiscalizer is doing it only for the money.  

Anyway, I did a media check on “fiscalizer” and found that a story of the Philippine Star in its November 18, 2008 issue identified Senator Manuel Villar as such in the headline, “‘No regrets, I’ll serve as fiscalizer’,” although nowhere in the story is there any mention that he had described himself as such. (Question to the Philippine Star editor: Was it deliberately or inadvertently edited out?) You see, this was when he was ousted as Senate President, and what he actually said (as quoted in the news story), was this: “I don’t see how it will affect me. Being Senate president had tied me down to this job. At least, I can say that I’m free to move around and have more time now to attend to the poor, to assist needy overseas Filipino workers, to serve the public more.” (Sounds like he was already campaigning for the presidency that early!) But that doesn’t sound to me like “fiscalizing” or a “fiscalizer’s” job at all! I therefore suspect that it was the reporter or the paper’s desk editor who had stuck that tag on Villar, whether he wanted it or not. So perhaps it’s also media’s fault that “fiscalizer” continues to have its phantom semantic existence up to this day!

I say this in all seriousness because it looks like even Senator Joker Arroyo—a genuine, bona fide lawyer—had appropriated “fiscalizer” to describe himself way back in 2007. A Philippine Information Agency (PIA) news story on April 12 of that year reported:

Joker stresses role as Administration’s “fiscalizer”

Tacloban City (12 April) -- Re-electionist Senator Joker Arroyo defended his position in running under the Administration ticket during the Team Unity’s campaign sortie here in Samar yesterday saying he will continue to act as “fiscalizer” of the Arroyo administration.

According to Sen. Arroyo, his position of being an “opposition within the administration” will not change despite the fact that he is running under the Administration’s Team Unity as there was no agreement at all that he will stop being critical to the Arroyo government in exchange for his being picked up as its candidate.

For the current national election season, it appears that it’s Senator Benigno Aquino III who had appropriated “fiscalizer” as campaign tag and persona. It seems that he had described himself as such in an interview on “Probe Profiles” on ABS-CBN. So now “fiscalizer” has just gotten a new lease on life in an altogether new context. Anyway, I suppose that its fate and formal acceptance as a legitimate word by reputable English dictionaries will ultimately depend—or at least depend largely—on the outcome of the coming Philippine presidential elections. So let’s just wait and see what happens to “fiscalize” and “fiscalizer” when the final poll tallies are out. It just might land a well-deserved place in the English lexicon—or be consigned to semantic oblivion for posterity.

Click to read responses or post a response

How do “I hope” and “hopefully” differ and is the latter acceptable?

From Mr. Roger Alvarez in the United States (January 23, 2010):

In an article entitled “How to sound smarter?” in the February 2010 issue of the Reader’s Digest, some of the explanations did not help nonnative English speaker like me. Can you please elaborate on the differences between “I hope” and “hopefully” and between “nauseous” and “nauseated” as well as on the unnecessary use of “most” when saying “most everyone”?

My reply to Roger:

On “I hope” and “hopefully.” In a posting last January 2 about the adverb “overly,” I actually took up the objection of some grammarians to the use of “hopefully” as a frontline adverbial modifier, as in “Hopefully summer this year won’t be so hot.” The objectors point out that such usage of “hopefully” in the sense of “in a hopeful manner” is nonstandard and grammatically wrong. They insist that there should be a subject doing the “hoping” in such constructions, as in “I/we/they hope summer this year won’t be so hot,” or, if the subject can’t be specified for some reason, at least the sentence should take the form “It is hoped summer this year won’t be so hot.”

I mentioned that the controversy over the usage of “hopefully” had been so fierce that William Safire, the late American grammar maven, was quoted as having remarked: “The word ‘hopefully’ has become the litmus test to determine whether one is a language snob or a language slob.” He fiercely opposed the use of “hopefully” in such frontline adverbial constructions, but he eventually relented in the face of the growing currency of that usage.

So, the question that I’m sure is topmost in your mind is this: Is such frontline use of “hopefully” acceptable or not?

Simply as a stylistic preference, I personally make every effort to avoid that usage of “hopefully,” but at least two language authorities now recognize that usage as standard.

Here’s Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary on “hopefully”:

hopefully
Function: adverb
Date: 1593
1 : in a hopeful manner
2 : it is hoped : I hope : we hope <hopefully the rain will end soon>

usage In the 1960s the second sense of hopefully, which dates to the early 18th century and had been in fairly widespread use since at least the 1930s, underwent a surge in popularity. A surge of criticism followed in reaction, but the criticism took no account of the grammar of adverbs. Hopefully in its second sense is a member of a class of adverbs known as disjuncts. Disjuncts serve as a means by which the author or speaker can comment directly to the reader or hearer usually on the content of the sentence to which they are attached. Many other adverbs (as interestingly, frankly, clearly, luckily, unfortunately) are similarly used; most are so ordinary as to excite no comment or interest whatsoever. The second sense of hopefully is entirely standard.

And here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has to say about “hopefully”:

hopefully
adv.  

  1. In a hopeful manner.
  2. Usage Problem It is to be hoped: "Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring" (William O. Douglas).

Usage Note: Writers who use hopefully as a sentence adverb, as in Hopefully the measures will be adopted, should be aware that the usage is unacceptable to many critics, including a large majority of the Usage Panel. It is not easy to explain why critics dislike this use of hopefully. The use is justified by analogy to similar uses of many other adverbs, as in Mercifully, the play was brief or Frankly, I have no use for your friend. And though this use of hopefully may have been a vogue word when it first gained currency back in the early 1960s, it has long since lost any hint of jargon or pretentiousness for the general reader. The wide acceptance of the usage reflects popular recognition of its usefulness; there is no precise substitute. Someone who says Hopefully, the treaty will be ratified makes a hopeful prediction about the fate of the treaty, whereas someone who says I hope (or We hope or It is hoped) the treaty will be ratified expresses a bald statement about what is desired. Only the latter could be continued with a clause such as but it isn't likely. · It might have been expected, then, that the initial flurry of objections to hopefully would have subsided once the usage became well established. Instead, critics appear to have become more adamant in their opposition. In the 1969 Usage Panel survey, 44 percent of the Panel approved the usage, but this dropped to 27 percent in our 1986 survey. (By contrast, 60 percent in the latter survey accepted the comparable use of mercifully in the sentence Mercifully, the game ended before the opponents could add another touchdown to the lopsided score.) It is not the use of sentence adverbs per se that bothers the Panel; rather, the specific use of hopefully in this way has become a shibboleth.

On “nauseous” and “nauseated.” I haven’t read what the Reader’s Digest says about the usage of these two words, but I would presume that it’s about the insistence of some grammarians that the adjective “nauseous” can only be used in the sense of “causing nausea or disgust,” and that it’s wrong to use the adjective “nauseated” in the sense of “affected with nausea or disgust.”

I really don’t feel strongly about the usage of either “nauseous” and “nauseated.” In the admittedly few occasions that I found use for these adjectives, I actually thought of them as synonymous and practically interchangeable. I therefore won’t loss sleep over the choice between them. Formally, though, here’s what the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary thinks about the usage of the two:

nauseous
Function: adjective
Date: 1612

1 : causing nausea or disgust  : NAUSEATING
2 : affected with nausea or disgust
nauseously adverb 
nauseousness noun 

usage Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

nauseate
Function: verb
Inflected Form: -ated ; -ating
Date: 1625

intransitive verb 
1 : to become affected with nausea
2 : to feel disgust
transitive verb   : to affect with nausea or disgust

On the supposedly wrong use of “most” in “most everyone.” At the outset, Roger, I have to disagree with the notion that the use of “most” in “most everyone” is unnecessary. That usage is actually an established fact, with “most” used as a more concise substitute for “almost.” What’s in question really is whether the construction “most everyone” is correct and acceptable usage.

Formally, of course, we are expected to say or write, for example, “Almost everyone is afraid that someone incompetent might be elected chairman of the company,” not “Most everyone is afraid that someone incompetent might be elected chairman of the company.” I won’t quibble over this usage prescription.

But let’s seize the cat by its tail, so to speak, and see what happens. Take your pick between these two alternative constructions of that sentence: “That someone incompetent might be elected chairman of the company is the fear of almost everyone.” “That someone incompetent might be elected chairman of the company is the fear of most everyone.” For me, version 2 that uses “most everyone” is better and more euphonic. It’s for this reason that I think we should be more flexible when faced with the choice of using “almost everyone” or “most everyone.”

But is my call for flexibility in this choice misguided and misplaced? I don’t think so. At the very moment of this writing, Google records the following entries for the usage of the two:

“most everyone” – From everywhere, 326,000,000; from the Philippines, 828,000
“almost everyone” – From everywhere, 95,600,000; from the Philippines, 229,000

The usage of “most everyone” beats that of “almost everyone” by a ratio of about 7:2, proving that the frowned-upon “most everyone” is closer to the heart of most everyone in terms of communication utility.

Click to read responses or post a response

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




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

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!

Page last modified: 26 March, 2010, 11:25 p.m.