MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

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

A strange interrogative construction and other grammar problems

A few days ago, I came across a truly strange construction of the English interrogative in the Internet edition of one of the major Metro Manila broadsheets. It was in the following major story by the Philippine Daily Inquirer about the results of the recent Philippine national elections:

The grammar puzzler in the above passage is obviously the very first sentence: “Are there be other ‘koala bears’ on the loose?” What’s the verb “be” doing in that sentence? Is it at all necessary or is it simply a typographical error?

I must admit that this is the very first time I encountered this very odd form of the English interrogative. Did I miss it when it was taught in English grammar class? I’ve always known that that particular question should be constructed without using the verb “be,” as follows:

“Are there other ‘koala bears’ on the loose?”
or:
“Could there be other ‘koala bears’ on the loose?”

I’ve looked far and wide for English usage similar to that newspaper’s problematic sentence, but all I’ve come up with are these two likewise doubtful usages:

“Q: Are there be epic prestige classes?”
“Q 23. Are there be any catering facilities on or off site?”

My feeling is that unless I’ve stumbled on an archaic usage that might not be grammatically wrong, the form “are there be…?” is truly bad form and should be avoided particularly in newspaper reporting.

The second sentence of that newspaper’s lead passage also has a serious grammatical flaw:

“Some defeated candidates on Monday bared that they were approached by persons as early as last year who told them about the recall of the compact flash (CF) cards to be used for the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines in the May elections.”

Note that the statement gets garbled by the time it goes beyond the word “persons”; this is because the phrase that expresses the time frame, “as early as last year,” gets in the way and prevents the phrase “who told them…” from properly modifying its true referent noun, “persons.” Indeed, “as early as last year” is a badly misplaced modifying phrase in that sentence.

A quick, simple way to fix this grammar problem is simply to reposition the phrase “as early as last year” right after the subordinating conjunction “that” so that it won’t get in the way of the modifying job to be done by “who told them…”:

“Some defeated candidates on Monday bared that as early as last year, they were approached by persons who told them about the recall of the compact flash (CF) cards to be used for the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines in the May elections.”  

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:   

(1) Philippine Star: Wrong use of word (Internet edition)

The first sentence of the lead passage above is semantically flawed because of the wrong positioning and misuse of the word “cooperative” to modify the noun “employee.” (Indeed, did it matter in that abduction whether the employee was “cooperative” or not?) As can be quickly ascertained from the context, the word “cooperative” was meant to be a noun denoting “an enterprise or organization owned by and operated for the benefit of those using its services,” not an adjective that means “marked by willingness.”

That sentence should therefore be rewritten as follows:

“Abu Sayyaf gunmen seized a passenger jeepney, abducted an employee of a local cooperative and two civilians in a remote village in Basilan province yesterday morning, according to a police official.”

(2) The Manila Times: Wrong word choice (Internet edition)

The word “sustained” in the phrase “leaving the parents of two families with sustained injuries” is obviously a wrong word choice; it should be the adjective “serious” instead. In that phrase, the use of the verb “leaving” is also inappropriate”; “causing” is a more logical choice. Finally, the use of the noun phrase “parents of two families” is semantically flawed; since the noun “families“ already subsumes the parents, “heads of the two families” would be more accurate.

Here then is the corrected lead sentence:

“A weak riprap that collapsed because of continuous rains hit the portion of a two-story house along Marcos Highway on Thursday morning, causing serious injuries to the heads of the two families.”

(3) Philippine Star: Garbled sentence (Internet edition)

What we have here is a garbled, highly convoluted sentence construction where it’s difficult to figure out what the subject of the sentence really is and what its main idea is all about. This is the result of delaying the identification of the subject of the sentence until 28 words later, and of its predicate several words thereafter. For clarity and easier understanding, it is good policy in news journalism for sentences to deliver both the subject and predicate as early as possible, and to avoid cluttering the construction by just adding the modifying phrases afterwards.

Here’s how that lead sentence can be made clearer and easier to understand:

“The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) now intends to beautify the vicinity of the National Shrine of Our Mother of Perpetual Help, popularly known as the Baclaran Church, so as to make it a tourism hub. The MMDA made this announcement after clearing the area of all illegal sidewalk vendors and street hawkers.”

Click to post a comment to this critique

View the complete list of postings in this section