USE AND MISUSE

Good writing avoids clichés, not idiomatic expressions

A Filipina who works in the Middle East e-mailed me last July 21 to call attention to her comments to old postings of mine in my English-usage blogspot, Jose Carillo on the English Language (http://josecarillo.blogspot.com). “I’ve been reading your earlier posts, some of which I have commented on,” Lucky Mae wrote. “You haven’t answered them though, so I thought that either I didn’t state them properly or you think I should just figure them out myself. It’s most likely, though, that you didn’t get to read them…”

As it turns out, Lucky Mae posted her comments only this July to three of my weekly postings that date as far back as July of 2009 and February this year. No wonder then that I wasn’t able to read her comments. I keep track of replies to my blog postings only up to three to four weeks after they are published, after which I consider them closed for discussion.

(So for those who visit and read my old postings in that blogspot, please take note: When you post a comment to a posting of mine that’s more than a month old, please send me a copy of your comment by e-mail to j8carillo@yahoo.com. Once you alert me about your belated comment, I’ll see to it that you get a reply both in my blogspot and also by e-mail.)   

On clichés and idiomatic expressions 

Anyway, one of Lucky Mae’s comments was about my blog on September 5, 2009, “The misguided journalistic practice of fiddling with idioms.” In that blog, I discussed the practice of some newspaper reporters of fiddling with idiomatic expressions to put color to their stories, in the process coming up with awful mixed metaphors like “people from all walks of life will paint the town yellow” and “to fall prey to glib tongues when all kinds of scams rear their ugly heads.” I pointed out that it really isn’t a linguistic crime to fashion a sentence with the use of idiomatic expressions; after all, I said, idioms are handy, off-the-shelf rhetorical devices that quickly drive home a point. But I said that to use two or more of them in the same clause or sentence constitutes bad writing.

To that blog of mine, Lucky Mae commented: “I’m not sure if it was from your first book, English Plain and Simple, that I learned to refrain from adding idioms in a composition. That better yet, for the writer to appear more emphatic, he or she should form a new idiomatic expression altogether.”

I am constrained to make this open rejoinder to correct this seriously mistaken notion about idioms that Lucky Mae supposes to have gotten from my book. Definitely, English Plain and Simple doesn’t advise writers to refrain from using idioms in their compositions, so that idea of hers must have come from elsewhere. Instead, what my book suggests is for writers to refrain from using clichés, not idioms and idiomatic expressions.

There’s a big difference between them. An idiom is the language peculiar to a people in a certain locality or to members of a particular group or occupation—it’s the way they normally speak to one another and get themselves understood. And an idiomatic expression is an expression whose meaning usually can’t be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up; even so, that expression is commonly used and clearly understood by a particular community or group.

In contrast, clichés are those commonplace, overused expressions that once might have been fresh and original, probably even written by a good writer sometime in the past. However, these expressions have been used so excessively over the years that they have become very unpleasant to hear, like “dead as a doorknob,” “smell like a rat,”and“stink like a dead mackerel.” And the problem, I emphasize in English Plain and Simple, is that “many of us drug our English insensible with an overdose of clichés.”

So, as I wrote in my column today (July 24, 2010) in The Manila Times in reply to Lucky Mae’s comment on clichés, our fight shouldn’t really be against idioms and idiomatic expressions but against clichés and, I might as well add, against mixed metaphors as well. For idioms and idiomatic expressions are essentially metaphors or short-hand language for shared knowledge or experience between the speaker or writer and the audience. They are not something we need to craft ourselves each time for emphasis. They are already embedded in the language, and to set out not to use them altogether is to make ourselves sound like strangers to the language.

To get to know more of my thoughts about clichés, idioms, and idiomatic expressions, click the following links to the following four essays of mine:

The reign of the dreadful clichés

Learning the English idioms

The nature of true idioms

Clichés and bad body English

On transitive and intransitive verbs

On a blogspot posting of mine on July 18, 2009, “Dealing with Various Levels of Intransitivity,” in which I discussed the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs, Lucky Mae made the following comment: “I was taught of only one foolproof way on this subject in grade school: words ending in “-ly” set intransitive verbs apart.”

I’m positive that either Lucky Mae’s teacher mistook intransitive verbs for adverbs in teaching these parts of speech (in which case a lot of pupils in that class must have absorbed that wrong notion and carried it in their heads for God knows how long until someone corrected it for them), or Lucky Mae simply misunderstood what her teacher taught in class and have had that wrong notion ever since. For definitely, that idea is flat-out wrong. The “-ly” word ending couldn’t be a foolproof way to distinguish intransitive verbs from transitive verbs; in fact, “-ly” is not a characteristic ending of verbs but of adverbs (“tenderly,” “rapidly,” “slowly,” “precariously,” “passively”) and, in much fewer cases, also of adjectives (“priestly,” “miserly,” “portly”).       

It’s most likely then that Lucky Mae’s teacher meant to say something like this general statement instead: “One foolproof way to distinguish between an adjective and an adverb is that an adverb ends in ‘-ly.’” Even this statement, however, is also flat-out wrong; it’s a seriously misplaced and misapplied generalization. The truth of the matter is that in English, definitely not all adverbs end in “-ly” (“always,” “everywhere,” and “rather,” for instance, are adverbs), and that some adjectives—not very many, though—also end in “-ly” (as in the case of the three examples I have given above: “priestly,” “miserly,” “portly”). In other words, the “-ly” ending is not the exclusive domain of adverbs and, truth to tell, verbs—whether transitive or intransitive—should hardly figure in that grammatical comparison at all. There’s simply no connection.

On the growing noun-to-verb conversion syndrome

Finally, on a blogspot posting of mine on February 2, 2010, “Not just a curiosity piece but a little primer in verb-formation,” where I discussed the growing noun-to-verb conversion syndrome in our own time, Lucky Mae made the following comment: “But leaving to the writer/speaker the prerogative to choose the appropriate nerbs is likewise tricky. Can’t we just accept where the English language is going and tolerate it? For only a hard-and-fast rule can put a stop to this...”

All I can say about Lucky Mae’s comment is this: We can’t control or legislate the path that a language will take over time. The best we can do is only to encourage responsible use of the language, whether it’s English or another language. As I said in my December 5, 2005 essay on nerbing, “It is highly unlikely that the nerbing syndrome can be stopped…but we can at least help prevent inappropriate nerbs from swamping English by using usefulness and aesthetics as criteria for evaluating nerbs before using them ourselves. This way, only those that foster brevity as well as accuracy and clarity to language can survive and become welcome entries to the English lexicon.”

Click to read comments or post a comment

Words I love to hate

From Gary Covington, new Forum member (July 6, 2010):

I might as well wade in here - English English speakers never use the word “signage” or “signages.” Plain old “sign” or “signs” does well enough.

My reply to Gary:

That may be so, Gary, but American English speakers—Filipinos included—have been using “signage” since 1976 to specifically mean signs of identification, warning or direction, as opposed to the plain word “sign” that denotes “a mark having a conventional meaning and used in place of words or to represent a complex notion.” I find the distinction very useful myself considering that “sign” has at least seven distinct meanings as opposed to “signage,” which has only one, as we can see in this definition by my Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry: signage
Function: noun 
Date: 1976

 : signs (as of identification, warning, or direction) or a system of such signs

At any rate, Gary, I’d like to welcome you warmly to the Forum! I hope to hear from you often in the discussion boards.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Poisoning the minds of children is ok?
By Sage

The article below was sent in by Forum member Sage in response to the actions taken against Mr. Antonio Calipjo-Go, academic supervisor of Marian School of Quezon City, who had been slapped with libel suits because of his one-man crusade against what he calls “sick books” being used in the Philippine public school system. Mr. Go recently assailed as “dangerous” a proposal by the Department of Education (DepEd) that it be allowed again to commission and publish textbooks for public schools. Instead, he suggested that the DepEd should instead increase the textbook price to get more publishers interested in bidding out a textbook project and then “haggle” with them for the best manuscript. Go said in an interview: “It would be dangerous for the DepEd to publish and commission its own books because there would be no involvement or input from outside. There would be no check and balance there.” (To read the full news report, click this link to “Textbook crusader cautions DepEd” in the June 29, 2010 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.)—Joe Carillo

I don’t get it.

Why was Mr. Calipjo Go subjected to libel suits by publishers, authors, and the DepEd?  He was wrong?

I saw for myself the Grade 5 English book being used by public schools which is labeled not for sale and is mandated for use by the DepEd.  The book says the following words are homonyms: “gripe”/“grip”; “eat”/”it”; “three”/“tree”; “branch”/“brunch”; “for”/“fur.”  Duh?!  The last pair can only be homonyms if “for” is uttered in rapid speech but generally “for” should be partnered with “fore” and “four.” 

The same book has this scientific statement: “Birds sing for the joy of it.”  Birds sing for other purposes but such songs are not used for communication.  I’m still trying to process this and I happen to be a Biology graduate. Oh, another statement is “turtles are slow but sure animals.” Ooookay. Yes, in the context of Aesop’s, but as a general statement it sounds stupid. I saw a list compiled by Mr. Go and I must say that if people in the education industry do not see the mistakes, can we just boycott local textbooks? They don't see the errors?  Really??? I only learned recently that libel suits were filed against Mr. Go. I also read that for DepEd, three major errors in textbooks still deserve a rating of excellent. What a load of crock! This isn’t like getting 97 out of 100 is still okay as psycobabble so kids don’t think they have to be perfect all the time.

They are poisoning our children’s minds. We are breeding a population of imbeciles and idiots who will think that all fish have lungs, plants are self-planters, dreams make the world go around, animals sacrifice their lives for people and, bring peace to the world or create color and harmony to humankind.

I am going to be sick.

If anyone says to me, well, there’s such a thing now as World Englishes and this is part of what is Philippine English... I’m gonna beat the livin’ daylights out of him! Do not use this as an excuse.

Boycott local textbooks. Instead, let us find a way to ask for rights to locally print imported books. There are many good ones out there because I have seen them.

Adding years to our educational system isn’t worth squat if our textbooks are garbage and our teachers are lousy and also products of the same trashy instructional materials!

Back to my question. Why the libel suit? They really really didn’t think they were wrong? This country is so doomed...

Click to read comments or post a comment

70 English idiomatic expressions sometimes bungled by Pinoys
By Oscar P. Lagman, Jr.

MBA professor Oscar P. Lagman, Jr. in the Philippines sent in the collection below of 70 English expressions sometimes bungled by Filipino speakers. See if you know the correct expression for each of them, then check it against the list of the proper expressions that I have provided at the bottom.—Joe Carillo

"There's a total brownout."
(This one was said by Karen Davila [of the ABS-CBN TV network]. As she kept on saying it, I felt compelled to call the station. Luckily, I was able to get through. Within minutes she was saying "total blackout"—but in an embarrassed tone.)     

"Noynoy won by a landscape."

"The defeat of Mar was heart-rendering to Korina."

"The government will exchange hands at noon of June 30."

"Ben, eat your hat out!"

"Give me the load down on that deal."

"The rocket launch was aboard when it rained."

"The flight was rough because we passed thunder and storm."  

"All in a sudden..."

"C'mon! Let's get it on with it!"

"When it rains, it's four."

"Thanks God!"

"He is the splitting image of his father."

"He is cheap of the old black."

"She is getting into my nerves!"

"He ramshackled my files."

"The idea crossed at the back of my mind."

"This is our rooster of clients..."

"The more the manyer."

"It's a no-win-win situation."

"Anulled and void."

"Mute and academic."

"C'mon let's join us!"

"If worse comes to shove."

"Are you joking my leg?"

"It's not my problem anymore, it's yours anymore."

"Well well well. Look do we have here!"

"Let's give them a big hand of applause."

"Been there, been that."

"Forget it about."

"Give him the benefit of the daw."

"It's a blessing in the sky."

"Where'd you came from?"

"Did you brought the tickets?"

"Take things first at a time."

"On one thing condition."

"You're barking at the wrong dog."

"You want to have your cake and bake it too."

"First and for most. "

"I'm only human nature."

"The sky's the langit."

"That's what I'm talking about it."

"Time is of the elements."

"He is the elements."

"Please feel in the family way." 

"The feeling is actual."

"For all intense and purposes."

"The traffic jam was orange juice."

"Sorry, we can't serve you banana split, our bananas ran away."

"That is outside of this world."

"What is the next that comnes after?"

"Whatever you say so."

"Base-to-base casis."

"My answers have been prayered."

"Please let me alone by myself."

"You can't teach old tricks to new dogs."

"It's as good as the new one."

"I can't take it anymore of this!"

"Are you sure ka na ba?"

"I couldn't care a damn!"

"What's your next class before this?"

"Nothing in this world is permanent except change."

"I'm sorry, my boss just passed by away."

"Taal Volcano is beginning to erect."

"Hello, can you hang yourself for a while, I am on the line ..."

" Let us not talk of spilled milk under the bridge.".

"Hello McDo, how much is a kidney meal?"

"Sorry, I am under the bad weather this morning."

"He is under the hot collar this morning."

"Ben and Joe, let's call it tonight."

Click to read comments or post a comment

Shouldn’t we use “ten items or fewer” instead of “ten items or less”?

Question from bhing, Forum member (June 10, 2010):

Shouldn’t we use ten items or fewer? This kind of phrase is commonly seen in the supermarket when you queue up in the express lane. I’m super confused about this...

My reply to bhing:

Yes, we should use the comparative “fewer” instead of “less” for countable supermarket items like bars of soap, pieces of lamb chop, bottles of ketchup, and pieces of banana or orange; and we should use the comparative “less” for uncountable items like flour, rice, salt, water, and dishwashing fluid. That’s the prevailing English grammar rule. However, it has become traditional practice for many supermarkets to write “10 items or less” instead of the grammatically correct “10 items or fewer” on the signboards for their limited checkout counters. (I suppose the thinking behind this is that the noun “item” is indefinite anyway as to whether it’s countable or uncountable, so why make a fuss with the choice of comparative?) At any rate, there seems to be no stopping the practice now, and I don’t think there’s any chance that this errant usage can be legislated out of existence. Still, it remains advisable to correctly use “fewer” and “less” all the time in our own written or spoken English; after all, the ability to discern the semantic difference between these two comparative adjectives marks a person as a truly educated English speaker.

Click to read comments or post a comment

When should “handsomer” and “handsomest” be used?

Another question from bhing (June 10, 2010):

When should the comparative handsomer and the superlative form handsomest be used? In the American Heritage Dictionary, these forms are correct, but these seldom are they used in the Philippines.

My reply to bhing:

The adjective “handsome” actually has meanings other than just a pleasing or impressive appearance. It can also denote something marked by a moderately large size, as in “a handsome offer”; or something marked by generosity of graciousness, as in “a handsome gratuity.” In all these denotations of “handsome,” we use the comparative “handsomer” to indicate who or which between two entities has the stronger attribute of “handsomeness,” as in “The talent scout thought that Talent A was handsomer than Talent B” and “We got a handsomer offer for our beach property from the foreign buyer than from the local one.” On the other hand, we use the superlative “handsomest” to indicate who or which among three or more entities has the strongest attribute of “handsomeness,” as in “The talent scout thought that Talent A was the handsomest among his stable of 12 acting talents” and “We got the handsomest offer for our beach property from the American buyer than from the Chinese, French, Japanese, and Australian buyers.”

I’m not sure if, as you say, “handsomer” and “handsomest” are seldom used in the Philippines. If you mix with the advertising agency, modeling agency, fashion agency, or movie industry crowd, I’m sure you’ll hear that comparative and superlative being used uncountable times 24/7—no matter what the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has decreed about the usage of these two adjectives.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Please unravel this baffling sentence construction

Request from Sky, Forum member (June 7, 2010):

Please explain the statement below and write it into plain and simple English if you can. Thanks.

“The buliding area of one school of MOE school construction project is 5541.12m2, among which the building area of single teaching building with three-story frame structure is 4716.22m2,the buliding area of single one-story gym with sphere structure roof with is 842.9m2.”

My reply to Sky:

That sentence is actually an attempt at plain and simple English, but it was apparently written by a nonnative English speaker with very rudimentary skills in English syntax and sentence construction as well as in spelling and style conventions. It’s an example of the so-called comma splice, which we will recall is a form of the fused or run-on sentence. A fused sentence is formed when two or more clauses are improperly linked or wrongly punctuated, resulting in a confusing statement.

We can easily clarify that sentence by spinning off its three improperly linked clauses into separate sentences, by correcting the spelling of “buliding” to “building,” and by restyling the measure “m2” to “square meters.” For our sentence reconstruction, we will presume that the acronym “MOE” is for “Ministry of Education” and we will use it as spelled out to give readers a better idea of the context of the sentence.

So here now is my suggested reconstruction of that fused sentence:

“In the Ministry of Education’s school construction project, each school building has an area of 5,541.12 square meters (sq m). Every teaching building has a three-story frame structure with an area of 4,716.22 sq m. The school also has a one-story gym with a spherical roof that has an area of 842.9 sq m.”

Click to read comments or post a comment

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