I’ve always felt that something wasn’t right in the way either of the two news anchors of a major Metro Manila cable TV network would wind up its 10:00 o’clock nightly newscast. One of them would make an almost imperceptible shrug of the shoulders, enunciate something pithily profound like, say, “You must live in the present, launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment,”* smile a forced smile after a quick swallow of the throat, then make a fast goodbye as if his or her hand had been caught inside a cookie jar.

On one occasion, in fact, I had remarked to my two sons how odd this body language of the news anchors was. When they pressed me for a reason why, I theorized that the anchors probably were reading something on the teleprompter against their will, something very well-worded that wasn’t in their power to think up on their own but have to say anyway because it was in the script. I was almost sure that the anchors were actually reciting quotable quotes from famous historical or literary figures without giving attribution, but because of the pressure of so many other mundane tasks, I never really got to verify my hunch.

But a few nights ago, while one of my sons was watching that nightly newscast, he interrupted my reading to call my attention to what he thought was the confirmation of that hunch. “Dad,” he said, “one of the newscasters has just said, ‘Who does not know another language, does not know his own,’ and he said it as if it was his own idea. It’s actually a direct quote from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the great German writer. We used that quote in the Quotable Quotes section of Jose Carillo’s English Forum last week, and you asked me to make sure the attribution was done right, remember?”

“Hmm . . . Are you sure the newscaster didn’t attribute the statement to Goethe?” I asked.

“No, Dad, he didn’t,” he said. “Like before, the newscaster seemed hesitant so say the quote but he said it anyway without attribution. So you were right after all—those profound ideas they have gotten into the habit of reciting at the end of each newscast were somebody else’s.”

“I thought so.”

“Isn’t there a law against that?”

“Well, in writing, if you don’t attribute a quoted statement to the author, that would be plagiarism. You’ve stolen intellectual property. In college, your professor could flunk you if you’re caught doing it.”

“So why do those newscast writers persist in not giving credit where credit is due? Do they think the broadcast media is above the law?”

“Maybe not. Perhaps they’re doing it simply as a private joke. They probably want to see how far they can take the newscasters, the station management, and us TV viewers for a ride. They must get such a good laugh watching those newscasters squirm while reciting a quotable quote as if it was their own.”

“That’s mean! Shouldn’t those news writers be sanctioned for that?”

“That’s up to the TV station, son. Perhaps they should just be asked to stop the practice outright, be slapped a fine of perhaps a month’s salary, publicly apologize in their own newscast, and undergo intensive training in journalistic ethics.”

“And what about those newscasters who are routinely conned into mouthing other people’s ideas as if those ideas were theirs?”

“Oh, I suspect they know the game all along. I’ll bet they are aware that each of those quoted statements need attribution. But they just aren’t sensitive enough to the primacy of intellectual property rights, and not assertive enough either to resist the lawless humor of their news writers. So what they need, I think, is a special course in assertiveness training.” (September 5, 2009)  

*This is a quote from Henry David Thoreau, American essayist, poet, and philosopher (1817-1862).

-------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, September 5, 2009, © 2009 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment

We are going back to some grammar basics today because of an interesting e-mail that I received from a reader, Mr. Dante Quiba of Vallejo, California, who asked for my thoughts on certain words that were bugging him. He wondered which of them were advisable to use and which might have already fallen into disuse. They are “about,” “regarding,” “concerning,” “touching on,” “in terms of,” and “on account of.” I guess my answer to Dante will be of interest to all users and learners of English, so I am devoting this essay entirely to it.

As we know, the words Dante was asking about are very commonly used prepositions or prepositional phrases. They are those handy grammar devices in the English language that refer to things or relate them to one another. All of the six that Dante mentioned are, of course, still very much in use these days. The first four actually mean the same thing: “in connection with” or “on the subject of.” The shortest of them, “about,” is also the most natural and most forceful. It is arguably our best choice for informal statements that need to refer to something: “About our agreement last night, put it on hold until next week. I have second thoughts about some of the provisions.”

“Regarding” and “concerning” have a mildly officious and legalistic undertone, but if that doesn’t bother us, we can use them freely in place of “about.” Feel how they sound: “Regarding your application for a loan, you may expect release in two weeks.” “We are writing concerning your daughter’s academic performance.” On the other hand, the phrase “touching on” is of very limited use, appropriate only in constructions like these two: “Touching on the subject of romance, he became a spellbinding speaker.” “It will help if you touch on the subject of overtime pay in your briefing.” By some quirk of the language, “touch on” seems to work only when it latches on to the phrase “the subject of.” We thus must avoid it if we can.

“In terms of” (which means “considering”) and “on account of” (“because”) are also respectable—if a bit officious—prepositional phrases: “A time deposit is superior to a savings deposit in terms of interest income.” “We canceled the games on account of the inclement weather.” We must also note here that “in view of,” “owing to,” and “due to” can very well take the place of “on account of” in that second sentence; the choice really depends on what we do for a living and the company we keep. (Lawyers gravitate to “in view of” for their own reasons, but if you ask a non-lawyer like me, I’d much prefer to use “due to” most of the time.)   

More prepositional phrases abound that mean the same thing as “about,” but we are well advised to stay away from them. They are abstruse and can give our prose a false, awkward tone, particularly these five: “in accordance with,” “in connection with,” “in conformance to,” “by reason of,” and “as to.” Two really obsolete ones, “apropos of” and “anent,” are best avoided altogether.

Then there are scores more of prepositional phrases that are too long-winded and legalistic for comfort; we should make it a point of honor to always replace them with their more concise equivalents. Here are some of them with their no-nonsense counterparts: “at such time” (“when”), “at that point in time” (“then,” “now”), “by means of” (“by”), “by virtue of” (“by,” “under”), “despite the fact that” (“although”),“due to the fact that” (“because”), “during the course of,” “in the course of” (“during”), “for the amount of” (“for”), “for the purpose of” (“for,” “under”), “from the point of view of” (“from,” “for”), “in order to” (“to”), “in a manner similar to” (“like”), “in excess of” (“more than,” “over”), “in favor of” (“for”), “in relation to” (“about,” “concerning”), “in the nature of” (“like”), “in the immediate vicinity of” (“near”), “in close proximity to” (“near”), “in the present” (“now”), “on one occasion” (“once”), “on the basis of” (“by,” “from”), “subsequent to” (“after”), “until such time as” (“until”), “with a view to” (“to”), “with reference to” (“about,” “concerning”), “with regard to” (“about,” “concerning”), and “with respect to” (“about,” “concerning”).

And while we are at it, we should also mercilessly eliminate from our personal and official correspondence the following prepositional clichés on sight: “acknowledge receipt of,” “it has come to my attention,” “at this writing,” “attached thereto,” “receipt is hereby acknowledged,” “please be advised that,” “enclosed herewith,” “thank you in advance,” and—as I suggested avoiding in an earlier column—“more power to you!”

If there’s one rule we should live by in the use of prepositional phrases, it is to choose the most concise and most forthright but friendly ones that can precisely convey our meaning. (March 15, 2004)

-----------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, March 15, 2004, © 2004 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment