MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

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

A very serious case of species and animal gender confusion

You must have already heard the news about that horse and zebra mating at the Manila Zoo to produce what has been alternatively called a “hebra” and a “zorse.” Well, whether “hebra” or “zorse,” zoo officials described its birth as “a very rare event.” Obviously, of course, it became delightful fodder for both the broadcast and print media. But at least in one major broadsheet’s reportage, it generated a very serious case of species and animal gender confusion and several grammar and semantic problems besides.

Let’s now closely examine the extraordinary language and grammar problems triggered by that exceptionally rare interbreeding:

Manila Bulletin: Species and animal gender confusion; various grammar and semantic problems

CAPTION: A week-old ‘hebra’ flexes its muscle and feels the earth alongside its mother, a zebra. Hebra’s father is a horse.

This is a very interesting human-interest story that admittedly has produced a very charming, well-worded lead, “It was a mismatch made in heaven.” Wow! That imagery is truly impressive! Unfortunately, though, the story is riddled with very serious grammar and semantic errors, namely (1) animal species confusion, (2) animal gender confusion and wrong verb usage, (3) pronouns with mixed-up or unclear antecedents, (4) redundant wording of a verb phrase, (5) misuse of a nonrestrictive relative clause as a modifier, (6) wrong term for an animal’s young, (7) wrong tense for the verb, (8) erroneous form of the past perfect, and (9) wrong use of a noun’s singular form.

1. Species confusion: This is perhaps understandable because of the oddity of the animal birth being reported, but I must say that both the headline of the news story and the caption of the accompanying exhibit serious confusion as to the kind of animal being reported about. The headline says that what was born is a “horse,” but this is contradicted by the photo caption, which says that the young animal is a “hebra.” Even in an exceptional situation like this, the least we expect is for the reporter and his newspaper to be consistent with terminology so as not to confuse the readers. From what we can gather later in the story, that cute, young half-breed—even if it’s a horse look-alike—is more aptly named a “hebra,” not a “horse.”
2. Animal gender confusion and wrong verb usage: The second paragraph states that “A domesticated stallion…bore an offspring called ‘hebra’…” The use of the verb “bore” gives the erroneous impression that it was the stallion that became pregnant with and that gave birth to the “hebra.” This couldn’t be, of course, for a stallion is an uncastrated male horse kept for breeding. It’s the zebra that’s female in this case, so it’s the one that “bore” or mothered that offspring; the stallion just “sired” or fathered it. (The verb “bear” in this context means “to give birth to” or “to produce as yield,” a phenomenon that, of course, is unique to the female of the species.) That statement should therefore be semantically and grammatically corrected as follows: “A domesticated stallion…mated with a zebra and sired an offspring called ‘hebra’…” Conversely, it can also be correctly restated as follows: “A zebra…mated with a domesticated stallion and bore an offspring called “hebra.”
3. Pronouns with mixed-up or unclear antecedents: Also in the second paragraph, the subordinate clause “it was placed inside the latter’s pen” is extremely confusing. Because of the preponderance of preceding nouns in the main clause (“domesticated stallion,” “herd of zebras,” “an offspring called ‘hebra’”), it’s unclear what the correct antecedent of the pronoun “it” in the subordinate clause is, and it’s also unclear what the correct antecedent of the possessive “latter’s” is. There’s a very simple fix to avoid this confusion, however, and it is to spin off that subordinate clause into a separate sentence, as follows: “This happened after the stallion was placed inside the zebra’s pen in the Manila Zoo, city zoo officials reported on Monday.” This time, the reader no longer has to rely on the fuzzy pronoun “it” and the equally fuzzy possessive “latter’s” to establish what’s being done to what and where in the original subordinate clause.
4. Redundant wording of a verb phrase: In the second sentence, the wording of the verb phrase “remains to be in a ‘guarded’ situation” is redundant. The verb “remain” is one of a few English verbs that already subsumes the sense of “to be” (as do the verbs “stay” and “keep”), so “to be” is best dropped from that verb phrase for euphony and conciseness: “remains in a ‘guarded’ situation.”
5. Misuse of a nonrestrictive relative clause as modifier: In the second paragraph, the noun form “several complications” is wrongly modified by the nonrestrictive relative clause “which might be brought about by mismatches of genes from two animals.” But that relative clause is integral to the nature of the “complications,” so it needs to be treated as a restrictive clause instead. This change can be effected by simply getting rid of the pair of commas that sets off that relative clause, then by replacing the relative pronoun “which” with “that”: “several complications that might be brought about by mismatches of genes from the two animals.”
6. Wrong term for an animal’s young: In the third sentence (and again in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph), the newly born hebra is erroneously called a “fawn.” A “fawn,” however, is the term for a young deer; the young animal of the horse family is called a “foal.” There’s a big semantic difference between the two.
7. Wrong tense of the verb: In the fourth paragraph, the use of the past-perfect tense “had happened” in the clause “a very rare occurrence had happened in Manila Zoo last week” is erroneous. Since the time of occurrence, “last week,” is given, the simple past tense should have been used: “a very rare occurrence happened in Manila Zoo last week.” Even if found in direct quotes, such basic grammar errors should be corrected as a matter of courtesy to the speaker.
8. Erroneous form of the past perfect: Also in the fourth paragraph, the verb phrase “had finally gave birth to a hebra” is in the wrong form of the past perfect. Even if that grammar error was part of a direct quote from the zoo official, it’s really bad that both the reporter and the deskperson had not caught and corrected it. Of course, main verbs in the past perfect should always be in the past-participle form, so “gave” should be corrected to “given”: “had finally given birth to a hebra.”
9. Wrong use of a noun’s singular form: The photo caption says that the week-old “hebra” flexes “its muscle.” We can be sure that the animal was flexing more than just one muscle in that flexing exercise, so that noun should properly be rendered in its plural form “muscles.”

Here then is that entire passage from the “hebra” story with all the needed corrections:

Zebra gives birth to ‘hebra’

“It was a mismatch made in heaven.

“A domesticated stallion, said to be isolated by other horses, found love with a herd of zebras and sired an offspring called ‘hebra.’ This happened after the stallion was placed inside the zebra’s pen in the Manila Zoo, city zoo officials reported on Monday.

“The newly born hebra or crossbreed of zebra and horse, however, remains in a ‘guarded’ situation as the foal might develop several complications that might be brought about by mismatches of genes from the two animals, according to Manila Zoo division chief Dr. Donald Manalastas.

“‘A very rare occurrence happened in Manila Zoo last week as our zebra had finally given birth to a hebra. Though the foal may look healthy and active now, we are still monitoring its health,’ Manalastas told the Manila Bulletin in an exclusive interview.”

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) Philippine Star: Verb tense confusion; wrong phrasal verb; erroneous plural noun for singular antecedent

1. Verb tense confusion: In the first sentence of the news passage above, the use of the passive modal form “would be filed” is inconsistent with the conditional present-perfect “have been dismissed.” The correct form for this conditional phrase is the present-tense indicative “are dismissed,” as in this revision of that sentence: “Panelo said that perjury charges would be filed against De Venecia and Lozada once the charges against Abalos are dismissed.”
2. Wrong phrasal verb: In the second sentence, the phrasal verb “resulting to his acquittal is grammatically wrong and unidiomatic. It should be “resulting in his acquittal” instead. This error in a very basic grammar usage recurs so often, so I think newspaper reporters and editors should really make a more rigorous effort to avoid it and stamp it out from the printed page.
3. Wrong plural-form adjective for singular antecedent: In the third sentence, the plural form “their client” is erroneous wrong because its antecedent is the singular proper noun “Panelo.” It’s evident that the reporter and the editors mistook the compound noun “De Venecia and Lozada” as the antecedent for “their client.”  Instead, the adjective “their” should be “his” in reference to the singular proper noun “Panelo” as antecedent noun.

So here’s the corrected version of that entire passage:

“Panelo said that perjury charges would be filed against De Venecia and Lozada once the charges against Abalos are dismissed.

“‘When the case filed against Mr. Abalos has terminated resulting in his acquittal, we would be filing perjury charges as well as damage suits (against them) for all the lies and fabrications,’ he said after hearing De Venecia say that he is confident that Abalos would be jailed.

“Panelo said the testimonies of both De Venecia and Lozada at the Senate, which they will reiterate during the graft trial, have damaged the reputation of his client ‘and caused anguish and suffering to the members of his (Abalos) family.’”

(3) Manila Bulletin: Grammatically flawed phrasing; use of the nonstandard “with regards to”

1. Grammatically flawed phrasing: The phrase “the issue whether to sever the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) or not” is grammatically wrong, It needs the preposition “on” before the conjunction “whether” to properly convey the intended idea.
2. Use of the nonstandard “with regards to”: The prepositional phrase “with regards to this matter” is considered nonstandard by grammar authorities, so it should be studiously avoided. The accepted form is “with regard to”—no “s” at the tail end of “regard”—and “regarding.” I recommend “regarding” in this particular instance.

Here’s the problematic passage as corrected:

“Due to the urgency of the issue on whether to sever the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) or not, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo disclosed that he is set to meet this week with the foreign affair chairs of both the Senate and the Lower House to discuss what steps the government should take regarding this matter.

“‘I’m meeting this week with Senate foreign relations Senator Loren Legarda and the chairman of foreign relations in the House, Albay Rep. Al Francis Bichara to discuss the matter,’ Romulo told reporters at the sidelines of the event honoring the Filipino women ambassadors at the DFA Main Building last Monday night.”

(3) The Manila Times: Wordy phraseology; Improper use of the singular noun form; wrong verb phrase construction

1. Wordy phraseology: Although the term “marching order” gained wide currency in journalistic circles recently because of its repeated use by key Malacañang functionaries, its use in the verb phrase “has given a marching order to” in the above passage sounds badly strained and is actually redundant. The more concise “has ordered” sounds not only more natural but also more effective.
2. Inappropriate use of the singular noun form: In the first sentence of the passage, the use of the singular noun “attack” in “to intensify offensive attack” doesn’t conform to the sense of the statement and the repeated nature of such attacks. That noun should therefore be in the plural form “attacks” for grammatical and semantic finesse.
3. Wrong verb phrase construction: In the same first sentence, the verb phrase “should the proposed peace talk will not succeed here” is a grammatically wrong construction because it is straddled by the modal “should” and the future tense “will.” Only one of them is needed in such constructions. A palliative grammatical solution is to drop “will” and keep only “should,” but the resulting construction is still of doubtful grammatical correctness: “should the proposed peace talk not succeed here.” I suggest this much better construction: “in the event the proposed peace talks here do not succeed.”

Here’s a rewrite of that passage that takes all of the above considerations into account:

“PILI, Camarines Sur: Armed Forces Chief of Staff Ricardo David has ordered his men to intensify offensive attacks against the communist insurgents operating across the country, specifically in the Bicol region, in the event the proposed peace talks here do not succeed.

“The directive came after a command conference on Saturday with David and the soldiers held at the Army’s 9th Infantry Division.”

(4) The Manila Times: Repeated erroneous use of the plural pronoun “they”; misstated point of the sentence

The first paragraph of the passage above not only misstates what it intended to say but also seriously mishandles its pronoun usage:

1. Repeated wrong use of the plural pronoun “they”:  In the first sentence above, the plural pronoun “they” is wrongly used twice. The antecedent of “they,” however, is the singular proper noun “Department of Health,” so that pronoun should be the singular “it” instead. (The plural pronoun for the singular antecedent is only used in British English for such group nouns as “company,” “corporation,” and “organization.”) Admittedly, the singular pronoun “it” doesn’t have a very nice sound in such constructions. Astute writers and editors therefore routinely make the organization’s officials the doer of the action instead in such sentences. This allows for the use of the better-sounding plural pronoun “they” instead of the seemingly inconsequential “it.”
2. Misstated point of the sentence: The phrase “now more confident in fighting the people’s right to information” states the exact opposite of what it intended to say. The DOH isn’t fighting the people’s right to information” but is actually fighting for that right. That said, we can see that the missing preposition “for” is the cause of the wrong semantics of that phrase, which should have been stated as follows: “now more confident in fighting for the people’s right to information.”

So here’s that grammatically troubled passage as corrected:

“Department of Health (DOH) officials on Wednesday said they are now more confident in fighting for the people’s right to information after they won their first victory against tobacco companies.

“The Health department together with health and law professionals celebrated their victory after the Parañaque court denied an injunction in a case filed against the agency by Telengtan Brothers and Sons, or the La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory.”

Click to post a comment to this critique

View the complete list of postings in this section