Some of you may find it odd, but I do wish that friends and readers who keep on wishing me “More power!” in their e-mail closings would stop doing so. Frankly, I feel a tinge of irony or even sarcasm in that expression—even if I know it’s not meant to be that way. It’s just that whenever people wish me “More power!” I get the queasy feeling that they presume that I have an insatiable craving for it, or that I have somehow shown a significant weakening in my writing or in my physical demeanor.

If you want to know why I feel so strongly against the use of “More power!” in correspondence, let me tell you that over a fourth of the e-mails I receive from readers of this column use that expression to felicitate me. And when I made a full-year tally of the closings of the 94 letters to the editor of a monthly magazine for which I made a communication audit in 2008, the score was this: 29 “More powers!” (30.8 percent), 28 all other compliments (29.8 percent), and 37 no compliments at all (39.4 percent).

So this question comes to mind: Why are so many people these days wishing other people “More power!” in this land? Has there been a general weakening in the sinew and spirit of the people that they need to be reminded to display more pep and vigor? Or is there, in fact, a perceived craving for more power among the population that needs to be filled even if only vicariously?

I ask these questions because according to my online Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, the word “power” still means “possession of control, authority, or influence over others.” So why would anyone even think of wishing someone to have more power than what he or she already has? For purely selfish reasons, wouldn’t it be more natural for people to wish more power for themselves—even if they already have lots of it? What’s the point of unnaturally wishing other people to have more of it?

I actually suspect that this propensity for “More power!” closings is uniquely Filipino. I’ve researched the expression with Google and I didn’t find it in any of the comprehensive lists of English-language letter closings. So I guess that sometime somewhere in these islands, a powerful role model—perhaps a high-profile public figure or some forceful English professor—must have written or uttered that expression and convinced a lot of people that it was socially graceful to use it. Why else would so many people think that saying “More power!” is not only appropriate but also chic and classy?

On the contrary, though, I think “More power!” belongs to the same league as the truncated expression “God bless!” This isn’t a solely Filipino expression, of course, but I can’t help but wonder: Why can’t people say “God bless you!” in full? Using the objectless “God bless!” seems to me a sign that people find saying the full expression embarrassing. And I won’t buy the explanation that people probably only want to make that expression parallel to the expression “Goodbye!” That one has its object built into it—for it’s actually the universally accepted shorthand for “God be with you!”

So then, to my friends and readers, spare me from any more “More powers!” when felicitating me. Wish me “All the best!” or to “Have a nice day!” Send me your “Best wishes!” or “Cheers!” or your “Warmest personal regards!” Wish me to “Be safe, be healthy, be happy!” if you really mean it. But please, don’t wish me “More Power!” ever again. If you continue to do so, your wish might be granted every time and I just might acquire too much power. You won’t like it when I turn into a petty despot, no longer able to see things clearly and responsibly the way I still can right now. (February 28, 2009)

---------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, February 28, 2009  © 2009 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment

We all know that in English, the main clause of a sentence is generally more important than a subordinate clause or phrase, but many of you must have wondered which position is most appropriate for a subordinate clause or phrase—up front, at the tail end, or elsewhere in the sentence?

Consider this sentence from an Agence France-Presse news dispatch, for instance: “Resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations, in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition.”

Here, of course, it’s obvious that the main clause is “resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations,” and that the subordinate element is “in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition.”

But what about positioning that subordinate element up front instead? The construction seems to read just as well: “In what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition, resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.” And the meaning also stays perfectly intact if the subordinate element is placed neatly within the main clause: “Resource-hungry nations, in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition, are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.”

So, we might as well ask once and for all, what’s the definitive rule for positioning subordinate clauses and phrases?

There are two general grammatical principles for conveying the relative importance of ideas in a sentence. The first, which I have already invoked above, is that ideas expressed in main clauses are generally more important than those in subordinate ones. This rule is, of course, so self-evident that it doesn’t merit further discussion. But the second rule is likely to throw many newspaper reporters and newspaper readers off balance, for it says so counterintuitively that an idea or information given later in a sentence is usually more important than those given earlier.

Indeed, following this second rule, it would seem that by being back-shifted in the sentence I have given as an example, the subordinate element “in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition” assumes more importance than the main clause, “resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.”

But this clearly contradicts the first rule, which says that ideas expressed in main clauses are generally more important than those in subordinate clauses and phrases. If we were to scrupulously follow the two rules, in fact, the optimal position of the subordinate clause in that sentence would be up front: “In what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition, resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.”

So why then does the Agence France-Presse lead sentence seemingly violate the twin rules on subordination and word order?

The reason is this: newspaper journalism differs profoundly from formal exposition when it comes to indicating the relative importance of ideas in a sentence. As we all know, the typical news story uses the so-called “inverted pyramid” mode of presenting information. This approach to storytelling tells the reader the conclusion first, follows it with the most important supporting information, then continues the story by giving aspects of its background in an order of diminishing importance.

In contrast, formal exposition uses the “upright pyramid” mode, meaning that it starts with contextual or foundation ideas first and builds up to the conclusion. It is therefore not surprising that in formal expository writing, the more important information in a sentence—and in the exposition as a whole for that matter—tends to be presented later instead of earlier.

This front-shifting, of course, follows the general rule in English subordination and word order that information given later in a sentence is usually more important than that given earlier. Thus, in formal exposition, the subordinate element in that sentence given as an example above normally gets front-shifted as follows: “In what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition, resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.”

As a stand-alone construction, the above sentence that front-shifts the subordinate element is semantically equivalent to the earlier sentence that back-shifts that same subordinate element. There’s hardly any difference in their meaning. However, when writers back-shift subordinate clauses and phrases indiscriminately, as so often happens in straight-news reporting, very serious problems in semantics and logic can arise.

Indeed, injudicious back-shifting often produces misplaced modifiers, those improperly positioned words, phrases, or clauses that make sentences sound awkward, confusing, or downright absurd and illogical.

Consider the following three problematic lead sentences from recent news stories:

(1) “Half of Metro Manila may have to wait a while longer before enjoying the benefits of having a wastewater treatment facility after regulators deferred the increase in rates.”

Here, the back-shifting of the subordinate clause “after regulators deferred the increase in rates” makes it nonsensically modify the phrase “having a wastewater treatment facility.” The correct, logical position of that subordinate clause is, of course, up front in that sentence, where it can modify the whole main clause instead: “After regulators deferred the increase in water rates, half of Metro Manila may have to wait a while longer before it can enjoy the benefits of having a wastewater treatment facility.”

(2) “The spokesman did not disclose the details of the operation to ensure the safety of the hostages.”

Here, the backshifting of the prepositional phrase “to ensure the safety of the hostages” makes it wrongly modify the noun “operation,” giving the sentence a cockeyed, absurd sense. The intended sense clearly emerges when that prepositional phrase is front-shifted: “To ensure the safety of the hostages, the spokesman did not disclose the details of the operation.”

(3) “Around 190 solons are expected to support and petition for the immediate passage of a measure seeking to rehabilitate and utilize the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant when Congress resumes session on Monday.”

Here, the back-shifting of the subordinate clause “when Congress resumes session on Monday” makes it wrongly modify the prepositional phrase “to rehabilitate and utilize the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant,” thus muddling up the time frame for the actions described in the sentence. The correct sense emerges when that subordinate clause is front-shifted so it can relate to the whole main clause instead: “When Congress resumes session on Monday, around 190 solons are expected to support and petition for the immediate passage of a measure seeking to rehabilitate and utilize the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.”

It should be clear by now that when done indiscriminately, back-shifting subordinate clauses and phrases can be extremely hazardous to our writing. We thus need to be more judicious in constructing our sentences to ensure that our expositions are semantically and logically flawless at all times.

---------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, February 7 and 14, 2009, © 2009 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click here to discuss/comment