Jose Carillo's English Forum

MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

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

Team up with me in My Media English Watch!

I am inviting Forum members to team up with me in doing My Media English Watch. This way, we can further widen this Forum’s dragnet for bad or questionable English usage in both the print media and broadcast media, thus giving more teeth to our campaign to encourage them to continuously improve their English. All you need to do is pinpoint every serious English misuse you encounter while reading your favorite newspaper or viewing your favorite network or cable TV programs. Just tell me about the English misuse and I will do a grammar critique of it.

Read the guidelines and house rules for joining My Media English Watch!

Shocking grammar errors in news story about a tragic development

I received the following e-mail from Forum member jonathanfvaldez (February 9, 2011):

Joe,

Regarding the sentences below excerpted from the online edition of today’s Philippine Daily Inquirer:

Shock, sadness swamp Senate over Reyes’ death

Escudero was one of four senators who wanted Reyes to inhibit from the proceedings citing their alleged “cold neutrality” on the issue. But the senators rejected the request.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who also wanted Reyes to inhibit from the Senate hearings, said Reyes died “with the presumption of innocence on his side, because he never went to trial.”

I think the author (Maila Ager) meant to write: “Escudero was one of four senators whom Reyes wanted to inhibit from the proceedings…” and Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, “whom Reyes also wanted to inhibit from the Senate hearings…”

And isn’t “cold neutrality” a desirable trait in situations like a Senate inquiry? If so, that sentence is nonsensical.

I like the article’s title, though.

As always, your comments would be highly appreciated.

My reply to jonathanfvaldez:

You’re right on all three counts about the grammar and semantic flaws of that passage from the leading Philippine broadsheet, and I must say that I’m as disturbed by them as by the tragic incident it reported.

Yes, the reporter and her copyeditors semantically bungled that crucial passage in the news story by incorrectly using the subjective relative pronoun “who” instead of the objective relative pronoun “whom” for the subordinate clause—and twice in a row at that! The result in both cases is the absurd sense that it was the four senators who had wanted the late Gen. Angelo Reyes to inhibit himself from the Senate hearings. The correct sense is, of course, the other way around: Gen. Reyes had wanted the four senators to inhibit themselves from the hearings.

To avoid such fatal grammar errors, we must always keep in mind this rule for relative pronoun usage: When the subordinate clause is meant to modify a noun in the main clause, use the relative pronoun “who,” as in this example: “The former president extolled the late general, who was instrumental in bringing her to power.” Here, the relative clause “who was instrumental in bringing her to power” modifies (describes) the noun “general” in the main clause. On the other hand, when a subject in the main clause is the receiver of the doer of the action in the subordinate clause—meaning that it’s the direct object of the verb in that subordinate clause—then the relative pronoun “whom” should be used instead, as in this example: “He was the general whom the witness implicated in the misuse of military funds.”

And, yes, you’re also right in your observation that “cold neutrality” is a desirable trait that the beleaguered Gen. Reyes should have welcomed instead of opposed; its use indeed makes that statement nonsensical! In this respect, the late general had made an unfortunate wrong choice of phrase, and the reporter and her copyeditors should have rectified it by using a suitable paraphrase. I think “blatant partiality” or “manifest partiality” was what the good general had meant to say.

To yield the correct semantics then, that passage needs to be drastically rewritten as follows:

Escudero was one of four senators whom Reyes wanted to inhibit themselves from the proceedings, citing their alleged blatant partiality on the issue. But the senators rejected the request.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, whom Reyes also wanted to inhibit herself from the Senate hearings, said Reyes died “with the presumption of innocence on his side, because he never went to trial.”

We also need to take note here that the verb “inhibit” is a reflexive verb, meaning that the receiver of its action is the doer himself or herself. Thus, the clauses in question should use the appropriate reflexive pronouns—“himself” for singular masculine, “herself” for singular feminine, and “themselves” for objects in the plural form—as has been done in the rewritten passage above. (Click this link to “When the object is the doer itself” for my earlier posting about reflexive pronouns.)

One last thing: I have to disagree with your favorable opinion about the article’s title, “Shock, sadness swamp Senate over Reyes’ death.” I find the verb “swamp,” which means to “overwhelm” or “submerge” or “flood,” too materially strong and iffy for the sense intended. I would think that “pervade,” which means “to become diffused all throughout,” is more appropriate and right on the semantic mark.

Rejoinder from jonathanfvaldez:

Thanks, Joe. You’re right, I missed the “themselves” and “herself.” As for the article’s title, I agree with your comment on the (mis)use of “swamp.” I guess I was sort of carried away by the Ss. Now if there’s only a word starting with “s” that also means “pervade.”

My reply to this rejoinder:

I’ve combed the Original Roget’s Thesaurus of Words and Phrases but, alas, its copious list of synonyms doesn’t have a word starting with “s” that also means “pervade”! I guess we have to make do with “pervade.”

Click to post a comment to this critique

View the complete list of postings in this section