YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

What’s the right way to say “No one is safe” to include the speaker?

Question sent in by e-mail by Ms. Grace Toralde (March 4, 2011):
             
Sir,

If I say “No one is safe,” which of the following do I use if I want to add that I am also not safe?

“Neither I.” (“No one is safe, neither I.”)
“So am I.”  (“No one is safe, so am I.”)
“So do I.”  (“No one is safe, so do I.”)

Thank you.

My reply to Grace:

None of the three alternatives you gave will do. They are all grammatically erroneous. We must keep in mind that the phrase “no one” is inclusive of everyone, so if you want to add to the sentence “No one is safe” that you are also not safe, you can’t say “neither I,” which would semantically exclude you, contrary to what you want to say. You can’t say “so am I” either, because the expression “no one” is already inclusive of you, so saying “so am I” would be a tautology or needless repetition of an idea that’s already subsumed by the expression “No one.” And you can’t say “so do I” either, for the reason that what’s needed grammatically to link this expression to the sentence “No one is safe” is a linking verb like “is,” not an active verb like “do.”    

There are three grammatically correct ways to add to the sentence “No one is safe” the idea that you are also not safe, and all three ways require the use of the verb “include,” as follows:

“No one is safe, including myself.”
“No one, including myself, is safe.”
“No one is safe, myself included.”

Take note that in all three cases above, the reflexive “myself” is used instead of the objective “me.” This is because the direct object of the verb “include”—meaning the direct receiver of its action—is the speaker himself or herself. In such cases, the reflexive form of the pronoun has to be used.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

In a “when”-clause, different “or” elements need not be parallel

Question by browncomputer, new Forum member (February 21, 2011):

In this sentence, there is an underlined part. You will find alternatives for the underlined portions and choose the alternative that you think is best. If you think that the original version is best, choose NO CHANGE.

“Its forehead, for example, may wrinkle when the dog is confused or waiting for a signal from its owner.” 

(A) No Change
(B) confusing
(C) confused by some
(D) confused with

The correct answer is A but I thought it was D because i thought the parallelism with the preposition should be maintained. Thank you so much for helping me.

My reply to browncomputer:

The answer couldn’t be “(D) confused with”; it’s “(A) No change.” There’s really no rule requiring parallelism for grammatically different “or” elements in a “when”-clause. In this particular case, the first element is the adjective “confused,” while the other element, “waiting for a signal from its owner,” is a verb phrase in the progressive form”—elements that are mutually exclusive. If the preposition “with” is added to the phrase “the dog is confused,” the sentence would require an object of the preposition that isn’t there or isn‘t grammatically called for. We must keep in mind that in this particular subordinate clause construction; the idea in “the dog is confused” is complete in itself, independent of the idea in the “or” phrase that follows it, “waiting for a signal from its owner.” 

Perhaps the logic of this explanation would become clearer if we restate the original sentence this way: “Its forehead, for example, may wrinkle when the dog is confused or when the dog is waiting for a signal from its owner. Here, we have two mutually exclusive “when”-clauses, “when the dog is confused” and “when the dog is waiting for a signal from its owner.” Clearly, when these two clauses are compounded into “when the dog is confused or waiting for a signal from its owner,” there’s absolutely no room for the preposition “with” anywhere in that compound construction.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Can “which” also be used to refer to persons and not just to things?

Question sent in by e-mail by Miss Mae, Forum member (February 22, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

Hi! I have just finished reading the 59th chapter of your third book, Give Your English the Winning Edge, and came upon this line: “...that hoary rule that limits [‘which’ and ‘who’] to inanimate nouns and personal nouns, respectively, doesn't necessarily apply.”

That took me by surprise because I have been strictly observing “which” for things and who for “persons.” I also do not put commas before and after a clause introduced by “who.” How can I tell when should I do that?

Thanking you in advance,
Miss Mae

My reply to Miss Mae:

Yes, it does seem surprising that “which” can also be used to refer to persons and not just to things, but this is precisely one of the functions of “which” that was discussed in that chapter of Give Your English the Winning Edge: as a reference word linking dependent clauses or phrases to their antecedent nouns, and doing so either as intermediate subjects or objects of those dependent clauses.

Here’s the example I gave of the relative pronoun “which” as subject of the dependent clause: “Voters have to decide which of the candidates can serve the national interest best.” Here, “which” works as a subordinating conjunction, serving as the subject of the dependent clause “which of the candidates can serve the national interest best” and as the object of the verb “decide” in the main clause “voters have to decide.”

The hoary convention, of course, is to use “who” in that sentence because the noun it refers to is “people,” but among native English speakers, to use “which” in that sentence is more idiomatic than saying it with “who,” as in this version: “Voters have to decide who among the candidates can serve the national interest best.” Both versions are grammatically correct, of course, but note that the “who” version requires adding the preposition “among,” which I must say just puts another grammatical wrinkle to the construction—a wrinkle that native English speakers would rather avoid for the sake of simplicity and ease of articulation. Indeed, for many English speakers, it’s oftentimes hard enough to choose between “who” and “which,” so why further complicate matters by having to choose between “among” and “between” as well? Obviously, the use of “which” instead of “who” in that sentence construction greatly simplifies matters for them.

As to your practice of not using a comma before and after a clause introduced by “who,” I must warn you that it’s not a grammatically correct practice at all. Before deciding on the use of that comma, you need to determine first whether the clause introduced by “who” is a defining (essential) clause or a nondefining (nonessential) clause.

A defining clause is, of course, one that the sentence can’t do without, as in this sentence: “The woman who discovered radium as a chemical element died from overexposure to its radiation.” In this sentence construction, the comma isn’t needed before the clause. The clause “who discovered radium as a chemical element” is a defining or essential element of the sentence, and dropping it would seriously alter the intended meaning of the sentence, as we can see in this version with the defining clause gone: “The woman died from overexposure to its radiation.” This time, the woman has become nondescript—just any woman for that matter.

On the other hand, a nondefining clause is one that the sentence can drop without distorting or ruining the meaning it needs to convey, as in this sentence: “Marie Curie, who discovered radium as a chemical element, died from leukemia due to overexposure to radiation.” See how that sentence can stand by itself even without that nondefining clause: “Marie Curie died from leukemia due to overexposure to radiation.” The comma before and after the clause are absolutely needed as grammatical markers to indicate that the clause is a nondefining or nonessential one.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Is the phrase “unfinished ending” oxymoronic or paradoxical?

Question from Sky, Forum member (February 14, 2011):

Is this sentence, “It’s as though there’s an unfinished ending to what could have been a great story,” oxymoronic or paradoxical?

My reply to Sky:

By definition, an “oxymoron” is a combination of contradictory or incongruous words, as in “open secret” and “exact estimate,” while a “paradox” is a statement that’s seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true, as in “To obey this rule, you’d have to ignore it” and “I can resist anything but temptation.”

In the sentence you presented, “It’s as though there’s an unfinished ending to what could have been a great story,” it looks like the phrase “unfinished ending” may either be oxymoronic or paradoxical. I don’t think it qualifies as either, though. In the context of that sentence, there’s really no contradiction or incongruity between the words “unfinished” and “ending”; the storyteller might have deliberately decided to let the story hang without a formal ending, or he might have died before he could supply its ending, so the unfinished narrative or hanging last chapter would be a natural outcome and not at all oxymoronic. There’s also no paradox either in the phrase “unfinished ending,” for there’s nothing in it that seems opposed to common sense yet is probably true; the unfinished ending referred to is, in fact, simply a plain conjecture on the part of the writer and there’s really nothing paradoxical about it.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What’s the difference between “on behalf” and “in behalf”?

Question from jun balbin, new Forum member (February 6, 2011):

May I ask what the difference of “on behalf” and “in behalf” is?

My reply to jun balbin:  

As I explained in a posting in the Forum’s “Getting to Know English” section way back in March 2009, “on behalf” and “in behalf” are both correct usage, and today they tend to be used interchangeably, particularly in American English. But The American Heritage Book of English Usage cites this traditional rule: use “on behalf of” to mean “as agent of, on the part of,” and use “in behalf” to mean “for the benefit of.” Examples: “Robert accepted the ‘Best Performer’ trophy on behalf of his sister Angela, who was on a European singing tour.” “The Class of ’92 held a benefit concert in behalf of the flood victims.” The two phrases are actually very close in meaning. In my case, I prefer “on behalf of” and will not worry about my choice at all.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The perfect tenses are my “major, major” English grammar setback

I received the following e-mail from Forum member Miss Mae (February 6, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo, 

Ironically, when I became aware of my grammatical sins in college, I grew more confused. In fact, I am not sure till now of the proper usage of the auxiliary verbs “has,” “have,” and “had.” Whenever I have to use those words, I find myself considering first if the subject of the verb they are helping is still alive and kicking. If I remain unsure, I would try every grammatical strategy I know just to avoid using these auxiliary verbs.

This very confusion has been affecting my quest for plain and simple English, which of course is your advocacy. Could you please help me put my doubts to rest? I had tried to avoid asking you this question, but I think it’s high time I did. Please help.

Respectfully,
Miss Mae

My reply to Miss Mae:

I perfectly understand your confusion over the usage of “have” as verbal auxiliary. I must say, though, that the best grammatical strategy for dealing with its three forms—“have,” “has,” and “had”—is not to avoid using them but to understand them thoroughly. I therefore think that your decision to ask about their proper usage is a major step forward.

Let’s begin by looking at the grammatical uses of “have” as verbal auxiliary. We will recall that “have,” “has,” and “had” are used with the past participle form of the verb to form its present perfect tense, past perfect tense, and future perfect tense. The past participle is, of course, the form that the verb takes to express completed action, such as “repaired” for “repair,” “taken” for “take,” and “bought” for “buy.”

Present perfect usage when the doer of the action is in the third person

For the present perfect, the verbal auxiliary “have” is used when the doer of the action is in the third-person plural, as in “The job applicants have taken an English refresher course.” When there’s only one doer of the action in the third-person, the form “has” is used instead, as in “The job applicant has taken an English refresher course.” “Amelia has taken an English refresher course.” “She has taken an English refresher course.”

Present perfect usage when the doer of the action is in the first person or second person

Take careful note, though, that when the doer of the action is in the first person (“I” and “we”) or in the second person (“you” in both its singular and plural forms), the verbal auxiliary “have” is used in the present perfect, as in these examples: “I have taken an English refresher course.” “We have taken an English refresher course.” “You have taken an English refresher course.” (This irregularity in usage often confuses English learners because “I” and “you” are actually pronouns in the singular form, yet they use the plural form “have” as doers of the action in the perfect tense. You need to get used to this irregularity to become confident in your usage of the perfect tenses.)

Past perfect usage

For the past perfect tense, whether singular or plural and regardless of whether the doer of the action is in the first person, second person, or third person, the verbal auxiliary “have” consistently takes the form of “had,” as in: “The job applicant had taken an English refresher course.” “The job applicants had taken an English refresher course.” “I had taken an English refresher course.” “We had taken an English refresher course.” “Ofelia and Fred had taken an English refresher course.”

Future perfect usage

For the future perfect tense, the verbal auxiliary “have” is preceded by another auxiliary, “will,” and this is whether the doer of the action is singular or plural and regardless of whether the doer of the action is in the first person, second person, or third person, as in these examples: “The job applicant will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “The job applicants will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “I will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “Helen will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “They will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “Both of us will have taken the English refresher course by next month.”

I hope this explanation has adequately clarified the usage of the auxiliary verbs “have,” “has,” and “had” for you.

P.S. To give this discussion a more comprehensive perspective, let me very briefly define here what the perfect tenses are in the first place. The perfect tenses describe an action or occurrence more fully as it has unfolded or is unfolding in time. The term “perfect” is used here not in the sense of “flawless or exact in every detail” but of “perfected” or “completed” action. The perfect tenses—the present perfect, the past perfect, and the future perfect—denote events or states that have ended, are ending, or will end in time. Precisely at what point in time that end had occurred or will occur will determine which of the perfect tenses will be used.

The timelines for the perfect tenses are discussed extensively in Section 10 of my book English Plain and Simple: No-Nonsense Ways to Learn Today’s Global Language (Manila Times Publishing, 498 pages).

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How a correct multi-tense sentence differs from a mixed-tense one

Question from royljc, Forum member (January 26, 2011):

I have two more sentences for you to look at. Are these two grammatically correct?

(1) “Lenin had lived in Europe for three years at time of the workers' uprising in czarist Russia. He was then hurriedly ushered into the motherland by his followers to lead the October Revolution.”

(2) “I had lived in Africa when as a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.”

My reply to royljc:

About the two sentence constructions you presented for grammatical analysis:

(1) “Lenin had lived in Europe for three years at time of the workers' uprising in czarist Russia. He was then hurriedly ushered into the motherland by his followers to lead the October Revolution.”

The first sentence correctly uses the past perfect tense in “had lived in Europe” but is marred by the  absence of the article “the” in the phrase “at time,” which should correctly read “at the time.” This looks to me simply a proofreading error, though.

(2) “I had lived in Africa when as a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.”

This sentence deftly combines the past perfect in “I had lived in Africa” with the present perfect in “I have not the remotest remembrance” and with the past tense in “what life was like then.” This sentence construction clearly indicates that the speaker is talking at the present time (now) about the fact that he had lived in Africa as a boy (past perfect), and is declaring that he has no clear recollection (present perfect) of what life was line then (simple past).

(P.S. This isn’t a case of tense mixing, when different tenses are wrongly combined to form a grammatically flawed sentence, as in this grammatically incorrect mixed-tense sentence from an English workbook presented by a Forum member in this week’s Use and Misuse section: “Children are charmed by the Pied Piper’s music wherever he went.” Both verbs should either be both in the past tense, “Children were charmed by the Pied Piper’s music wherever he went,” or both in the storybook-style present tense: “Children are charmed by the Pied Piper’s music wherever he goes.”)

There’s a  minor grammatical wrinkle in that otherwise well-wrought sentence in (2), though. The phrase “when as a boy” looks and sounds garbled in the absence of the words “I was,” which I suspect were inadvertently mangled in transcription. See how much more smoothly that sentence reads when the phrase “when as a boy” is corrected to “when I was a boy”:

“I had lived in Africa when I was a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.” 

Another fix for that grammatical flaw in the original sentence is to simply drop the conjunction “when”:

“I had lived in Africa as a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.” 

Click to read responses or post a response

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

“All over town” and “all over the town” mean different things

Question from royljc, Forum member (January 22, 2011):  

Hi, Joe,

I'm having problem defining these two phrases: “all over town” and “all over the town.” Are they the same or different?

Thanks for your help.

My reply to royljc:

The phrases “all over town” and “all over the town” mean different things.

“All over town” can literally mean “in many places in town,” as in “The building inspections were done all over town,” or figuratively mean “known to many” or “widely known,” as in “The nasty gossip about the philandering high official that was aired on TV was all over town before the day was over.” In both cases, “all over town” signifies presence in many places in town but not everywhere in it.

On the other hand, “all over the town” means physically everywhere in the town without exception, as in “Snow fell all over the town throughout the night, blanketing everything in sight with eight inches of dirty-white precipitate.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Are there circumstances when a modifier can dangle legitimately?

Question sent in by e-mail by Mr. Roy Kagle (January 10, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo: 
 
The Harbrace College Handbook (4th Edition 1956, page 285) mentions two circumstances when a modifier may "dangle" legitimately, to wit:
 
(1) when the gerund, infinitive or participle (in the subordinate clause) expresses a "general truth," and
(2) when a noun and participle constitute a subordinate clause which is grammatically (and semantically) independent of the rest of the sentence.
 
I cannot recognize and distinguish between these two exceptions. Would you mind providing me with clearer explanations of these exceptions and with tests for distinguishing between them?
 
Wouldn't you consider "when the main clause is in the imperative mood" a third exception? Consider the sentence, "After closing the window, shut up and sit down."  In this sentence, the subject is unmentioned but completely understood as the party/parties to whom the command has been directed.  

When the subject is understood, even without being mentioned, a modifier should be allowed to "dangle."  What are your thoughts here?
 
Are there any other exceptions for the generally proscribed "dangling modifier?"
 
You seem to have a genius for addressing tough grammatical issues and for imparting your understanding of these matters to other people. Many thanks for helping me with mine.
 
Roy Kagle

My reply to Roy:

Since I don’t have a copy of the Harbrace College Handbook and have had no opportunity to read its discussion of dangling modifiers, I’m afraid I can’t comment on what it cites as the two grammatical situations when modifiers can dangle legitimately. In the absence of specific examples for those situations, I can’t even fathom why the handbook makes those two exceptions at all and—like you—can’t even distinguish between them. As far as I am concerned, danglers will always be danglers no matter the subject matter and the dangle happens because of a flaw in the positioning of the modifying phrase. That handbook’s special prescriptions about danglers are very intriguing, though, so I would be greatly interested to read them and formally comment on them here in the Forum. Could you possibly send me a scanned copy of the pertinent pages of the book?
 
You presented the following sentence in the imperative mood as a possible third situation when a modifying phrase may dangle legitimately: “After closing the window, shut up and sit down.” This imperative sentence is, of course, an elliptical construction where the second-person subject “you” has been dropped from the following sentence: “(You) shut up and sit down after closing the window.” What we have here is a simple sentence with a compound predicate (“shut up and sit down”) modified by the prepositional phrase “after closing the window” functioning as an adverbial modifier. There’s really no dangling modifier in this simple sentence; everything is in its proper place. I therefore don’t think that sentences in the imperative mood qualify at all as a grammatical situation when a modifying phrase may dangle legitimately.

For your last question, you asked if there any other exceptions to the proscription against dangling modifiers. I don’t think there should be any exceptions at all; as I said earlier, danglers will always be danglers no matter the subject matter of the sentence and I think it’s foolhardy to be making exceptions to the proscription against them. At any rate, you may want to check out this earlier post of mine in the Forum about misplaced and dangling modifiers. Two chapters of my book English Plain and Simple, “Wrong Place, Wrong Time” and “Rx for Strays, Danglers, and Squinters,” also discuss the problem with dangling modifiers.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The pronoun “each” is singular no matter its position in a sentence

This e-mail was sent to me by Jonathan Valdez, Forum member (January 9, 2011):

It could be that I misread or misunderstood the "rule book," but in the following excerpt from a brief, shouldn't it be "each demonstrates" (because "each" is closer to the verb demonstrate than "Those...guides...")? 

The meaning of the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption
7(C) “turns on ‘the language itself, the specific
context in which that language is used, and the broader
context of the statute as a whole.’ ” Nken v. Holder, 129
S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil
Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)). Those basic interpretive
guides each demonstrate that Exemption 7(C)’s protection
for “personal privacy” extends only to individuals.

Thanks.

Jonathan

My reply to Jonathan:

You are correct. That sentence should read as follows: “Those basic interpretive guides each demonstrates that Exemption 7(C)’s protection for ‘personal privacy’ extends only to individuals.” But it’s not, as you say, because “each” is closer to the verb “demonstrate” than "Those...guides...” It’s simply because the subject of the verb “demonstrate” is the singular pronoun “each.” 

Another way of constructing that sentence is this: “Each of those basic interpretive guides demonstrates that Exemption 7(C)’s protection for ‘personal privacy’ extends only to individuals.” As in your corrected construction, it’s not the proximity of the verb to the referent noun that’s the determining factor for subject-verb agreement here but the logic of the sentence.

In both sentence constructions, of course, the intended meaning is that each one of those guides individually and separately demonstrates “that Exemption 7(C)’s protection for ‘personal privacy’ extends only to individuals.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Isn’t “reiterate” a redundant form of the verb “iterate”?

Question sent in by e-mail by Danny Dangcalan, new Forum member (January 10, 2011):

Hi, Sir Joe!

I often read the word “reiterate” in newspapers. Isn’t this redundant? To “iterate” means “to say or do again,” so doesn’t adding “re” to it make it redundant? (I don't know if this has been discussed in The Forum, for I haven’t back-read much.)  

Danny

My reply to Danny:

No, I don’t think the word “reiterate” becomes a redundancy by combining the prefix “re-“ with the word “iterate.” They are actually different verbs with a common root word, iterare, but with different denotations. 

My digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines “reiterate” as follows:

It defines “iterate” as follows:

From these very similar definitions, it thus looks like “reiterate” is wholly similar to “iterate” in meaning, but the two actually have a different sense in actual usage. The verb “reiterate” commonly denotes the conscious act of people in stating or doing something over again or repeatedly, but “iterate” usually denotes the automatic act of machines like computers and calculators in stating or doing something over again or repeatedly. People “reiterate” questions and answers, but machines “iterate” them.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

A horribly misplaced modifying phrase in a newspaper editorial

This e-mail was sent to me by Oscar Lagman (January 9, 2011):  
           
Hi Joe,

Here is an item for you. In the editorial of today’s issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, there is this line:

“Manila Police District PO3 Antonio Bautista Jr is facing the same rap, for violating a woman arrested for vagrancy right inside the police headquarters.”

The way the sentence is constructed, one of the three different acts could have taken place in the police headquarters: the violation of the woman, the arrest of the woman, and the vagrancy. Don’t you think it would have been correct and clearer if the phrase “right inside the police headquarters” were placed after the word “violating”?

I think that early in our correspondence, I wrote that the diagramming exercises drilled into us by our Grade 5 English Grammar teacher, Bro. Felix, taught me where to place dependent clauses and prepositional phrases.

Regards,

Oscar        

My reply to Oscar:

You’re absolutely right about this badly constructed sentence:

“Manila Police District PO3 Antonio Bautista Jr is facing the same rap, for violating a woman arrested for vagrancy right inside the police headquarters.”

It has horribly misplaced the modifying phrase “right inside the police headquarters,” making the victim of the alleged rapist-policemen look stupid by making it appear that she had committed vagrancy right inside the police headquarters. If that’s the case, some wags would say, she deserved her sordid fate in the hands of that police officer.

But we know that this isn’t the case at all. Evidently, it was the violation of the woman that took place inside the police headquarters, not her arrest for vagrancy—which, of course, must have taken place elsewhere. This is why the following suggested sentence construction of yours looks much more consonant with the circumstances of the case:

“Manila Police District PO3 Antonio Bautista Jr is facing the same rap for violating right inside the police headquarters a woman arrested for vagrancy.”

The general rule about modifying phrases is, of course, this: position them as near as possible to the word, phrase, or clause they modify. In this case, the modifier is the adverbial phrase “right inside the police headquarters” and it modifies the verb “violating.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Another look on a still unresolved subject-verb agreement question

Comments by kassyopeia, new Forum member (January 9, 2011):

Hi Jose,

I was going to start a new thread, but your latest column topic seems so closely related to what I wanted to talk about that I'm replying here instead. Feel free to split this off if you don't agree, of course. 

I came across several discussions concerning the use of the singular "has" in the sentence "Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]", and was confused and intrigued by the manner in which you broke it down at one point, namely in this post (slightly modified by me):
(1) "Many people" - subject
(2) "discover" - verb
(3) "to their dismay" - ?
(4) "that their many years of formal study of English" - direct object of (2)
(5) "has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]" - predicate complement of (4)

The argument, as I understood it, was then that the verb in (5) should agree with the phrase (4), which is singular. However, this analysis (and, thence, the argument based upon it) does not look valid to me, though I'm not entirely sure if that's because it is flawed, or merely because my understanding of it is.

Either way, this is how I would deconstruct the sentence in question:
(1) "Many people" - subject
(2) "discover" - verb
(3) "to their dismay" - ?
(4) "that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]" - substantive clause, acting as direct object of (2) (cf. example #1 in your post above)
(4.1) "their many years of formal study of English" - noun phrase, acting as subject of (4)
(4.2) "has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]" - verb phrase, acting as predicate of (4)
(4.2.1) "has not given" - negated compound verb
((4.2.2) "them" - pronoun, acting as indirect object of (4.2.1)
(4.2.3) "the proficiency level demanded [...]" - noun phrase, acting as direct object of (4.2.1)

"Predicate complement", as far as I could discover, is rather loosely defined as a phrase that is necessary to complete a predicate, in addition to the "predicator" (the verb). So there are several items in the list to which the term could be applied, but the original usage, which refers to an entire predicate, is not one of them.

Finally, I'd like to offer a possible explanation for the cause of the confusion, using another of the examples (#4) from your post above: "That the accused is guilty is a foregone conclusion." This construction, as stated, can be broken down into the subject "that the accused is guilty" and the predicate "is a foregone conclusion" - which is superficially quite similar to the attempted breakdown of the "many people" sentence. The reason that it works for the former and fails for the latter rests in the fact that such a subject must be a clause, not a phrase; that is, it must in turn consist of a subject ("the accused") and a predicate ("is guilty"). For "many people" to allow this analysis, there would have to be at least two predicators in the fragment subordinate to "that", but there is only one, namely "has not given".

Am I on to something, or did I just misinterpret your earlier post?

PS: All this being said, I have no quarrel with the usage of "has" instead of "have", per se. The other line of reasoning you gave, concerning the semantically singular nature of the noun phrase "their many years of formal study of English", definitely has merit. And that battle has been fought and re-fought often enough, in any case.

My reply to kassyopeia:

You’ve stated your case very clearly regarding my use of the singular “has” in the sentence “Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded by the job market, by the various professions, or by higher academic studies.” I have done the same for my position on the matter in several posts in the Forum, particularly in the discussion thread for “On the subject-verb agreement question” that started in May 17, 2009.

Several academics and grammarians have agreed with my position regarding that sentence and my analysis of its construction, but I must acknowledge that several others—like you—disagree with my analysis. At this point, I think it’s best for us just to agree to disagree on this matter. Of course, the Forum will continue to welcome arguments pro and con until this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The proper placement of modifying clauses or modifying phrases

Question by roylic, Forum member (December 29, 2010):

Hi, Joe,

I am not sure if the following sentence, “A great many people came that day to express their solicitude, among them was the wise man” is correct. The reason I think it may be wrong is that the “among them…” phrase is supposed to indicate “A great many people” not “solicitude.”

Therefore, I think the following construction may be better: “A great many people came that day to express their solicitude. Among them was the wise man.”

Am I wrong on this? Please help.

My reply to royljc:

“A great many people came that day to express their solicitude, among them was the wise man.”

The original construction above is actually a run-on or fused sentence—a comma splice, in fact—because a comma is inadequate for punctuating the two clauses. You are therefore correct in spinning off the clause “among them was the wise man” as another sentence; it makes the statement much clearer. But this construction would be advisable only if the statement is a stand-alone sentence—meaning that it’s not followed by another sentence as part of an exposition or narrative. In such situations, spinning off a modifying clause as another sentence could disrupt the flow of the exposition or narrative.

A simpler fix is to replace the comma with a semicolon: “A great many people came that day to express their solicitude; among them was the wise man.” But there’s a much better construction and stylistic alternative than this: converting the clause “among them was the wise man” into an absolute phrase modifying the noun phrase “a great many people,” as follows: “"A great many people, among them the wise man, came that day to express their solicitude.” This way, no problems of continuity arise because every idea in the original statement is contained in the same sentence. Another sentence can then be added to the statement without any disruption in the flow of the exposition or narrative.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What are substantive clauses and attributive clauses?

Question from Sky, Forum member (December 19, 2010):

What are substantive and attributive clauses? Thanks.

My reply to Sky:

Yours is a tough but very important grammar question that has never been asked in this Forum. There’s therefore no doubt in my mind that English learners and teachers alike will benefit from a discussion of the subject, so I’m making sure that my answer to your question is as instructive and comprehensive as I can make it.  

Substantive clauses

A substantive clause is an entire clause that serves as the subject or object of a verb. Such clauses are introduced by the relative pronouns “that” and “who” or by the interrogative words “why,” “where,” and “when.”

Here are some examples of substantive clauses:

(1) Substantive clause in a statement: “Despite his acquittal, many believe that the accused is guilty.” Here, “that the accused is guilty” is the substantive clause, functioning as direct object of the verb “believe.”
(2) Substantive clause in a command: “King Herod decreed that all first-born males be killed.” Here, “that all first-born males be killed” is the substantive clause, functioning as direct object of the verb “decreed.”
(3) Substantive clause in indirect questions: “She inquired where the residence of the village chief might be.” Here, the question “where the residence of the village chief might be” is the substantive clause, functioning as direct object of the verb “inquired.”
(4) Substantive clause as subject in a sentence: “That the accused is guilty is a foregone conclusion.” Here, “that the accused is guilty” is the substantive clause, functioning as subject of the sentence.

Attributive clauses

On the other hand, an attributive clause is an entire clause that adds more information about a noun; in other words, the clause serves as a modifier of that noun. An attributive clause can either be restrictive or nonrestrictive.

Restrictive attributive clauses serve to specify precisely which noun is being referred to. For restrictive attributive clauses, the relative pronoun “that” is used, never “which” (at least in American English); when the antecedent noun is a person, the relative pronoun “who” is used.

Here are examples of attributive clauses:

(1) Restrictive attributive clause: “She liked the laptop that she saw in the computer shop last night.” Here, “that she saw in the computer shop last night” is the restrictive attributive clause and it modifies the noun “laptop.”

(2) Restrictive attributive clause (for a person as antecedent noun): “The writing contest winner was the young girl who wrote about a thin, beardless Santa Claus.” Here, “who wrote about a thin, beardless Santa Claus” is the restrictive attributive clause and it modifies the noun “girl.”

Nonrestrictive attributive clauses provide more information about the antecedent noun, but it’s presumed that the specific noun being referred to is already known by the reader either by context or logic. For nonrestrictive attributive clauses, the relative pronoun “which” (never “that”) preceded by a comma is used; when the antecedent noun is a person, the relative pronoun “who” is used. A nonrestrictive attributive clause is optional to the sentence; the sentence will remain grammatically and structurally sound without it.

Here are examples of nonrestrictive attributive clauses:

(1) Nonrestrictive attributive clause: “Many people from the provinces flock to Manila, which is the capital of the Philippines.” Here, “which is the capital of the Philippines” is the nonrestrictive attributive clause, modifying the antecedent noun “Manila.”

(2) Nonrestrictive attributive clause (for a person as antecedent noun): “Let us all congratulate Mr. Roberto Cruz, who as we all know has topped the medical licensure exam.” Here, “who as we all know has topped the medical licensure exam” is the nonrestrictive attributive clause, modifying the antecedent noun “Mr. Roberto Cruz.” 

I hope that this discussion has adequately clarified the distinction between substantive clauses and attributive clauses for you.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Figuring out what highly figurative language means

Question from royljc, forum member (December 4, 2010):

Hi Joe,

I’m having trouble understanding “one shivering consciousness,” much less “one shivering consciousness looks over ...”

Here’s the whole sentence: “I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness -- that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss.” (Source)

Please help. 

My reply to royljc:

The literary passage you quoted uses highly figurative language, not plain and simple English. The phrase “one shivering consciousness looks over” can be interpreted in plainer terms as “one fearfully looks over.” That whole sentence can then be paraphrased as follows: “I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness—that terrible loneliness that comes when one fearfully looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss.” We must be mindful, of course, that the passage loses some of its emotional intensity when paraphrased this way. I have therefore supplied it only in aid of understanding, not as an intended revision or improvement of the original passage.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Preposition of of belonging vs. preposition of location

Question from royljc, Forum member (December 4, 2010):

Hi Joe,

Here is another one. I thought the correct answer to the following question is on instead of of as indicated underneath the question. Please help. Thanks in advance.

10. Don’t miss this opportunity _______ traveling to Japan. 
a) at
b) to
c) of
d) on

(Source)

My reply to royljc:

The answer couldn’t be “on,” for in the sentence “Don’t miss this opportunity on traveling to Japan,” the preposition “on” indicates the location of something or a position in close proximity to something. A positional relationship isn’t the intended sense in that sentence, though; the correct sense is to indicate belonging or a possessive relationship between the noun “opportunity” and the phrase “traveling to Japan” as object of the preposition. That sense is correctly supplied by the preposition “of”:  “Don’t miss this opportunity of traveling to Japan.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

When “it” functions as a regular pronoun rather than an expletive

Question from royljc, forum member (November 30, 2010):

Hi, Joe,

I ran into the confusing question shown below. Can you tell me why Selection (a) is the correct answer? I have not seen a type of sentence like “It being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match” before.
 
“_______ a rainy day, we had to abandon the match.”
(a) It being
(b) Being
(c) Having been
(d) It been

My reply to royljc:

The correct answer to the above filling-the-blank question is “(a) It being.” In the sentence “It being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” the pronoun “it” is used as the subject of a sentence that has the progressive form of “be” as the verb and “a rainy day” as subject complement. It has practically the same sense as “This being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” with the pointing adjective “this” taking the place of “it.”

But why is “it being” the correct answer in that sentence? It’s because it’s the only answer that will make sense for that sentence. Answer choice “(b) Being” is wrong because in the sentence “Being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” the modifying phrase “being a rainy day” would be a dangling modifier; it could not logically modify the pronoun “we” in the main clause. Answer “(c) Having been” is also wrong because “Having been a rainy day” is similarly a dangling modifier, with no noun to logically modify the subject or the main clause of the sentence. And answer choice “(d) It been” is also wrong because it wrongly uses the present perfect for “be,” which is “has been,” not “been” alone. (Even if “has been” is used in that sentence, the sentence “It has been a rainy day, we had to abandon the match” would still be grammatically and structurally wrong because it’s a run-on or fused sentence. The correct construction would be “It has been a rainy day, so we had to abandon the match.” The coordinating conjunction “so” is needed for the sentence to make sense.)  

We must take note that the “it” in the correct answer for the sentence in question is an authentic neuter pronoun that refers to the noun “day.” This is in contrast to the expletive “it” in the sentence “It is raining, so we had to abandon the match.” Here, “it” is a syntactic expletive, a filler subject used by the impersonal verb “is” to express a condition or action without reference to an agent. As such, “it” performs a syntactic role that contributes nothing to meaning.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Why Oxford Dictionary chose “refudiate” as “Word of the Year”

Question by maria balina, Forum member (November 29, 2010):

Hi, Mr. Carillo!

Why did the Oxford Dictionary choose “refudiate,” a word mangled by Sarah Palin, as “Word of the Year”? Can you please tell me the objective in choosing a word for the year?

My reply to maria balina:

I don’t know the detailed methodology of how the New Oxford American Dictionary chooses its so-called “Word of the Year,” but in its media release through PR Newswire-US Newswire last November 16, 2010 announcing “refudiate” as “Word of the Year for 2010,” it gave the following general description of the selection process: 

“Among their other activities, lexicographers at Oxford University Press track how the vocabulary of the English language is changing from year to year. Every year, the New Oxford American Dictionary Word of the Year is debated and chosen, with the selection made to reflect the ethos of the year and its lasting potential as a word of cultural significance and use.”

Here’s its specific justification for its choice of “refudiate” as “Word of the Year for 2010”:

Was the choice of “refudiate” as “Word of the Year” by the OUP-US politically motivated? I don’t think so, but it definitely has huge marketing and publicity value for OUP-US considering the popularity of the personality associated with the new linguistic coinage. And, of course, Sarah Palin’s political supporters understandably seized the opportunity to turn a word choice debacle on the part of the former US vice-presidential candidate into a wordsmithing triumph. They did so—and are continuing to do so even today—by making big publicity hoopla for “refudiate” in the US and international media as an inspired word creation rather than the wrong word choice that it really was in the beginning.  

By way of background, the New Oxford American Dictionary, NOAD for short, is a single-volume dictionary of American English compiled by American editors at the Oxford University Press. It is published by Oxford University Press USA (OUP USA), which is Oxford University’s second major publishing center after OUP UK. A nonprofit corporation, OUP USA publishes works that further Oxford University’s objectives, including its objectives of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. 

Read the OUP USA media release on “refudiate” as “Word of the Year for 2010” now!

Check out the corporate website of OUP USA website now!

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What are the rules for the copyrights to books?

Question by bonruiz, new Forum member (December 3, 2010):

Sir, I would like to know the rules regarding copyrights of book publications. I am at present coming up with some books in English Grammar, Vocabulary, Writing, and Reading Comprehension, which I would like to market someday. Are there royalty-free topics or pictures in the Internet? Where can I find an easy guideline for book publications? How broad is the scope of plagiarism? Thank you very much.

My reply to bonruiz:

You can get the rules governing copyrights in the Philippines by clicking this link to the Copyright Law of the Philippines, and a copy of the copyright application with the Philippine National Library by clicking this other link.

There are hundreds of websites offering royalty-free photos, but as far as I know, they are only for private one-time use and not for use in publications for mass distribution like books. In any case, most of the photos use foreign models, situations, and locations so they would generally be unsuitable for use in an English-usage book for Filipino audiences. There are also a few Philippine-based suppliers of royalty-free photos but the rules governing their use are essentially the same as those of foreign suppliers. For your book, however, I would suggest that you seriously consider getting a professional photographer in the Philippines to work with you in coming up with Filipino-specific pictures of high quality.

I’m not aware of any freely available printed guidelines for getting a book published in the Philippines, but you can check out these two foreign websites to give you a general idea:

(1) EHow Guidelines for Publishing a Book
(2) ASTD Press Book Publishing Process Overview

As to plagiarism, I couldn’t find any website in the Philippines devoted to explaining its basic. I suggest you look up the definition of plagiarism and the basic law governing it in the United States by clicking this link to USLegal.com.

Good luck on your English-usage book project!

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Three grammatically correct versions of the same sentence

Question from royljc, new Forum member (November 24, 2010):

Hi Joe,

I know there is something wrong with the follow sentence but I’m having trouble explaining it.

Here is the sentence: “As is vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

Can we correct it this way?: “As being vividly depicted in the cartoon, Two people are playing football.”
 
or this way?: “As vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

My reply to royljc:

There’s really nothing wrong with this sentence that you presented:

“As is vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

It’s a perfectly grammatical sentence that denotes a stage of an action or situation as captured in a stationary or nonmoving illustration.

We can also render that sentence in this other way that you suggested:

“As vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

This version is actually an elliptical construction of the first sentence above, one that eliminates the verb “is” in the coordinate clause “as is vividly depicted in the cartoon” without changing its meaning.

Now, about your other question: Is the following version of that sentence also correct?

“As being vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

Yes, that sentence is also grammatically correct, but its use of the progressive verb form “being vividly depicted” denotes a slightly different sense and situation. It means that the action being depicted in the cartoon is in progress right at the very moment of speaking. It’s either that the cartoonist is currently drawing the cartoon and the observer is describing the process, or that the observer is describing the action that’s currently unfolding in an animated cartoon show.

In sum, royljc, all three sentences are correct for their respective contexts.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Do we say “call on” or “call in” to summon someone onstage?

Question e-mailed by Esther Fabular, new Forum member (November 7, 2010):

Hi, Sir, I am confused by the use of “call on” or “call in” when calling speakers or presenters during programs. I hope you can help me with this concern. 

My reply to Esther:

When asking speakers or presenters to go on stage or in front during programs, the proper phrasal verb to use is “call on,” as in “May I call on Dr. Cruz to deliver his closing remarks?” In this sense and context, “call on” means to indirectly order or request someone to do a particular activity; it has the same sense as the more polite form “ask,” as in “May I ask Dr. Cruz to deliver his closing remarks?” It presumes that the person being requested to do the activity is just nearby, maybe backstage or in front among the audience. (The brusque, impolite equivalent of “call on” is, of course, “Dr. Cruz, please deliver your closing remarks now”—something that even an uncouth audience will find embarrassing.) 

We shouldn’t use the phrasal verb “call in” in such situations. It means to summon for assistance or consultation someone who isn’t present or isn’t near the speaker at the point of speaking, as in “I want to call in Dr. Reyes for an emergency meeting.” And such statements are rarely addressed directly to the person concerned; instead, they are said to other people simply by way of information.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Understanding sentences with a reduced nonrestrictive clause

Question from pedestrian, new Forum member (November 2, 2010):

Hi, Jose,

Glad to have this platform for learning English!

I can understand the meaning of the sentence below; however, I cannot write a sentence like that myself. The most important thing is that I don’t understand the sentence structure. I just know there is a main clause in that sentence. What is the structure of the other part of that sentence that’s separated by a comma?

“The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%, slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, lower than the average.”

My reply to pedestrian:

Let’s look closely at the sentence you presented:

“The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%, slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, lower than the average.”

That sentence is actually the “reduced” form of the following complex sentence with a nonrestrictive or nonessential relative clause:

“The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%, which is slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, and lower than the average.”

The main clause is, of course, ““The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%”; and the nonrestrictive clause is “which is slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, and lower than the average.” This nonrestrictive clause functions as an adjective clause modifying its antecedent noun “12%” as its subject.

In the version you presented, however, the nonrestrictive clause has been reduced to a modifying phrase through the elimination of the relative pronoun “which” and the operative verb “is” of that clause. In English, adjective clauses that use the relative pronouns “who,” “which,” and “that” generally can be reduced by dropping the relative pronoun and the form of the verb “be” used in the adjective clause. The reduction, which is meant to make the sentence more concise, converts the adjective clause into an adjective phrase, which, of course, is a simpler construction than an adjective clause. The reduction, however, can be done only if it doesn’t alter or distort the intended meaning or sense of the sentence. (Click this link to my previous posting in the Forum that discusses the reduction of adjective clauses to adjective phrases more extensively.)
 
In the “unreduced” version of the sentence you presented, there’s actually a series of three adjective clauses independently modifying “12%”, as follows:

1. “which is slightly higher than the average”
2. “which is more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family”; and
3. “which is lower than the average”

However, since they are constructed in serial enumerative form, only one “which is” is used for all of them. Of course, there should also be the conjunction “and” to indicate that the third item in the serial enumeration is the last, but this “and” was eliminated by the writer perhaps for stylistic purposes. This omission of “and” in such situations is called asyndeton, which is sometimes resorted to by some writers for emphasis or dramatic effect.

I hope that this has adequately explained the structure of the sentence you presented.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What’s the logic of defining a noun by using its equivalent verb?

Question from sandyelf, new Forum member (October 27, 2010):

What is “choice”? Specifically what is the definition of the word “choice” without using choose in the definition? Could this be a subject-verb type problem? I do not find the extant definitions of the word “choice” to be adequate. You can’t say that choice is the act of choosing, could you? Maybe it could be some sort of special transitive verb. I don’t know but something doesn’t feel right about it being a noun. Why is the word “love” a noun but the word “hate” transitive? I’m not following the logic here and I need someone, anyone, to explain why this is? Help!

My reply to sandyelf:

Your observation about the typical dictionary definition of the word “choice” is correct: it does use the verb “choose” to explain what the noun means, which, of course, looks very much like a dog or a cat chasing after its own tail. This, however, is the usual way that dictionaries structure their definitions of words; they expect users of the dictionary to first seek out and know the definition of the counterpart verb of the noun. 

In the case of the noun “choice,” we need to first find the verb “choose” in the dictionary. My digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, in particular, defines the transitive verb “choose” as “select freely and after consideration,” as in “choose a career,” or “to have a preference for,” as in “choose one car over another.” It then defines the intransitive verb “choose” as “to make a selection,” as in “finding it hard to choose,” or “to take an alternative,” as in “when earth is so kind, men cannot choose but be happy.” We will notice that dictionaries make an effort not to use the noun equivalent of the verb in such primary definitions; indeed, in the case of “choose,” they use the close synonyms “select” and “prefer” to establish the denotation and sense of that verb.

The dictionaries actually expect that once we’ve gone over the definition of the verb “choose,” we will then move over to the definition of its noun counterpart “choice.” Here, we will find that the dictionaries freely use our previous understanding of the denotations and sense of the verb “choose” to define its counterpart noun. This is the well-established methodology and logic of most—if not all—of the leading English-language dictionaries in defining words, and once we understand this, we wouldn’t find it not feeling right ever again that a verb often becomes its counterpart noun.

Try out this definition-search process for “love” and “hate” in your dictionary. You’ll discover that the dictionaries work like clockwork when defining words—they routinely define nouns on the basis of the foundation definitions of their counterpart verbs.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How do we find the correct antecedent noun of a relative clause?

Question by lv, new Forum member (October 30, 2010):

Is the statement “A sentence is a group of words that expresses a complete thought” correct? Isn’t it that the antecedent of the relative pronoun “that” is “words”? The antecedent is plural, so the verb in the subordinate clause should be “express.” Am I right?

My reply to lv:

I’m afraid that you didn’t get it right, lv. From the grammatical standpoint, the correct antecedent of the subordinate clause “that expresses a complete thought” is the singular noun phrase “group of words”; this is the reason why “expresses,” the operative verb in that subordinate clause, is in the singular form. Also, from a notional standpoint, what “expresses a complete thought” isn’t just “a word” or just “any group of words,” but “a sentence” specifically, so the subject being modified by the subordinate clause “that expresses a complete thought” could only be the group of words that’s known as “a sentence.” Both grammatically and notionally, therefore, the operative verb in that sentence should be in the singular form “expresses.”

Determining the correct antecedent noun in sentence constructions of this kind is admittedly tricky. It’s very tempting to assume that the noun nearest to the operative verb is the antecedent noun, but this isn’t the only criterion in establishing subject-verb agreement; we need to verify if that assumption is borne out by the semantics and logic of the sentence. In this particular case, it is semantically and logically clear that the antecedent noun—the subject that’s being modified by the subordinate clause—could only be the singular noun “sentence.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What does the term “Philippine area of responsibility” mean?

Question sent in by e-mail by Mr. Juanito T. Fuerte (October 25, 2010):

Hi, Joe,

You’re an expert in English grammar, semantics and all that jazz concerning the proper or improper use of words so, I’m asking for your help to answer this question: Whenever an approaching hurricane (or, typhoon as it’s normally called here) gets within a certain geographical limits of the Philippines, why do the media always say that typhoon so and so is now in the “Philippines’ area of responsibility”?

And since the word “responsibility” encompasses a whole range of meanings, just what is the Philippines’ responsibility to a typhoon that has entered its “area of responsibility”?  I’m sure we don’t baby-sit it nor nurture it. Do we, perhaps, try like hell to tame it so that it doesn’t throw it’s tantrum on our waters, cities, and shores? I’m also sure that we keep track of it. But, does that mean that the responsibility for tracking it is solely ours and not of other countries while it remains within our “area of responsibility”?

If that is so, what happens once it moves out of the PAR (Philippines’ area of responsibility) and enters another country’s territorial limits? Would that country accept responsibility for it?

Please help, Joe. I’m trying hard to understand the Philippine media talk.

My reply to Juanito:

The term “Philippine area of responsibility” does sound very officious and intimidating when used in relation to the typhoons that periodically hit the country. I must point out, though, that it isn’t a term coined by the Philippine media nor by the national weather bureau or PAGASA (an acronym for Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services). The term “area of responsibility” was actually coined by the United States military to denote a pre-defined geographic region assigned to its combatant commanders, but is now also widely used in oceanography and weather forecasting—and, of course, in media’s weather reporting as well.

In general terms, the Area Of Responsibility (AOR) defines an area with specific geographic boundaries for which a person or organization bears a certain responsibility. For the Philippines, its area of responsibility isn’t meant to define its internationally recognized territory, and it isn’t a measure either of its land mass or what is referred to as “Philippine soil.” Indeed, although the Philippines has a total land area of 300,000 sq. km (115,830 sq. miles), the so-called “Philippine area of responsibility” covers something like 9-11 multiples of that area in terms of sea and land combined. 

Below is the Philippine Area of Responsibility or PAR as shown on the world map:

Within the Philippine area of responsibility as shown above, the PAGASA is mandated to monitor tropical cyclone activity and to make the necessary warnings. It is mandated by law to issue bulletins every six hours for all tropical cyclones within this area that have made or are anticipated to make landfall within the Philippines, or every 12 hours when cyclones are not affecting land. (Last July, in response to the heavy casualties and devastation wrought by Typhoon Basyang in the National Capital Region, President Benigno Aquino III ordered that PAGASA issue bulletins about approaching typhoons more often as necessary than every six hours.)

You may want to check a posting I made in the Forum in November of 2009 where I gave a detailed technical description of the Philippine PAR to a Forum member who was not only intrigued but annoyed by media’s incessant use of the term.

I hope that this has adequately answered your questions about the typhoon terminologies used in the Philippines.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Which is correct: “I am a fan of hers” or “I am a fan of her’s”?

Question from KMXer, Forum member (October 14, 2010):

Help please! Which is correct? “I am a fan of hers.” or “I am a fan of her’s”?

My reply to KMXer:

The correct female possessive pronoun in such sentence constructions is “hers,” which means “that which belongs to her,” so the grammatically correct sentence is “I am a fan of hers.” “Her” is used without a following noun and is equivalent in meaning to the adjective “her.” The form “her’s” is not a valid possessive pronoun form in English. Forming the possessive by affixing apostrophe-s is done only on nouns, as in “Alfred’s,” “man’s fate,” and “the cat’s paw.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Making effective paragraph transitions in English exposition

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (October 5, 2010):
             
I learned sometime ago that lead sentences of succeeding paragraphs must vary. That is, if Paragraph 1 started straightforwardly, the lead sentence of Paragraph 2 must begin or end with a modifier. Should that be followed strictly?

My reply to Miss Mae:

I have a feeling that you didn’t learn it right about how to do the lead sentences of successive paragraphs. To the best of my knowledge, there’s no rule that requires lead sentences of successive paragraphs to vary in certain ways, much less a rule that specifically states that “if Paragraph 1 started straightforwardly, the lead sentence of Paragraph 2 must begin or end with a modifier.” I feel pretty sure that whoever taught you these nonsensical rules didn’t really know what paragraphs and their lead sentences are supposed to do and, I might as well say it, wasn’t knowledgeable either about the basics of composition.

I think a more sensible approach to doing lead sentences of paragraphs is to think of them as logical bridges or transitional devices between a succeeding paragraph and the one preceding it. As such, the form, structure, and content of a lead sentence of a paragraph will largely depend on what the paragraph’s development task for the composition will be. In expository writing like the essay, there’s generally a choice of seven such tasks, as follows:

(1) To amplify a point or add to it,
(2) To establish a causal relationship,
(3) To establish a temporal relationship,
(4) To present an example,
(5) To make an analogy,
(6) To provide an alternative, or
(7) To concede a point.

Once the writer decides on any of these tasks, it will become clear what kind of lead sentence the paragraph needs. Generally, there are two categories of lead sentences that serve as transitional bridges for paragraphs:

(1) Extrinsic or explicit transitions. Lead sentences of this type primarily rely on such familiar introductory words as “however,” “therefore” and “moreover” to show how an idea that will follow is related to the one preceding it. The various conjunctive adverbs (“anyway,” “in contrast,” “in fact”) and transitional phrases (“before,” “after,” during”) are musts for this category of transitional sentences.

(2) Intrinsic or implicit transitions. Lead sentences of this type make use of the natural progression or “flow” of the ideas themselves to link paragraphs logically. Instead of using the usual conjunctive adverbs or transitional phrases, they effect paragraph transitions through a semantic play on key words or ideas in the body of the exposition itself. A sentence that performs an intrinsic paragraph transition usually (a) repeats a key word or phrase used in the preceding paragraph and makes it the takeoff point for the succeeding paragraph, or else (b) uses a synonym or words similar to that key word or phrase to do the transitional job.

Because extrinsic or explicit transitional sentences are simple and easy to do, beginning writers normally make very frequent use of them in developing paragraphs. As they gain greater mastery of the writing craft, however, they depend more on intrinsic or implicit transitions to do the job because they provide less obtrusive and more elegant ways of bridging paragraphs.

My book Give Your English the Winning Edge devotes four chapters to the making of effective paragraph transitions. I suggest you get a copy of the book to thoroughly learn the various strategies, techniques, and applications for doing them.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The usage of “the both of you” and “at the end of the day”

Questions from Maria Balina, Forum member (September 26, 2010):

Hi, Mr. Carillo!

These are my questions:

1.  When do you use “the both” and “both?”  As far as I can remember, there was no need to put the article “the” before “both.” I must belong to a different generation!  

2.  Why are the words “carnapper,” “holdupper,” and “jetsetter” used? Does the suffix “-er” justify the use of these words when referring to a person? I’ve checked my dictionary and these words do not exist.

3.  I’ve noticed that President Noynoy Aquino has used the cliche “at the end of the day”  a few times. I respect Pres. Aquino’s ghost writer Manolo Quezon but I am bit disappointed at the use of such a cliché.

My reply to Maria Balina:

The use of either “both of you” or “the both of you” and “both of us” or “the both of us” is acceptable in sentences like “Remember that this trip is only for [both of you, the both of you] so don’t bring along anybody else” and “Remember that this trip is only for [both of us, the both of us] so don’t bring along anybody else.” The form you are accustomed to using, “both of you”/”both of us,” is the scrupulously correct grammatical form, but the variant “the both of you”/”the both of us” is a widely used idiomatic form particularly in the United States. In fact, Google cites something like 22,100,000 entries for expressions using “for the both of you” and 21,600,000 for “for the both of us,” and about this form, the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage assures us that “There is no reason you should avoid it if it is your normal idiom.” In any case, you need not lose sleep over your choice of the more common form that doesn’t use “the.” There’s really no generational gap between the users of either form—only a geographical and linguistic one.

As we all know, putting the suffix “-er” to a noun or verb is the fastest and simplest way to convert it to a word that denotes the doer of the action. This is the normal way that words like “gardener,” “freezer,” and “heater” have evolved. As to the words “carnapper,” “holdupper,” and “jet-setter,” only the third—“jet-setter”—is acknowledged to be part of the English lexicon by the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, but we all know that the first two—“carnapper” and “holdupper”—have been widely used by the Philippine print and broadcast media over the years. I guess that in a few more years, these two will finally be recognized as legitimate English words simply by virtue of the frequency and intensity of their use in the Philippines.

Yes, I noticed, too, that President Benigno Aquino III uses the expression “at the end of the day” very often when he speaks extemporaneously. I really don’t know how to react to your disappointment at his frequent use of that expression, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to be blaming anybody for this state of affairs. Perhaps it would be better if I just shared with you my thoughts about “at the end of the day” and similarly overused expressions. I have written several columns about them in The Manila Times over the past five years and I am now posting them in the Forum for your appreciation. You can read all of them by simply clicking this link to “Doing battle with the most irritating phrases in English.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Why many young writers prefer “beneath” to “under” or “below”

I had a very interesting e-mail conversation on word usage recently with my friend Krip Yuson, the Palanca Awards Hall of Famer and Philippine Star columnist, and I would like to share that conversation with Forum members and guests:

Krip:
Joe, been noticing for a long time that among the young, in particular, no one uses “under” and “below” anymore. Everyone uses “beneath”—even with such usage as “beneath the glass table” and “Beneath her nails was dirt.”

Hope we can have your take on this sometime?

Me:
I think there’s no question that “beneath” is a more elegant—shall I say also more “literary”?—word than “under” and “below,” so it’s not surprising for young writers and speakers to prefer it. I’d say though that there’s a touch of fastidiousness in “beneath” that I, as copyeditor, wouldn’t allow in most journalistic and nonliterary work. In such cases, I’ll blue-pencil “beneath” in “beneath the glass table” and in “Beneath her nails was dirt” anytime and routinely replace it with “under” or “below” depending on context. Listen to and feel the expressions “under the glass table” and “under her nails was dirt.” I’d say they sound much more natural and real-worldly.

Apart from their utilitarian sound and feel, of course, I have a suspicion that both “under” and “below” have been diminished in the public mind by their unfortunate association with the idiomatic expressions “under the table” (think “jueteng payola”!) and “below the belt” (think of Manny Pacquiao’s rogue boxing opponents!), both of which strongly connote corruption and unfairness. I can therefore imagine that this is one other reason for the beginning writer or budding public speaker to be loath to use “under” and “below.” They would rather use the more neutral if effete “beneath” to avoid such negative associations.

Krip:
Thanks for ur sexy sexplication, Jose. But isn’t it rather beneath us to cotton to these modernist applications of intended if ill-fitting elegance? Jeje.

Seriously, I recall that there were distinctions made by my old elementary school grammar amanuensis, or police, relating to the physical aspects involved. Parang “beneath” had to mean really under and there’s a cover or lid pa, or earth piled upon the described object, as in “What Lies Beneath”—while kapag “under” nakikita pa, something like that. Or is memory playing trick or treat with me?

I agree with you that more natural ’yung dating ng UNDER and BELOW sa expressions cited.

Maybe you can also touch on the distinction between the proper uses of THAT and WHICH, isa pang di alam ng mga bata.

Daghang salamuchas meantime, and keep it up, bro!

Me:
You’re most welcome, Krip! I agree that it’s beneath us to cotton to writers who invariably force-fit the preposition “beneath” into their prose instead of the plainer, simpler “under” or “below,” so perhaps you’ll also agree that editors ought to issue a fatwah against “beneath” except in very specific descriptions of relative position, in poetry, and in enigmatic phrases meant to tantalize, like the movie title What Lies Beneath and the title of Bette Midler’s song “Wind Beneath My Wings.” (Admittedly, “under” and “below” just can’t cut it in such instances.)

As to the specific denotations of “beneath,” I think it’s best to take a look at what my Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary has to say about the word:

beneath
Function: preposition
Date: before 12th century

1 a : in or to a lower position than  : BELOW  <beneath the surface>  b : directly under  <the ground beneath her feet>  c : at the foot of  <a camp beneath a hill>
2 : not suitable to the rank of  : unworthy of  <beneath his dignity>
3 : under the control, pressure, or influence of  <the chair sagged beneath his weight>
4 : concealed by  : under the guise of  <a warm heart beneath a gruff manner>

As we can see, “beneath” has very specific uses, so your old elementary-school grammar amanuensis must have been on the right track after all in discussing all those fine distinctions about the usage of the word.

As to the proper uses of “that” and “which,” you may want to recommend to your students to check out my four-part discussion of them here in the Forum, “Learning to use the relative pronouns confidently,” which I posted way back on October 16, 2009. It previously ran as a four-part series in my English-usage column in The Manila Times in September-October 2008. In that series, I extensively discussed the relative pronouns “who,” “which,” and “that” in the context of their role as introducers of restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses and of subordinate clauses in general.

I also devoted four chapters (Chapter 105-108) on the usage of “who,” “which,” and “that” in my third book, Give Your English the Winning Edge. I daresay that any serious student of English grammar who reads that website posting and those four chapters of my book need never worry ever again about misusing “who,” “which,” and “that.”

Finally, thanks for the words of encouragement, Krip! I sure could use them “when the gray November of my soul”—I’m just echoing your quote of Herman Melville in your Philippine Star column this morning—sets in unannounced sometimes in my good-English advocacy.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Which is correct—birthday “celebrant” or “celebrator”?

Question from reader Gerry B. (September 19, 2010):

I just want to know the correct or more appropriate word for a person who celebrates a birthday.  Is it “celebrant” or “celebrator?”  For me, I have switched to using “celebrator.”

My reply to Gerry:

You’ve made a well-advised switch from “celebrant” to “celebrator,” and I think that in the foreseeable future, your decision will shield you from a lot of ribbing and unjustified criticism from your associates and friends. But is “celebrant” really wrong and unacceptable usage? I wrote a column in The Manila Times last July 3 giving my views about this usage, and I am posting it below in support of the position I’ve taken.

A rejoinder from Gerry:

Thank you for your prompt reply and enlightening explanation on the use of “celebrant” and “celebrator.” Yesterday, one of my officemates questioned me for using “celebrators” instead of “celebrants” when our HR staff posted a list of birthday “celebrators” for the month. Well, I explained to him what I believed and knew was the correct one. And to make sure I had a basis in my answer, I consulted you later just to confirm my belief.

Thank you very much.  I really enjoy your Manila Times column and English Forum.  I have learned a lot from you.

Click to read responses or post a response

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