Wrong verb tense usage is another major weakness of today’s journalists

[Joe Carillo]

Surprisingly, apart from subject-verb disagreement, another major weakness of today’s breed of news reporters and editors is wrong verb tense usage. One would expect that figuring out the correct tense for verbs would be a well-developed skill among them, considering that most of them have undergone at least four years of formal training in journalism or mass communication. Based on the high frequency of tense misuse in the major Metro Manila broadsheets and network TV news websites, however, this expectation appears to be significantly off the mark.

Consider the following serious cases of tense misuse that I found in their news reporting during the weekend:

(1) The Manila Bulletin: Two verbs in a row in the wrong tenses

Senate okays bill on benefits

MANILA, Philippines — With only three session days left before it adjourned sine die next week, the Senate has unanimously approved on third and final reading a bill that seeks the expeditious and timely release of benefits, pension and gratuities of government workers retiring from the service.

In the lead sentence above, the past-tense verb ‘adjourned’ is in the wrong tense because it refers to an action that’s to happen the following week yet. As I explained in an earlier posting about the future tense (“Is it okay to use two WILL’s in one sentence?”), when two clauses denoting future actions are linked by the subordinating conjunction “before,” those two actions obviously won’t be simultaneous, so the sentence must make it clear that one of the actions will occur earlier than the other. In English, this sense is conveyed by making the earlier of the two actions take the future tense and the later action, the present tense, as in this sentence: “He will marry her before he travels to Australia.”

In the sentence in question here, however, the prepositional phrase “with only three session days left” is structured as an adverbial modifier of the prepositional phrase “before it adjourns sine die next week.” The phrase “with only three session days left” has a future sense that’s equivalent to “there will be only three session days left,” so the future action that will follow it has to be in the present tense “adjourns”—definitely not in the past tense “adjourned” as wrongly used in the lead passage in question and not in the future tense “will adjourn” either, as might be expected.

Also, since the precise day of occurrence of the Senate approval of the bill is established by the frontline modifying phrase, it is incorrect to use the present perfect “has unanimously approved” in that main clause. It should be in the simple past tense “unanimously approved” instead. 

That tense of the verb in that lead sentence should therefore be corrected as follows:

“With only three session days left before it adjourns sine die next week, the Senate unanimously approved on third and final reading a bill that seeks the expeditious and timely release of benefits, pension and gratuities of government workers retiring from the service.”

(2) The Philippine Star: Wrong tense of verb

Two men trapped in quarry cave-in
 
CEBU, Philippines - Two men were trapped inside a stone quarry in barangay Calagasan, Argao town in the southern part of the province since yesterday morning.

Rescuers were still trying to pluck them out of the hole as of 8 o’clock last night and the work is expected to continue until early morning today.

In the lead sentence above, the past tense “were trapped” is in the wrong tense. That verb should be in the passive present-tense form “have been trapped” instead since it’s specified that they have been trapped since the morning of the previous day.

That sentence should therefore be corrected as follows:

“CEBU, Philippines - Two men have been trapped inside a stone quarry in barangay Calagasan, Argao town in the southern part of the province since yesterday morning.”

(3) The Manila Bulletin: Wrong use of the present perfect

Plastic bag pollution fund pushed

MANILA, Philippines — A party-list lawmaker has pushed for the establishment of a “plastic bag pollution fund” that would finance the environmental programs and projects

PBA Rep. Mark Aeron Sambar filed House Bill 4462 imposing a “clean up charge” on those who use plastic bags when buying items or products.

In the lead sentence above, the use of the present-perfect tense verb phrase “has pushed for the establishment of” gives the semantically wrong impression that the party-list lawmaker is no longer pushing the proposed legislation after filing it in the Lower House. The tense that will yield the semantically correct sense to that statement—that of continuing, uninterrupted advocacy of the measure—is the present progressive tense, as follows:

“A party-list lawmaker is pushing for the establishment of a 'plastic bag pollution fund' that would finance the environmental programs and projects.”   

(4) The Philippine Star: Wrong tense of verb

House approves bill on ladderized education
 
MANILA, Philippines - The House of Representatives has recently approved on third and final reading a bill instituting a ladderized education for students taking up technical vocational education and training (TVET) and higher education (HE).

House Bill 4255, to be known as the “Ladderized Education Act of 2011,” will enable technical-vocational (tech-voc) students to earn a college degree by giving corresponding higher education credits to subjects or training programs acquired in tech-voc institutions and vice versa.

In journalistic English, the convention is to use the simple past tense when the adverb “recently” is used for the time of occurrence of an action. The use of the present perfect “has recently approved” in the lead sentence above is therefore incorrect. It should be the simple past tense “recently approved” instead, as follows:

“The House of Representatives recently approved on third and final reading a bill instituting a ladderized education for students taking up technical vocational education and training (TVET) and higher education (HE).”

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) The Manila Bulletin: Wrong modifier, unnecessary use of preposition

MMDA uses lasers on Commonwealth

MANILA, Philippines — To address the continued accidents along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City, the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) stressed on the importance of laser speed guns to monitor and apprehend violators.

MMDA Chairman Atty. Francis Tolentino highlighted the features of the LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) guns that are installed in strategic areas along the said thoroughfare.

[UNQUOTE]

As far as I know, there’s no such thing as “continued accidents” in the English language; once an accident happens, it’s a done thing, unlike a disaster that may continue to unfold once it has begun. In the particular case of the lead sentence above, the grammatically correct modifier is “very frequent” or “spate.” Also, the phrase “stressed on the importance of” doesn’t need the preposition “on’; the correct phrasing is “stressed the importance of.”

So here are two correct reconstructions of that problematic lead sentence:

“To address the very frequent accidents along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City, the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) stressed the importance of laser speed guns to monitor and apprehend violators.”

or

“To address the spate of accidents along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City, the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) stressed the importance of laser speed guns to monitor and apprehend violators.”

(2) GMA News: Improperly phrased news headline   

Youths shoot dead jeep driver in Tondo
 
Police in Manila are now tracking down a group of youths who allegedly shot dead a jeepney driver after he sideswiped one of them in the city's Tondo district before dawn Sunday.

For weeks now, the mass media have been saturated with news about fish-kills and double-dead milkfish being sold on the sly in public markets, but the headline above tells of more macabre news: youths shooting a dead jeep driver in Tondo. Where’s the sense and what’s the logic of shooting someone who’s already dead? To make sure that he’s double-dead like “botcha,” the term that media outlets take great relish in using to describe “double-dead” meat or fish? That’s extremely doubtful! I think that headline is simply the hapless victim of bad phrasing. Here’s how that headline may be fixed semantically:

“Jeep driver, shot by youths in Tondo, dies”
or
“Jeep driver shot dead by youths in Tondo”

(3) The Manila Times: Wrong term for gender; dangling modifying phrase

65-year old abortionist suspect apprehended

BALANGA City, Bataan: Police operatives on Thursday noon arrested a suspected woman abortionist in a raid in her house in Pilar, Bataan and a few hours later nabbed a former Army soldier who allegedly supplies the woman with abortion-inducing drugs in an entrapment along a busy road in Balanga City.

In the lead sentence above, the use of the noun “woman” as modifier in the noun phrase “a suspected woman abortionist” is grammatically improper; the widely accepted modifier in such constructions is the adjective “female” instead.

Also, the prepositional phrase “in an entrapment along a busy road in Balanga City” is a dangling modifier because it can’t logically latch on to any subject in that position in the sentence. To fix the problem, that phrase should be relocated as close as possible to the grammatical element that it should logically be modifying.

Here’s a rewrite of that lead sentence that accomplishes the two grammatical corrections indicated above:

“BALANGA City, Bataan: Police operatives on Thursday noon arrested a suspected female abortionist in a raid in her house in Pilar, Bataan and, in an entrapment along a busy road in Balanga City a few hours later, nabbed a former Army soldier who allegedly supplies the woman with abortion-inducing drugs.”

(4) The Manila Times: Subject-verb disagreement error twice in a row

Fishkill ruins local supply of milkfish

SAN FERNANDO CITY, La Union: Over 447.2 metric tons of milkfish worth P33. 74-million from fishpond cages in the municipalities of Anda and Bolinao in Pangasinan have been ruined by fishkill that took began last Sunday, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources(BFAR) –Region I designated-Information Officer Remely Lachica said, here.

Lachica said that 240 metric tons of milkfish were reported in Bolinao while Anda listed the estimate damage to have been 207.2 metric tons; however, she said that this damage estimate is small compared to the present production.

The two lead paragraphs above both suffer from a subject-verb disagreement error. In the first sentence, the head noun of the nominal group “over 447.2 metric tons of milkfish worth P33. 74-million from fishpond cages in the municipalities of Anda and Bolinao in Pangasinan” is the weight measure “metric tons,” which is grammatically and notionally singular, so the operative verb should be the singular form “has been ruined” instead of the plural form “have been ruined.”

In the second sentence, the head noun of the nominal group “240 metric tons of milkfish” is also the weight measure “metric tons,” so the operative verb should be the singular form “was reported (ruined),” not the plural “were reported (ruined).” (See the rationale for this in my Forum posting on nominal groups, “How the mass media can lick errors in subject-verb agreement for good.”) 

That lead passage should therefore be corrected as follows:

“SAN FERNANDO CITY, La Union: Over 447.2 metric tons of milkfish worth P33. 74-million from fishpond cages in the municipalities of Anda and Bolinao in Pangasinan has been ruined by fishkill that took began last Sunday, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources(BFAR)–Region I designated-Information Officer Remely Lachica said, here.

“Lachica said that 240 metric tons of milkfish was reported (ruined) in Bolinao while Anda listed the estimate damage to have been 207.2 metric tons; however, she said that this damage estimate is small compared to the present production.”

(5) The Philippine Star: Subject-verb disagreement error

Fishkill losses reach P115 M
 
MANILA, Philippines - More than P115 million worth of fish were lost in fishkill in Batangas and Pangasinan, the government said yesterday.

Benito Ramos, National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) executive director, said the losses in Batangas totaled P74.826 million, and P40.71 million in Pangasinan.

The lead sentence above has a problem similar to the grammatically flawed sentences in Item 6. The head noun of the nominal group “more than P115 million worth of fish” is the singular noun “worth,” so the operative verb should be in the singular form “was lost,” not in the plural forum “were lost.” Semantically, what was lost was the peso value of the fish, not the fish themselves.

That sentence should therefore be corrected as follows:

 “More than P115 million worth of fish was lost in fishkill in Batangas and Pangasinan, the government said yesterday.”

(6) The Philippine Star: Grammatically flawed phrasing of sentence

Phl to take Chinese incursions to UN
 
MANILA, Philippines - The government will bring to the United Nations six to seven incidents of Chinese incursions into the country’s territorial waters, President Aquino said yesterday.

Malacañang also said the Philippines would act accordingly on a report that a Chinese warship had fired at local boats fishing in Quirino or Jackson Atoll in the West Philippine Sea.

The lead sentence above is grammatically flawed. It’s logically impossible to bring to the United Nations the “six to seven incidents of Chinese incursions into the country’s territorial waters”; they can only be brought to the attention of the UN, or the attention of the UN can only be called to those incursions.

Even assuming that the actual utterance was grammatically flawed (which is understandable in interview situations), it’s incumbent upon the newspaper reporter or editor to rectify it through an appropriate paraphrase. In this particular case, the actual statement is clearly presented in paraphrase, but the grammatical error was evidently neither spotted nor rectified by the reporter and editor.

Here’s the proper phrasing of that grammatically flawed statement:

“The government will bring to the attention of the United Nations six to seven incidents of Chinese incursions into the country’s territorial waters, President Aquino said yesterday.”

Another grammatically correct construction:

“The government will formally report to the United Nations six to seven incidents of Chinese incursions into the country’s territorial waters, President Aquino said yesterday.”

[Alek]

English Tanguage Test Authority
Warns Against Cheating in Exams

My goodness!    This subhead raises three questions:
1.  Who did the proofreading?
2.  WAS there any proofreading?
3   Is the spellchecker broken?

[Joe Carillo]

Thanks for calling our attention to that awful proofreading error--and in the Forum's homepage at that! There was proofreading as usual, of course, but I guess this oversight is simply an egregious case of Murphy's Law at work. For that, Alek, we are most sorry!

As for our Microsoft Spellchecker, no, it isn't broken. We routinely run it on our manuscripts. As you may know, however, it can't be used during the web programming stage. This is where errors of this type usually crop up and elude detection until the web page gets uploaded.

 

[Alek]

My goodness again!

We read about wrong verb tense usage, then we encounter the following:

“come to grips with something”             
To come to grips with a problem or situation is to start to understand or deal with it properly. Example: “An inexperienced individual thrust into a major leadership position often take quite some time—if at all—to come to grips with the power that comes with it.”

Is this what the English describe as "the pot calling the kettle black"?

Also, the phrase "if at all" sits very oddly indeed with "take(s) some time"...

[Joe Carillo]

I’m delighted to see that you have been going over the Forum’s grammar and usage with a fine-tooth comb. You are absolutely right, of course, about the wrong tense usage in this sample sentence in the Idiomatic Expressions window: “An inexperienced individual thrust into a major leadership position often take quite some time—if at all—to come to grips with the power that comes with it.” Mea culpa. That plural form of the verb “take” should have been the singular form “takes,” considering that the subject “individual” is in the singular form. It if weren’t a case of proofreading oversight, it would indeed be described as “the pot calling the kettle black,” as you would have it.

Regarding the parenthetical “if at all,” you’re correct again in saying that it “sits very oddly indeed with ‘takes some time.’” In fact, it’s flat-out semantically incorrect because it yields the opposite of the sense intended. That parenthetical should have been “if not forever,” and I would like to thank you profusely for nudging me to that belated realization.

I’ll be doing your two corrections on the Forum right after this.   

In closing, Alek, I'd like to say this: You can’t imagine how glad I am that you’ve joined the Forum as a member! You have the acute grammar sense and energetic spirit that I’d like to permeate its discussion boards, the better for the Forum to achieve its goal of teaching and fostering really good English. As you know, every writer or editor—no matter how good in the writing or editing craft—needs a competent editor, and I must admit that it often gets scary for me not to have one at all to perform an oversight function on my grammar prescriptions. By taking the trouble of pointing out the two instances of faulty English above (plus the other one you corrected in an earlier posting), you have made yourself my ad hoc editor. I would like you to know that I’m comfortable with that arrangement, and I’m hoping that you could find the time to continue vetting the Forum’s grammar and usage in this manner. I would consider it a big favor indeed!

[Alek]

You are too kind.

But perhaps you would like to revisit:

In the lead sentence above, the past-tense verb “adjourned” is in the wrong tense; it should be in the present tense “adjourn” instead because it’s to happen the following week yet.

[Joe Carillo]

I’m glad that we’re off to a good start, Alek.

Thanks for alerting me to the semantic problem in this sentence:

“In the lead sentence above, the past-tense verb ‘adjourned’ is in the wrong tense; it should be in the present tense ‘adjourn’ instead because it’s to happen the following week yet.”

You’re right in suggesting that the sentence needs revisiting. I can see now that readers might be confused by the idea that the past-tense verb “adjourned” should be changed to the present tense “adjourn” because the action is to happen the following week yet. The present tense for a future action? Although I explained in the subsequent discussions why the change needed to be done that way, such a seemingly counterintuitive statement indeed could throw off a lot of nonspecialist readers.

I have therefore come up with the following fix for that sentence:

“In the lead sentence above, the past-tense verb ‘adjourned’ is in the wrong tense because it refers to an action that’s to happen the following week yet.”

I am therefore serving notice that I’ll be making this grammatical amendment to that Media Watch posting of mine right after this.

Thanks again, Alek!

[Alek]

My goodness, Joe.    I am still having trouble with:

In the lead sentence above, the past-tense verb “adjourned” is in the wrong tense; it should be in the present tense “adjourn” instead because it’s to happen the following week yet.

It seems to me that the adverb "yet" should come directly before "to happen" instead of dangling at the end of the sentence.

But - "to happen" is already modified by "the following week", and so "yet" is, in my view, superfluous.

[Joe Carillo]

Hmm… I think you’re still having trouble with the sentence because you have copied the original flawed version. Note that in both the discussion board and in the front-page of My Media English Watch, that flawed version has already been amended as follows:

“In the lead sentence above, the past-tense verb ‘adjourned’ is in the wrong tense because it refers to an action that’s to happen the following week yet.” (Note that the troublesome phrase “it should be in the present tense ‘adjourn’ instead” has been lopped off from the original construction.)

I don’t see any more grammatical or semantic problem with this revised version. Also, in both this revised version and in the wrong one you had copied, I find the usage of “yet” as an intensifier functionally correct and definitely not superfluous. I therefore stand by that sentence as corrected.

[Alek]

Joe, if you stand by that sentence, one is moved to ask:

1.   Why does the sentence need an intensifier?
2.   Why use an intensifier of the pseudo New York Jewish patois?
3.   Why use the intensifier "yet" that palpably is at odds with "the following week"?
4.   What proportion of readers would see "yet" as a simple (but dangling) adverb, rather than as a   
      intensifier?

[Joe Carillo]

I’ll answer your four questions above as dispassionately as I can.

1. Why does the sentence need an intensifier?

I’m sure you already know the answer, but for the benefit of other Forum members, I’ll define the term here to begin with. An “intensifier” is a word, usually an adverb, that emphasizes another word or phrase. Used at the option of the writer or speaker, it provides an idea with a force or intensity that may not be inherent in the words used to express it, as in the intensifier “just” in the statement “I’ve just been insulted  by that creep!” That statement could stand without “just,” of course, but the speaker used it to emphasize the recentness of the insult dealt on him or her. I haven’t heard of an authoritative grammatical prohibition against that usage.

I’m very much aware, of course, that you asked that question particularly with reference to the following amended sentence of mine:

“In the lead sentence above, the past-tense verb ‘adjourned’ is in the wrong tense because it refers to an action that’s to happen the following week yet.”

Now, you ask, why does that sentence need the intensifier “yet”? Well, it’s simply that I exercised the option of emphasizing the negative sense of the infinitive phrase “to happen the following week” by adding the adverb “yet” to it.

Did I commit a cardinal sin in English grammar by doing so? I doubt it very much, Alek. If I did, then The New York Times must be a kindred grammar sinner by doing the same in its February 14, 2011 editorial, “The Obama Budget,” where it wrote:

“The same cannot be said for the plan put forward by Republicans last week. It would amputate some of government’s most vital functions for the next seven months of fiscal year 2011. (They haven’t even gotten to next year yet, never mind the more distant future.)” (italicization mine)

The London School of Economics and Political Science must have also grammatically sinned when it made the following advisory to its staff and students in its website:

“For students who haven’t made a course choice for next year yet, urge them to do so as soon as possible. To students who are still not sure about what to choose, point out that in principle all courses are preliminary and that things can be changed until the end of the first couple of weeks of the next academic year.” (italicization mine)

I could go on and on with a list of similar usage for “yet,” but I trust that I have already made my point clear enough.

2. Why use an intensifier of the pseudo New York Jewish patois?

Frankly, I didn’t realize that “yet” is an intensifier of the pseudo New York Jewish patois, as you want to call it. (I get the feeling that the question above is probably your way of saying that you’ve lived in New York and that you know its pseudo Jewish patois that well.) I grant it that it probably can be inferred that The New York Times, whose principal owners are known to be Jewish, used “yet” in that editorial above as an intensifier “of the pseudo New York Jewish patois,” but really now, can the same be truthfully said for the London School of Economics in its use of “next year yet”? Indeed, does one need to be a Jew to be entitled to use “yet” as an intensifier? (I’m definitely not Jewish, by the way, but I’ve read a considerable lot of fiction and nonfiction by Jewish authors and I can say that the English of many of them is top-rate.)

3. Why use the intensifier “yet” that palpably is at odds with “the following week”?

Based on my answers to Questions 1 and 2 above, I feel pretty sure that the supposed “palpable” grammatical conflict between “yet” and “the following week” is purely local to you. It’s a matter—indeed, a non-issue—that doesn’t bother me at all (except, of course, for that fact that you’ve raised it).

4. What proportion of readers would see “yet” as a simple (but dangling) adverb, rather than as an intensifier?

Mmm… I can’t give you an exact figure, but it you can find the time, try a Google search. You might be surprised to find that a very substantial number of English users—if not an outright majority—routinely use “yet” as an intensifier in exactly the same manner that The New York Times, the London School of Economics, and I use it.

[Alek]

A most extensive reply, Joe, and I thank your for it.

However, your defence of "now" as an intensifier falls flat when your take your two examples and replace "yet" with its adverbial meaning, "at this time".    This shows that "yet" was not used by the prestigious organisations as an intensifier but as a common-or-garden adverb.

(You will notice that the LSE's "yet" is a classic dangler, being far distant from "made".)

[Joe Carillo]

I think you are unable to appreciate my usage of “yet” because you have boxed in the word to just this single denotation, “at this time.” The dictionaries, though, show a much more multifaceted usage for “yet.” The Macmillan Dictionary (American English edition) provides a particularly extensive discussion, but I’ll cite only two of the most pertinent usages here:

yet
3. used for saying that something could be true or could still happen in the future
    This victory could yet put the team into the finals.
    Lawrence’s body was never found, and he may yet be alive.
5. used after words referring to a period of time for saying how much time will pass before something happens or finishes
    The election won’t take place for three weeks yet.
    Ron and Charlene will be in Florida for another six days yet.

I can see where you are coming from when you contend that “yet” is a classic dangler in this statement of the London School of Economics: “For students who haven’t made a course choice for next year yet…” You’d rather that “yet” immediately follow the verb “made” so it won’t be a dangler. But how?

“For students who haven’t made a course choice yet for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t made yet a course choice for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t yet made a course choice for next year…”?

Frankly, in all the three reconstructions above, “yet” sounds like a dangler to me; I’d stick to the original LSE version anytime. Indeed, the bigger question here is this: How near must “yet” be to the verb “made” for “yet” not to be a dangler? You can see that in situations like this, there’s a lot of flexibility in positioning “yet.” It’s really a stylistic judgment call that’s better left to the writer or speaker.

In fact, Alek, your argument that “yet” is a classic dangler when positioned far distant from the verb breaks down in the case of the sentences provided by the Macmillan Dictionary for Definition 5 of “yet” above. Watch:

Original sentence: “The election won’t take place for three weeks yet.”
As you would have it: “The election won’t take place yet for three weeks.”

Original sentence: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida for another six days yet.”
As you would have it: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida yet for another six days.”

As you can see, Alek, positioning “yet” nearer the verb becomes semantically disastrous to both sentences—a fate for “yet” far worse than being a tail ender and being condemned as a “classic dangler.”

(For a deeper and broader appreciation of the meanings and usage of “yet,” I suggest you also cross-reference the Macmillan Dictionary definitions above with those of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Oxford Dictionaries, and Dictionary.com.)

[Alek]

My goodness, Joe!    You go to remarkable lengths to defend yourself.


However, for all your "explanation" above, you have not stated that my contention that the "yets" in question are not intensifiers but simple adverbs is wrong.    I will mark my contention as QED, and move on.

As for your statement, [i'You’d rather that “yet” immediately follow the verb “made” so it won’t be a dangler.'[/i], can you point out where I said that?   

I do not hold to the belief that a modifier must necessarily be next door to the term being modified; only that it should be close enough to perform its function.   From your three examples:

“For students who haven’t made a course choice yet for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t made yet a course choice for next year…”?
“For students who haven’t yet made a course choice for next year…”?

I far prefer the third.    "Yet" sits very elegantly in that position, does NOT dangle, and cannot be mistaken for anything other than an adverb.

Original sentence: “The election won’t take place for three weeks yet.”
As you would have it: “The election won’t take place yet for three weeks.”

As for your other presumption:

Original sentence: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida for another six days yet.”
As you would have it: “Ron and Charlene will be in Florida yet for another six days.”

Both sentences should have been drowned at birth!   I would simply not use "yet" in either of them.

[Joe Carillo]

I can see it now that from your neck of the woods, you simply won’t accept the fact that there are many other grammatically legitimate uses of “yet” than just to denote “at this time.” And you would go to remarkable lengths yourself to rebut incontrovertible proof from several respected lexicographic authorities that your position is untenable. Suit yourself then, Alek. I’m willing to leave the matter at that. Just spare me your condescending “My goodnesses!”