Just a few grammar bugs in major stories of mayhem and triumph

[Joe Carillo]

Two of the biggest news stories in the Philippines these past few days are, of course, the heinous Maguindanao massacre and Filipino teacher Efren Peñaflorida Jr.’s being voted as “CNN Hero of the Year.” I would consider as the third biggest story the road-rage killing of the son of a Malacañang official allegedly by a relative of an Asian Development Bank (ADB) employee. As usual, I took great interest in how the major Metro Manila broadsheets fared in their English-language reporting of these three events.

I must say that all four broadsheets were at their finest in reporting the horrible, grisly details of the massacre of over 50 people in Maguindanao. Despite—or probably because of—the most unfortunate fact that 27 media people themselves were victims in the mayhem, the reporters came up with well-written, compelling reports that were remarkably free of serious grammar and usage errors.

In their issues this Friday (November 27), in fact, the only notable problematic passage I could find in their accounts of the massacre was this lead sentence of the Philippine Star’s editorial:

(1) Erroneous use of the causative phrase “makes him warrant”

“What is it about a small-town mayor that makes him warrant VIP treatment from top government officials? Three days after the Maguindanao massacre, the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind was finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”

That’s all, but as I’ll explain in my critique a little later, the grammar and semantic problems in that passage should give pause not only to editorial writers but to journalists in general.

As to Efren, the award-winning “pushcart teacher,” the Manila Bulletin came up with this peculiar, logic-bending lead sentence in its front-page story about his return to the Philippines:

(2) An unwarranted, logic-bending lead sentence

“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country to continue his pioneering and noble mobile education advocacy.”

Did you see right away what’s wrong with the semantics of that statement?

The third problematic English usage I’d like to point out is this one from the lead sentence of a front-page story of The Manila Times:

(3) Unnecessary use of an indefinite article

“The Department of Foreign Affairs is reviewing its policy on the issuance of diplomatic plates following the death of the son of a Palace official, the aftermath of a road rage involving a vehicle registered to a staff member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”

Those who read last week’s edition of My Media English Watch will recall that I called attention to the same error—the use of an indefinite article for a noun that doesn’t need it—in the lead sentence of the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s front-page story about the triumphal return to the country of champion boxer Manny Pacquiao.

To these three notable English-usage problems in last week’s major news stories, I now would like to add the following serious grammar and usage errors in two less controversial stories—all from the Manila Bulletin:

(4) “Ducks seen as better alternative to pesticides, chemical fertilizers

“DAVAO CITY – Not all rice fields in Mindanao are converted into banana plantations – a trend which is partly blamed to the scarcity of rice in the country.

“Here, a non-government organization (NGO) is helping farmers gradually adapt to a farming technology using ducks to recover the rice industry.

“The rice-duck integration, known as the Aigamo project of the Philippine Agrarian Reform Foundation for National Development (PARFUND), is slowly gaining grounds in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Sur and some parts of the Caraga Region.

“Jose Apollo Pacamalan, program director of the Aigamo project, said this technology uses ducks to maintain a healthy rice paddy environment which, in turn, increase rice yield and reduce production cost of rice due to non-use of pesticides.”

(5) “RP to get 9 million doses of A (H1N1) vaccines

“The Philippines is set to receive some nine million doses of Influenza A (H1N1) vaccines from the World Health Organization (WHO) who earlier pledged to distribute the vaccines equally to developing countries.

“Speaking in a media conference held at the Department of Health (DoH) office in Tayuman, Manila, WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan said the first batch of the vaccines numbering to 1.9 million doses is expected before the end of the year.

“The first bulk of the vaccines have been reserved for health workers who are more at risk for acquiring the disease, Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III said adding that they have already identified 400,000 medical personnel who will receive doses of the vaccine.”

MY CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS:
   
Let’s now analyze each of the problematic passages above and see how they can be improved or rectified.

(1) Philippine Star: Erroneous use of the causative phrase “makes him warrant”   

Let’s take a look again at the opening statement of that editorial:

“What is it about a small-town mayor that makes him warrant VIP treatment from top government officials? Three days after the Maguindanao massacre, the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind was finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”

Sad to say, the indignation of the editorial writers over the Maguindanao atrocity seems to have gotten the better of their English grammar in the lead passage above. Firstly, the use of the causative “makes” in the verb phrase “makes him warrant VIP treatment” is patently wrong grammar and semantics. This is because the subject of that sentence—the small-town mayor—is semantically and logically incapable of making him warrant the VIP treatment on himself. Indeed, what’s supposed to warrant that VIP treatment is the very the answer to the rhetorical question asked by that question: “What is it about the small-town mayor?” Whatever it is, that third party or third element definitely couldn’t be the mayor himself.

By definition, the transitive verb “warrant” here means “to guarantee or give assurance” for something to someone. That “something” is, of course, the “VIP treatment,” and that “someone” is the mayor himself as the receiver of the action. The causative “makes” is therefore uncalled for here, for it would indicate that the subject himself—the mayor—is causing the act of warranting to be performed on himself, which is a semantically absurd idea.

For that sentence to become logical and yield the correct semantics, the causative “makes” has to be dropped and the verb phrase “makes him warrant VIP treatment” replaced with “warrants his VIP treatment,” as in this reconstruction:

“What is it about a small-town mayor that warrants his VIP treatment from top government officials? Three days after the Maguindanao massacre, the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind was finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”

Secondly, even after this correction is made on the first sentence, one big semantic problem remains: the second sentence in that passage doesn’t logically follow from the premise of the first. The two sentences lack a transitional idea to get themselves semantically linked.

One very simple way is, of course, to use the linking phrase “it took” and recast the second sentence a little bit, as follows:

“What is it about a small-town mayor that warrants his VIP treatment from top government officials? It took three days after the Maguindanao massacre for the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind to be finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”

The logical link between the two sentences, we can see clearly now, is the time that elapsed before authorities arrested the suspect in the multiple murder. To avoid confusing readers, reporters and desk editors should develop a keener eye for such links when writing or editing their news and feature stories.

(2) Manila Bulletin: An unwarranted, logic-bending lead sentence

At first blush, there seems to be nothing wrong with this lead sentence:

“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country to continue his pioneering and noble mobile education advocacy.”

On closer scrutiny, however, we’ll find that the prepositional phrase “to continue his pioneering and noble mobile education advocacy” doesn’t credibly or logically follow from its premises. Indeed, that phrase suspiciously looks like a not-so-well-thought-out rhetorical flourish or something the reporter had just yanked out from thin air to dramatize the story.

Of course, there’s absolutely no doubt that Efren will continue his pushcart-education advocacy, but in this context, it’s absurd to say that he returned to the Philippines precisely with that objective in mind. He returned to the Philippines because, well, he had to come home after winning the CNN award, shouldn’t he? It’s not as if he was forcibly stopped from doing his advocacy by being exiled abroad for some time.

Perhaps a better way to end that problematic sentence is to be more matter-of-fact about what happened, like this:

“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country after receiving the award in star-studded ceremonies Saturday night at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre in the United States.”

Some specific details in stories like this are simply more relevant and interesting than others.

(3) Manila Times: Unnecessary use of an indefinite article

Here we go again with that pesky little problem:

“The Department of Foreign Affairs is reviewing its policy on the issuance of diplomatic plates following the death of the son of a Palace official, the aftermath of a road rage involving a vehicle registered to a staff member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”

I’ll simply repeat my critique last week of the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s unnecessary use of the article “a” in this sentence: “They came in the tens of thousands, braved a staggering heat, and showered him with accolades no other Filipino boxer had ever received.” Like the noun “heat,” the noun phrase “road rage” belongs to that class of uncountable nouns with an unspecified referent that don’t need the indefinite article “a,” such as “fun,” “joy,” and “teamwork.”

(For those who missed that critique, let me repeat this part of my explanation for this particular usage: We don’t say “We had a great fun!”; instead we say, “We had great fun!” In the same token, we don’t say “She expressed an indescribable joy”; instead we say, “She expressed indescribable joy.” And, of course, we don’t say “The tennis partners have a great teamwork”; instead we say, “The tennis partners have great teamwork.”)

So now I’d like to give this grammar advice to all newspaper reporters and editors—treat “road rage” in precisely the same way:

“The Department of Foreign Affairs is reviewing its policy on the issuance of diplomatic plates following the death of the son of a Palace official, the aftermath of road rage involving a vehicle registered to a staff member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”

[Joe Carillo]

GRAMMAR PROBLEMS IN LESS CONTROVERSIAL STORIES:

(1) Manila Bulletin: A story that most likely missed being edited

The passage below is so chockfull of glaring grammar errors that I suspect it got published without being edited at all:

“Ducks seen as better alternative to pesticides, chemical fertilizers

“DAVAO CITY – Not all rice fields in Mindanao are converted into banana plantations – a trend which is partly blamed to the scarcity of rice in the country.

“Here, a non-government organization (NGO) is helping farmers gradually adapt to a farming technology using ducks to recover the rice industry.

“The rice-duck integration, known as the Aigamo project of the Philippine Agrarian Reform Foundation for National Development (PARFUND), is slowly gaining grounds in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Sur and some parts of the Caraga Region.

“Jose Apollo Pacamalan, program director of the Aigamo project, said this technology uses ducks to maintain a healthy rice paddy environment which, in turn, increase rice yield and reduce production cost of rice due to non-use of pesticides.”

OK, to begin with, the headline of that news story gives the queasy, terribly erroneous impression that some NGO-supported farmers are using ducks as pesticides and fertilizers—a notion that is, of course, far from the truth. For a moment, in fact, that headline created images in my head of ducks being pulverized so they could be made into pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Poor ducks, I exclaimed to myself!

Anyway, let’s now focus on the specific grammar and semantic errors of that story:

(a) Wrong use of the prepositional phrase “blamed to” in the following sentence:

“Not all rice fields in Mindanao are converted into banana plantations – a trend which is partly blamed to the scarcity of rice in the country.”

The correct prepositional phrase is, of course, “blamed for,” as in this corrected version of that sentence:

“Not all rice fields in Mindanao are converted into banana plantations – a trend which is partly blamed for the scarcity of rice in the country.”

(b) Something akin to a squinting modifier lurks in that sentence:

Even with the correction of its faulty prepositional phrase, however, one major semantic problem bedevils that sentence: Which trend is it referring to—the conversion of rice fields into banana plantations, or the fact that not all rice fields are converted into banana plantations? I think you’ll agree with me that something akin to a squinting modifier is lurking in that sentence.

Perhaps that squint can be rectified by reconstructing that sentence this way:

“The conversion of rice fields into banana plantations is a trend that is partly to blame for the scarcity of rice in the country. In Mindanao, however, not all rice fields are being converted into banana plantations.”

(Do you agree with this reconstruction? I could be wrong.)

(c) Wrong use of the verb “adapt” and the verb phrase “recover the rice industry”

The following sentence needs a total rewrite to correct its serious grammatical flaws:

“Here, a non-government organization (NGO) is helping farmers gradually adapt to a farming technology using ducks to recover the rice industry.”

The writer of that sentence mistook the word “adapt” for “adopt” and, by using a verb phrase wrongly, is making ducks perform a task too big for their size—recovering the rice industry!

Here’s my suggested revision of that problematic sentence:

“Here, a non-government organization (NGO) is engaged in an effort to make the rice industry recover by helping farmers gradually adopt a farming technology that involves raising ducks.”

(d) Wrong use of the plural in the phrase “gaining grounds”

The original of the passage below used the plural form “gaining grounds” for what should always be singular usage for that phrase, “gaining ground”: 

“The rice-duck integration, known as the Aigamo project of the Philippine Agrarian Reform Foundation for National Development (PARFUND), is slowly gaining ground in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Sur, and some parts of the Caraga Region.”

(e) Misuse of the nonrestrictive “which” and two subject-verb disagreement errors:

The original of the sentence below wrongly used “which”—“that” should be used instead because the relative clause “that increases rice yield and reduce production cost of rice due to non-use of pesticides” is a restrictive one—and the plural verb forms “increase” and “reduce”  instead of the singular verb forms “increases” and “reduces” for the singular subject “environment”:

“Jose Apollo Pacamalan, program director of the Aigamo project, said this technology uses ducks to maintain a healthy rice paddy environment that, in turn, increases rice yield and reduces production cost of rice due to non-use of pesticides.”

(2) Manila Bulletin: Another apparently unedited news story that got to print

(a) Wrong use of the relative pronoun “who” instead of “that”:

It’s well-settled that the relative pronoun “that”—not “who”—should be used to introduce a relative clause modifying a nonhuman antecedent noun. The relative pronoun “who” in the original of the sentence below has therefore been replaced with “that”:

“The Philippines is set to receive some nine million doses of Influenza A (H1N1) vaccines from the World Health Organization (WHO) that earlier pledged to distribute the vaccines equally to developing countries.”

(Just an idle thought: Is it possible that the reporter was unduly predisposed to using the relative pronoun “who” because it rhymed nicely with the acronym “WHO,” as in the hooting of an owl? Things like that happen even with me sometimes, you know.)

(b) Use of the erroneous phrase “numbering to 1.9 million doses”:

The use of the phrase “numbering to 1.9 million doses” in the original of the sentence below is improper; it should be “numbering 1.9 million doses” or “totaling 1.9 doses” instead:

“Speaking in a media conference held at the Department of Health (DoH) office in Tayuman, Manila, WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan said the first batch of the vaccines numbering 1.9 million doses is expected before the end of the year.”

or:

“Speaking in a media conference held at the Department of Health (DoH) office in Tayuman, Manila, WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan said the first batch of the vaccines totaling 1.9 million doses is expected before the end of the year.”

(c) Wrong choice of word, subject-verb disagreement error, run-on sentence:

The sentence below suffers from three serious errors: wrong word choice (“bulk” should be “batch” instead), subject-verb disagreement (the plural form “have been reserved” should be “has been reserved” instead because its subject, “bulk,” is singular), and bad construction that makes it a fused sentence (“Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III said adding that…”):

“The first bulk of the vaccines have been reserved for health workers who are more at risk for acquiring the disease, Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III said adding that they have already identified 400,000 medical personnel who will receive doses of the vaccine.”

Here’s a reconstruction that I suggest for that sentence:

“The first batch of the vaccines has been reserved for health workers who are more at risk for acquiring the disease, Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III said. He added that they have already identified 400,000 medical personnel who will receive doses of the vaccine.”

Note that spinning off the sentence into two has made it much clearer and more emphatic.

[maxsims]

“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country after receiving the award in star-studded ceremonies Saturday night at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre in the United States.”

To me, the distance between "CNN Hero of the Year" and "the award", plus the intervening "international accolades", is initially confusing.   So is "in the country" (although mainly to Anglo-Saxons).  Also, we all know where that particular Hollywood is.  And 'star-studded ceremonies"?

“Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back home after receiving the CNN Hero of the Year award at a star-studded ceremony at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre last Saturday night .”

[madgirl09]

Good lead sentence, Max...... but to start with the name of the winner may not be so appealing to readers. Before this award, he was totally unknown. If that's Pacquiao, I agree putting the "who" detail first followed by the other information or elements in the sentence.  CNN Hero of the year, name of winner, then place of awarding could be enough for the lead sentence. Story could be told starting with the job, character and project that made the winner win the award...Sir Joe, what are the basics of Journalism that the quote observed well, and what rules were violated?  

 ;)Give us refresher course, please.   

[Joe Carillo]

“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country after receiving the award in star-studded ceremonies Saturday night at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre in the United States.”

To me, the distance between "CNN Hero of the Year" and "the award", plus the intervening "international accolades", is initially confusing.   So is "in the country" (although mainly to Anglo-Saxons).  Also, we all know where that particular Hollywood is.  And 'star-studded ceremonies"?

“Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back home after receiving the CNN Hero of the Year award at a star-studded ceremony at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre last Saturday night .”

In practically all of my grammar critiques of news stories, I refrain from nitpicking on the factual and stylistic aspects as a matter of policy. I won't even monkey around with the sentence structure unless it gives rise to serious semantic or logical problems. At any rate, in response to Maxsims's comments, let me just say that to put that news story in its true context, I simply grafted the phrase "after receiving the CNN Hero of the Year award at a star-studded ceremony at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre last Saturday night” from a Philippine News Agency (PNA) story about the event. I think it has to be understood that the CNN Hero of the Year story wasn't a late-breaking story at all; it had been reported very extensively in the Philippine press even before Efren Peñaflorida went to the US to receive the award. For something so familiar to the target audience, therefore, the distance between the mention of "CNN Hero of the Year" and "the award" in that sentence is of no great consequence from a readability standpoint and couldn't possibly cause confusion.

Why specify that Hollywood Kodak Theater is in the United States? Well, it's because the name "Hollywood" is so common in the Philippines. There used to be a Hollywood Theater along Claro M. Recto Avenue (former Azcarraga Avenue) in downtown Manila, and I know from my travels all over the Philippines that it has scores of hotels and restaurants named "Hollywood." Filipinos are that enamored with Hollywood and things Hollywood, Maxsims, so it's better to make clear which Hollywood a news story is talking about.

Were the CNN Hero of the Year award ceremonies star-studded? You bet! Here's PNA's account of the event (boldfacing mine):

"Actress Eva Mendes introduced Peñaflorida as one of the Top 10 CNN Heroes; host Anderson Cooper announced Penaflorida as the CNN Hero of the Year at the end of the evening, after a powerful performance by Grammy Award-winning recording artist Carrie Underwood...

"Celebrity presenters included Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Neil Patrick Harris, Pierce Brosnan, Dwayne Johnson, Eva Mendes, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Randy Jackson. Underwood, Leona Lewis, and Maxwell each performed."

C'mon, Max! Can anything be more star-studded than that?

If you still have any lingering doubts, click this link to read the full PNA news account of the CNN Hero of the Year awards ceremonies.

[Joe Carillo]

Good lead sentence, Max...... but to start with the name of the winner may not be so appealing to readers. Before this award, he was totally unknown. If that's Pacquiao, I agree putting the "who" detail first followed by the other information or elements in the sentence.  CNN Hero of the year, name of winner, then place of awarding could be enough for the lead sentence. Story could be told starting with the job, character and project that made the winner win the award...Sir Joe, what are the basics of Journalism that the quote observed well, and what rules were violated?  

 ;)Give us refresher course, please.   

Regarding the journalistic aspects of news storytelling, I hope my reply to Maxsims above is "refreshing" enough.

[Joe Carillo]

My early mailings announcing this week’s edition of the Forum carried the following beginning statement (underscoring mine):

Despite—or probably because of—the most unfortunate fact that 27 from their own ranks were victims in the grisly mayhem, all four of the major Metro Manila broadsheets were admirably at their finest best in reporting last week’s massacre of over 50 people in Maguindanao. They came up with well-written, compelling reports that were admirably free of serious grammar and usage errors. Indeed, the only notable problematic passage I could find in their accounts of the mass murder was in the editorial of one of them, and I trust that my critique of it in My Media English Watch would give journalists pause and food for thought on how to handle their English better.

A columnist of one of the major broadsheets—he communicated with me privately so I won’t give his name here—quickly e-mailed me this feedback last Saturday:

Metro Manila broadsheets were admirably "at their finest best"? puede ba yan o sobrang redundant that cannot be justified even if exuberance is taken into account?

Knowing that columnist to be a writer and professional communicator who really knows his English, I immediately replied with the following e-mail:

You’re right that my use of “at their finest best” is overly exuberant, sobra talaga, but I did mean to use that expression in its colloquial, hyperbolic sense. It’s actually an old expression that’s meant to describe a very finicky dresser, as in “wearing his Sunday’s best” and “dressed to the nines.” Now that you’ve called my attention to it, however, I’m having second thoughts about the usage. It’s actually defensible grammatically and semantically, but I would concede that it does sound like an affectation. I’ll therefore get rid of it in My Media English Watch story itself as well as in my subsequent mailings.
 
Thanks for the feedback, and have a nice day!

If others who received my early mailings noticed my questionable English usage and wanted to take me to task for it, I hope the above exchange will put matters to rest.

[maxsims]

'...I simply grafted the phrase "after receiving the CNN Hero of the Year award at a star-studded ceremony at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre last Saturday night” from a Philippine News Agency (PNA) story about the event...'

No you didn't,Joe; that was my contribution.   The original par used the term "ceremonies", which I was querying, not "star-studded".  I should have made my point clearer.

'...Filipinos are that enamored with Hollywood and things Hollywood, Maxsims, so it's better to make clear which Hollywood a news story is talking about...'

I know that there are many Hollywoods in the Philippines, but I know of none boasting a famous Kodak Theater.   Neither do I know of one which CNN woud use for the awards mentioned.   I dare say that none of the local readers do, either.   In any case, the "back in the country" phrase surely gives the clue that Efren was returning from parts abroad.

'...For something so familiar to the target audience, therefore, the distance between the mention of "CNN Hero of the Year" and "the award" in that sentence is of no great consequence from a readability standpoint and couldn't possibly cause confusion...'

Hmmm...the story also appeared on PNA's website, which means that the readership was much wider than the Philippine public.   As such, the story should have made sense to any reader encountering it "cold".   It didn't.

[Joe Carillo]

OK, Maxsims, so you knew that the CNN Hero of the Year awards ceremonies were star-studded after all. Now what's your problem with "ceremonies"?

[maxsims]

As with the Oscars, there was but one!

[Joe Carillo]

Perhaps you're just being overly prescriptive with the singular usage, Maxsims. The plural "ceremonies" and singular "ceremony" are freely interchangeable in actual usage. Check out the Nobel Prize website, Oscar Awards website, and those of other major awards; they have been interchanging the usage for years without any grammar qualms about it. And let me just say that I directed a national achievement awards program for five years myself and not a single desk editor changed my plural usage of "awards ceremonies" in my press releases. Of course, I can understand if some Australian newspaper mandates the singular in its stylebook and has to be consistent in its usage, but it doesn't mean that the whole world has to follow its style. I think this is a style preference issue, Maxsims, not a grammar one.

[maxsims]

Style schmyle, Joe.!   If something is palpably singular, it is singular - end of argument.  BTW, I checked the first four pars of the Nobel Prize history and found no interchangeability with "ceremony" and "ceremonies".   Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Sky]

What does the word "schmyle" mean?

[Joe Carillo]

Style schmyle, Joe.!   If something is palpably singular, it is singular - end of argument.  BTW, I checked the first four pars of the Nobel Prize history and found no interchangeability with "ceremony" and "ceremonies".   Quite the opposite, in fact.

Oh, well, maxsims, for proof that the plural "ceremonies" is interchangeable with and is as acceptable as the singular "ceremony" in current usage, check out the following websites simply as samplers:
1. NobelPrize.org
2. The New York Times, December 1, 2009 issue
3. Linus Pauling: The Nature of the Chemical Bond

Now what have you got in defense of your "'ceremony'-is-always-singular" pet theory?

[jonathanfvaldez]

Joe,

I am among the so many outraged by the most recent mayhem in Maguindanao. And I feel a strong sense of loss and sympathy for Mindanaoans, especially since my mother was born and raised in Basilan --- that once-upon-a-time island haven of my childhood years where exotic fruits and sea food abound, but which has of late morphed into an island of terror.  But for some reason (sorry for the abrupt transition), I find amusing this last paragraph of the news article on the online edition of Malaya dated December 1st and titled "Cops covered up massacre?":

"Ibrado said the planned deployment of the Marines to Maguindanao is meant 'to dispel once and for all allegations that the Army is sympathetic to a certain side.'"

Instead of "dispelling once and for all...," this sentence has the opposite effect on me.  To me, the way this sentence was written, the deployment of the Marines merely confirmed the Army's bias.

I'm not sure if this is a grammar lapse; I just felt the need for your comment(s).

Jonathan