Elsewhere in the major broadsheets lurk serious grammar violations

[Joe Carillo]

Last week, as in the whole of the previous month, the four major Metro Manila broadsheets continued to be on admirably good behavior in their English. This was particularly true with their major news and feature stories, where hardly any serious grammar or syntax error could be found. It therefore looked like another slim-pickings week for My Media English Watch.

Elsewhere in their pages, however, I found very serious grammar violations lurking. There still was enough fodder for my English watch, after all.

(1) Philippine Inquirer: Front-page caption with seriously flawed English

To begin with, an editor-friend of mine sent me e-mail last February 7 to call my attention to what he called a “deplorable” grammar error in the front-page caption of one of the broadsheets. Here’s his comment about that caption: 

“I am sending you herewith a copy of the upper portion of today’s Inquirer issue. Sorry [that] the file is large; I wanted to make sure that the details are not lost in the copy. Please note that the print version (you will notice that it’s the paper’s 2-star edition) includes a second sentence in the caption [that] you might find truly deplorable. For such a minor task, the writer and/or the editor failed miserably to deliver, alas!”

Below is the photo and the erring caption:

“BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER It’s well worth reprinting the brown boobies of Tubbataha as photographed by Melvyn Calderon when he went bird watching with ornithologists from the World Wide Fund for Nature in that bird sanctuary islet in Palawan. Also along were British author Tim Fisher, author of ‘Guide to the Birds of the Philippines’ and ‘Photographic Guide to the Birds of the Philippines.’” 

After being tipped off about this caption in the broadsheet's print edition, I checked its Internet edition and this is the version I found:
 
“BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER It’s well worth reprinting the brown boobies of Tubbataha as photographed by Melvyn Calderon during a bird-watching trip in that bird sanctuary islet in Palawan.”

My critique of these captions:

I have to agree with my editor-friend that for such a minor writing task, “the writer and/or the editor failed miserably to deliver, alas!” And having seen quite a number of similar grammar errors in that same paper’s front-page captions over the years, I can say that these problems could only be an unfortunate mix of a poor grasp of English as well as grammar recklessness.

Let’s dissect the print edition’s caption first:

“BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER It’s well worth reprinting the brown boobies of Tubbataha as photographed by Melvyn Calderon when he went bird watching with ornithologists from the World Wide Fund for Nature in that bird sanctuary islet in Palawan. Also along were British author Tim Fisher, author of ‘Guide to the Birds of the Philippines’ and ‘Photographic Guide to the Birds of the Philippines.’

I won’t dwell at length on the questionable use of the idiomatic expression “birds of the same feather” as tagline for that caption. I’ll only point out that the established phrasing of that idiom is “birds of a feather” from the proverb “Birds of a feather flock together,” and that when that figurative expression is used, it doesn’t refer to birds anymore but to people of the same temperament who tend to congregate in the same place. Granting, however, that the caption writer intended the meaning to be literal, then that caption is needless and tautological, for it’s obvious that the birds in the photo are, in fact, of the same feather—something not worth telling the reader at all.

But I think the worst crime of that caption is the bad semantics of the statement “It’s well worth reprinting the brown boobies of Tubbahata…” You can’t and don’t reprint birds—even if they are as visually fetching as the brown boobies of Tubbahata; you can only reprint photos of them. And I must say that the grammatical myopia and carelessness of the writer also shows in his or her blindness to the need to hyphenate “well worth,” “bird watching,” and “bird sanctuary” in that caption. Those three compound modifiers need to be hyphenated to indicate that they are modifying a verb or a noun in tandem, not doing so singly. As corrected then, the phrases concerned should read “well-worth reprinting,” “went bird-watching,” and “bird-sanctuary islet.”

Almost as serious a language crime as the bad semantics of that caption is its grammatically truncated second sentence, which, to further muddle matters, also gets confused as to how many bird books and bird-book authors it’s talking about. If we are to go by the premise of that sentence, there were two or more writers who tagged along with Mr. Melvyn Calderon when, in fact, there was only one—Mr. Tim Fisher—who’s mentioned in that caption. The problem, of course, is that caption’s ill-advised use of the phrase “also along were…” to link its second sentence with the first. That grammar and semantic problem could have been readily avoided by the use of the linking phrase “with him was…”

So here now is a corrected, clearer, and better-polished construction of that problematic caption:

“BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER It’s well-worth reprinting the photo above of brown boobies in Tubbataha as taken by Melvyn Calderon when he went bird-watching with ornithologists from the World Wide Fund for Nature in that bird-sanctuary islet in Palawan. With him was Tim Fisher, British author of ‘Guide to the Birds of the Philippines’ and ‘Photographic Guide to the Birds of the Philippines.’”

The corrected version of the caption for the Internet edition would then read as follows:

“BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER It’s well-worth reprinting the photo above of the brown boobies in Tubbataha as taken by Melvyn Calderon during a bird-watching trip in that bird-sanctuary islet in Palawan.”

(2) Philippine Star: A terribly misplaced modifying phrase

Column: Ship of state

“As one of the major service commands of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the military hardware of the Philippine Navy is in the same sorry ship of state, literally. But that is no excuse for the Navy to be not at par with its counterparts in fulfilling its mandate to serve and protect the Republic.       

“Our Navy showed its resourcefulness and capability to adapt during the height of disastrous flooding caused by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng that struck our country one after the other in September last year. The Navy highlighted these in their newly launched coffee table book aptly titled ‘Saving Lives: Beyond Just a Navy, Core Competency.’”

So what are the serious grammar and semantic problems in this passage?

I won’t quibble with the questionable wordplay in the phrase “in the same sorry ship of state, literally.” After all, it’s in an opinion piece and I know that opinion writers are given much more freedom to play around with words. I would have thought, though, that for the rather sardonic literary liberty she had taken with the phrase “sorry shape of state,” it would have been more accurate to acknowledge it as having been taken “figuratively,” not “literally.”

What is most jarring and disturbing with that first sentence, however, is its terribly misplaced modifier—the prepositional phrase “as one of the major service commands of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.” It is attempting to modify “military hardware,” but in vain. The reason is that its rightful subject is “the Philippine Navy”; due to an oversight, however, the writer had interposed “military hardware” between that subject and its modifier, preventing that modifier to do its modification job properly.

As with most misplaced modifiers, of course, we can fix it very quickly by simply positioning the rightful subject as close as possible to the phrase that’s supposed to modify it, as follows:

“As one of the major service commands of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine Navy has military hardware that’s in the same sorry ship of state as its mother unit, figuratively.   

(Note that I have added the phrase “as its mother unit” to complete and validate the comparative construction that the author was trying to make.)

Now, in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the story, there’s a certain cragginess and convolutedness in the syntax: 

“Our Navy showed its resourcefulness and capability to adapt during the height of disastrous flooding caused by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng that struck our country one after the other in September last year.”

That sentence would read and sound much better reconstructed this way:

“Our Navy showed its resourcefulness and capability to adapt during the height of disastrous flooding when typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng struck our country one after the other in September last year.”

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:   

(1) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Semantically flawed modifier; wrong verb tense

“Combined police and military forces arrested the 43 health workers in Morong, Rizal last Saturday, on suspicion they were NPA rebels undergoing explosive training, an allegation that the group had denied.”

The adjective “explosive” in the phrase “undergoing explosive training” gives the wrong impression that it’s the training that’s explosive. A simple semantics fix is to use the word as a plural noun, “explosives.” Another fix is to recast the phrase as “undergoing training in explosives.”

Also, since the denial of the allegation came after the arrest of the suspects, that denial shouldn’t be in the past perfect “had denied” but in the simple past tense, “denied.”

The problematic passage as corrected:

“Combined police and military forces arrested the 43 health workers in Morong, Rizal last Saturday, on suspicion they were NPA rebels undergoing explosives training, an allegation that the group denied.”

or:

“Combined police and military forces arrested the 43 health workers in Morong, Rizal last Saturday, on suspicion they were NPA rebels undergoing training in explosives, an allegation that the group denied.”

(2) The Manila Times: Wrong use of the present perfect tense 

SC voids law creating Dinagat Islands province

“Dinagat Islands is again a municipality after the Supreme Court has declared the law separating it from the province of Surigao del Norte as unconstitutional.

“In a 30-page decision written by Justice Diosdado Peralta, the High Court said the Dinagat Islands did not comply with land area and population requirement before it could become a province.”

In the first sentence of the passage above, the present-perfect verb phrase “has declared” is better rendered in the simple past tense “declared,” since the declaration was a one-time, non-continuing past action.

In the second sentence, for grammatical correctness, the word “requirement” should be in plural form.

Here’s that passage as corrected:

“Dinagat Islands is again a municipality after the Supreme Court declared the law separating it from the province of Surigao del Norte as unconstitutional.

“In a 30-page decision written by Justice Diosdado Peralta, the High Court said the Dinagat Islands did not comply with land area and population requirements before it could become a province.” 

[maxsims]

Also, since the denial of the allegation came after the arrest of the suspects, that denial shouldn’t be in the past perfect “had denied” but in the simple past tense, “denied.”

Unless you are privy to information that the rest of the readership hasn't got, how do you know that the denial came after the arrest?   For all we know, the group (which the statement implies is not unknown) could well have made that denial in the past.

Is "suspicion" the same as "allegation"?

A comma after "Rizal", please.

[maxsims]

“In a 30-page decision written by Justice Diosdado Peralta, the High Court said the Dinagat Islands did not comply with land area and population requirements before it could become a province.” 

Surely you both meant "...did not comply with the land area and population requirements to become a province".....?

or

"...must comply with the land area and population requirements before it can become a province..."

[maxsims]

Last week, as in the whole of the previous month, the four major Metro Manila broadsheets continued to be in admirably good behavior in their English.

"...in good behavior..."

Is this another Philippine-ism?

[Joe Carillo]

“In a 30-page decision written by Justice Diosdado Peralta, the High Court said the Dinagat Islands did not comply with land area and population requirements before it could become a province.” 

Surely you both meant "...did not comply with the land area and population requirements to become a province".....?

or

"...must comply with the land area and population requirements before it can become a province..."

The first version you suggested above is much better grammatically and structurally. When I critique news and feature stories, however, I go only for the more obvious grammar and semantic errors and try to avoid intruding too much into the phrasing of sentences. Otherwise, the discussions for just a single sentence could become too long and cumbersome. But your point is well taken. The desk people of the broadsheets should exert more effort polishing reporter's copy.

Your second version, which is in the imperative, may be too much of a departure from the phrasing and intent of the Supreme Court decision. I would therefore be wary of endorsing it as an acceptable reconstruction of that problematic sentence. 

[Joe Carillo]

Last week, as in the whole of the previous month, the four major Metro Manila broadsheets continued to be in admirably good behavior in their English.

"...in good behavior..."

Is this another Philippine-ism?

Nope. Just a typo. The idiomatic phrasing is "on good behavior," not "in good behavior." I'll fix the problem right after this. Thanks for the eagle eyes!

[Joe Carillo]

Also, since the denial of the allegation came after the arrest of the suspects, that denial shouldn’t be in the past perfect “had denied” but in the simple past tense, “denied.”

Unless you are privy to information that the rest of the readership hasn't got, how do you know that the denial came after the arrest?   For all we know, the group (which the statement implies is not unknown) could well have made that denial in the past.

Is "suspicion" the same as "allegation"?

A comma after "Rizal", please.

I almost missed answering this one, coming as it did at the front of a veritable fusillade.

That arrest story has been running in all the mass media for days, so I think it would be safe to assume that most everyone was privy to the fact that the suspects had been arrested first before they denied that they were subversives. That, I'm sure you'll agree, definitely calls for the simple past "denied" rather than the past perfect "denied."

"Suspicion" is obviously not semantically the same as an "allegation." "Suspicion" is the the act or an instance of thinking that something's wrong but without proof or only on slight evidence; "allegation" is a positive assertion by an accuser of what that accuser undertakes to prove. Generally, of course, you can allay or counter a "suspicion," and can deny an "allegation"--not the other way around. I therefore think that the usage of "allegation" in the phrase "the denial of the allegation" is aboveboard.

Now, about your request that a comma be placed after "Rizal" in the sentence “Combined police and military forces arrested the 43 health workers in Morong, Rizal last Saturday, on suspicion they were NPA rebels undergoing explosive training, an allegation that the group had denied.”

Formally, a pair of commas is required to set off the name of the province from the name of the town in such place names: "43 health workers in Morong, Rizal, last Saturday, on suspicion..." In print journalism, however, this rule is honored more in the breach than in the observance--and for good reason. The second comma tends to make the sentence look and sound choppy, so editors in most of the Philippine broadsheets normally don't use it. As for me, though, I'd rather use it in my own writing so tradition-bound grammarians won't pounce on me every time they couldn't find that second comma.

 

[maxsims]

The desk people of the broadsheets should exert more effort polishing reporter's copy.

His, or everyone's..?

[maxsims]

Also, since the denial of the allegation came after the arrest of the suspects, that denial shouldn’t be in the past perfect “had denied” but in the simple past tense, “denied.”


I've been giving this one more thought, Joe Carillo.   In most Anglo-Saxon countries, the reader would conclude that, since the story is an ongoing one, the denial, although made in the past, is also ongoing.  Hence the journalist would likely use "denies".

As to print editors dropping the second comma from nouns in apposition, what would they do with:

"He lived in Penola, South Australia, renowned for its production of quality wines."?

[Joe Carillo]

Yes, maxsims, it’s likely that the suspects are sticking to their denial until proven guilty, in which case the present-tense “denies” will hold, but the careful, circumspect reporter who’s trying to beat a deadline won’t risk using the present tense “denies” in his or her report. Indeed, there’s no way of knowing if the suspects had later pleaded guilty—on their own accord or under duress—since they first invoked their innocence of the allegation against them. It’s much safer then to stand by the journalistic accuracy of a denial as a one-time, finished action rather than as a continuing one (this latter, by the way, can only be ascertained by entering the minds of the suspects—an exercise of writer’s omniscience that’s, well, allowable only in fiction).

Now, as to how desk editors of various levels of grammar discernment would handle the second comma in the following sentence:

“He lived in Penola, South Australia, renowned for its production of quality wines.”

The more grammar-savvy among them will, of course, leave that second comma well enough alone. But we must keep in mind that most of them will do so not so much because the place name “South Australia” needs that second comma as a matter of style, but because they are conscious that that second comma is needed to establish the fact that “renowned for its production of quality wines” is an appositive. (As we know, appositives that don’t end a sentence need a comma each before and after them to declare their existence.)

The less discerning among desk editors, however, will likely knock off that second comma after “South Australia” and convert the appositive “renowned for its production of quality wines” into a “that”-relative clause, as follows:

“He lived in Penola, South Australia that is renowned for its production of quality wines.”

In doing so, however, those desk editors will create a more serious grammar problem, as you can see—an erroneous restrictive “that”-clause for what should be a nonrestrictive one. Indeed, the scrupulously correct construction for that complex sentence is the following:

“He lived in Penola, South Australia, which is renowned for its production of quality wines.”

So if you ask me which of the three options is the best, I would say it's the original appositive construction, with a comma fore and aft “South Australia.” It’s simpler, neater, more pleasant-sounding.

[maxsims]

Exactly...

I also hate another ingrained habit of the print media; that of placing nouns of time anywhere but at the very beginning of a sentence.   We see such monstrosities as, "The president and her entourage, which included several cabinet members, yesterday visited the memorial to......etc."

The reason, I am told, is that comma in the "Yesterday, the president and etc.." construction is an interruption to the flow of the narrative.

What rubbish!

It's a fait accompli, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, let alone follow it.

[Joe Carillo]

All the while I thought you were a full-blooded Australian-based journalist, but now I have my doubts after reading that rant of yours against the habit of print media people of placing adverbs of time anywhere except up front. Yes, its one of my pet peeves, too, but the print media is so powerful it tends to make mince meat of reporters with the effrontery of putting "yesterday," "today," "tomorrow," or "Saturday" at the beginning of a lead sentence. If those reporters survive the mincing, they'd surely be sent to Timbuktu as their regular beat!

The only justification I can accept for that sordid practice is that if putting adverbs of time up front becomes acceptable journalistic style, I think at least 85% of all front-page stories would have lead sentences starting with "yesterday," "today," "tomorrow," and all that. Wouldn't that be awful? That could really be a big turn off to the readers, a cure probably much worse than the disease it was meant to cure.