Dissecting a seriously flawed “real” conditional sentence

[Joe Carillo]

For this week’s edition of My Media English Watch, I would like to focus our discussions on the seriously flawed conditional sentence that led off the editorial of the Philippine Star last Thursday (June 3): 

Philippine Star: Structurally flawed form of the conditional sentence

Editorial: Chicken-and-egg

If the Philippine National Police wants public support for a permanent total gun ban, the initiative will succeed if several conditions are met. One is to make the ban genuinely total — meaning no one is exempted.

The first sentence in the lead statement above is intended to be in the form of the so-called “first” or “real” conditional sentence, which talks of a particular real-life condition or situation in the future and the result of this condition. In real conditional sentences, of course, there’s a real possibility that the expected result will happen if the condition is met. But in the case of the conditional sentence in the Philippine Star editorial, the future situation, “the initiative will succeed,” is confusingly hemmed in by two conditional statements, “if the Philippine National Police wants public support for a permanent total gun ban” and “if several conditions are met.” It therefore becomes very difficult to figure out the logical chain of causality in the statement. Notice how the mind seems to flip-flop when we read that sentence. Indeed, which part of the statement pertains to the conditions and which part pertains to the result? The way the sentence is constructed, there’s really no way of knowing which is which.

Proof that there’s something seriously wrong with that conditional sentence is that if we temporarily take out the second condition, “if several conditions are met,” the remaining statement, “If the Philippine National Police wants public support for a permanent total gun ban, the initiative will succeed,” becomes nonsensical. There’s no logical reason to think that simply wanting public support for the permanent total gun ban will guarantee its success. Worse yet, restoring the second condition to the statement makes it even more nonsensical and cockeyed: “If the Philippine National Police wants public support for a permanent total gun ban, the initiative will succeed if several conditions are met.” Burdened by two unrelated conditions at both ends, the sentence just can’t deliver its intended message clearly and coherently.

We will recall that the normal form for the first or real conditional sentence is this: the “if” clause is stated in the present simple tense, is followed by a comma, then is followed by the result clause in the form “will + base form of the verb.”

Here are some examples of this construction:

“If you finish your term paper tonight, we will go fishing this weekend.”
“If you pass the nursing board exams, you will qualify for regular employment.”

Of course, we can also put the result clause ahead of the cause clause, but we must get rid of the comma between them:

“We will go fishing this weekend if you finish your term paper tonight.”
“You will qualify for regular employment if you pass the nursing board exams.”

(As further proof that the real conditional sentence from the Philippine Star is indeed flawed, let’s put the result clause ahead of the cause clause to see if the statement will work: “The initiative will succeed if several conditions are met if the Philippine National Police wants public support for a permanent total gun ban.” Does it work? Obviously not.)

So how do we reconstruct that structurally defective conditional sentence from the Philippine Star to make it follow any of the two correct patterns for the real conditional sentence?

One simple way is to do a rewrite that gets rid of the verb phrase “will succeed” in the result clause—for that verb phrase is actually redundant to that conditional sentence and just messes up its semantics. See what happens when we do that:

“If the Philippine National Police wants to gain public support for a permanent total gun ban, the initiative should meet several conditions. One is to make the ban genuinely total — meaning no one is exempted.”

Note that in the reconstructed conditional sentence above, the clause “the initiative should meet several conditions” has become the sole condition and “if the Philippine National Police wants to gain public support for a permanent total gun ban” has become the desired result.

There are actually several other ways of correctly restating that original flawed conditional statement, and we don’t even need to use the conditional “if” clause:

1. Using the infinitive “to” result clause:

(a)
“To successfully gain public support for a permanent total gun ban, the Philippine National Police has to make the initiative meet several conditions. One is to make the ban genuinely total — meaning no one is exempted.”

(b)
“Several conditions have to be met for the Philippine National Police to successfully gain public support for a permanent total gun ban. One is to make the ban genuinely total — meaning no one is exempted.”

2. Using the “for” result clause:

“For the Philippine National Police to successfully gain public support for a permanent total gun ban, the initiative should meet several conditions. One is to make the ban genuinely total — meaning no one is exempted.”

3. Using the modal “can” form:

“The Philippine National Police can successfully gain public support for a permanent total gun ban by making the initiative meet several conditions. One is to make the ban genuinely total — meaning no one is exempted.”

4. Using the “by” form:

“By modifying the proposed permanent total gun ban to meet several conditions, the Philippine National Police can be successful in getting public support for it.”

Take your pick of any of the above alternatives for the first or real conditional form and you won’t go wrong the way that lead sentence from that newspaper editorial did.

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:   

(1) Manila Bulletin: Wrong use of the relative pronoun “whom” (Internet edition)

1st Filipino martyr honored Thursday

MACABEBE, Pampanga – Lapu-Lapu was probably the first known Filipino hero, but it was Tarik Soliman from this town whom noted historians acknowledge as the country’s first Filipino martyr.

Tarik Soliman (not his real name) often mistaken for Rajah Soliman of Manila, is mentioned in ancient Spanish chronicles as “the brave youth from Macabebe” who gave up his life in the Battle of Bangkusay on June 3, 1571.

The lead sentence of the news story above commits two serious grammar errors: (a) it misuses the objective-case relative pronoun “whom” instead of the subjective-case relative pronoun “who”; and (b) it misplaces the relative modifying clause “whom noted historians acknowledge as the country’s first Filipino martyr,” making it wrongly modify the noun “town” instead of “Tarik Soliman.” The result: a very confusing sentence construction.

Here’s a quick, easy fix for that problematic sentence:

“MACABEBE, Pampanga – Lapu-Lapu was probably the first known Filipino hero, but it was Tarik Soliman, a native of this town, who is acknowledged by noted historians as the country’s first Filipino martyr.”

In this corrected version, the relative modifying clause “who is acknowledged by noted historians as the country’s first Filipino martyr” is now in the subjective case, as it should be. Note also that the appositive “a native of this town” was used to prevent the phrase “from this town” from causing the misplacement of the corrected relative modifying clause “who is acknowledged by noted historians as the country’s first Filipino martyr.” With the presence of this appositive and the commas that set if off from the sentence, it has become clear that relative modifying clause is modifying “Tariq Soliman” and not “town.”
 
(2) Manila Bulletin: Wrong noun as modifier

17 women rescued in Dasmariñas raid

CAMP GEN. LIM, Laguna – Seventeen women-victims of human trafficking were rescued by police and Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) officers in Barangay Paliparan, Dasmarinas City, last Monday, a police report released Wednesday said.

The use of the noun “women” as a modifier of the noun “victims” in the phrase underlined above is highly improper, and the use of a hyphen to effect the modification makes the grammar violation even worse. The correct modifier in such grammar situations is the adjective “female,” and hyphenation is unnecessary.

“Seventeen female victims of human trafficking were rescued by police and Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) officers in Barangay Paliparan, Dasmarinas City, last Monday, a police report released Wednesday said.”

(3) The Manila Times: Seriously misplaced modifying phrase

UP students want Ayala Land out of campus

Students see “dire” consequences for the educational system if the University of the Philippines (UP) administration gives in to the proposal of Ayala Land Inc. to lease the site of UP Integrated School for “commercial and academic purposes.”

National Union of Students of the Philippines on Wednesday trooped to the campus while the UP Board of Regents was holding a meeting to protest “the selling/renting of UP’s assets to corporations like Ayala Land.”

The second paragraph of the news lead above has a very seriously misplaced modifying phrase. It gives the definitely wrong and absurd sense that the UP Board of Regents was holding a meeting to protest “the selling/renting of UP’s assets to corporations like Ayala Land.” Of course, it was actually the National Union of Students of the Philippines that was protesting “the selling/renting of UP’s assets to corporations like Ayala Land.”

One good way to avoid the misplacement of that modifying phrase is to put the “while” subordinating phrase up front of the sentence, as follows:

“While the UP Board of Regents was holding a meeting, the National Union of Students of the Philippines on Wednesday trooped to the campus to protest “the selling/renting of UP’s assets to corporations like Ayala Land.”

(4) The Manila Times: Improper pluralization of a noun

Mining firm pushes hog-raising to boost livelihood in Vizcaya

BAYOMBONG, Nueva Vizcaya: At least 25 swines were distributed throughout a village in mountainous Dupax del Norte by the Philippine subsidiary of an Australian mining company.

Royalco Philippines gave out the swines in remote Yabbe village as part of their company’s socio-civic development, livelihood generation and corporate responsibility project that began in March this year. The activity began with an initial cost of P75, 000.

The noun “swine” for hogs stays as “swine” in the plural, without need for affixing “s.” Those two sentences in the news lead above should therefore read as follows:

“At least 25 swine were distributed throughout a village in mountainous Dupax del Norte by the Philippine subsidiary of an Australian mining company.

“Royalco Philippines gave out the swine in remote Yabbe village as part of their company’s socio-civic development, livelihood generation and corporate responsibility project that began in March this year.” 

(5) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Equivocal meaning of prepositional phrase

Pasay folk protest ex-parish priest

MANILA, Philippines—Parishioners of Maricaban in Pasay City on Wednesday held a rally to protest the reinstatement of their former parish priest due to what they claimed was the priest’s “anomalous activities.”

The residents, carrying placards, gathered inside the St. Mary the Comforter Parish to try to prevent the outgoing priest Fr. David Colong from leaving.

The underlined prepositional phrase in the lead sentence above can be distinctly understood in two ways: (a) that the parishioners don’t want their former parish priest reinstated because of his “anomalous activities’; or (b) that their former parish priest is being reinstated in their parish because of his “anomalous activities,” presumably in another parish. I think the problem is due to the slippery use of the preposition “due to,” which could either mean “as a result of” or “because of.” Either way, however, the equivocal meaning of the prepositional phrase will remain, so it’s best not to use “due to” at all and to rewrite the sentence instead.

Here’s one rewrite that gets rid of the equivocal meaning altogether:

“Parishioners of Maricaban in Pasay City on Wednesday held a rally to protest the reinstatement of their former parish priest, accusing him of engaging in ‘anomalous activities’ during his previous assignment in their parish.”