I would like to reprise a very interesting grammar discussion I had in the Forum some time in 2011 with a then Hong Kong-based Filipina writer who had been bothered for a long time by a verb that she felt was “always used in the wrong way by Pinoy journalists.” The verb she had in mind was the past tense of the verb “bring”—“brought.”
Excerpts from her e-mail: “Today a friend in Manila forwarded an article about Gen. Angelo Reyes who committed suicide. The story had that pesky word in this sentence: ‘His body will be
brought to Camp Aguinaldo…’
“Shouldn’t the verb be ‘taken’ instead since the reporter is writing about something that isn’t being delivered to him (the reporter) but to somewhere else? In other words, someone
brings something to me, while one
takes something to a point away from me. (Am I explaining this clearly?)
Other journalistic examples: “He was
brought to the police station” is always used when it should be taken; “She was
brought to the hospital”—again, that should be taken. One is dealing with
coming and the other with
going—so why do folks get this wrong so often?
My reply to the inquiring Filipina writer:The verbs “bring” and “take” are actually synonymous in the sense of “to convey, lead, carry, or cause to go or come along to another place,” but the choice between the two depends on the point of view or position of the speaker in relation to the action described.
When the movement is clearly toward the place from which the action is being regarded or where the speaker is, was, or will be, “bring” is conventionally used, as in “
Bring your friend here,” “Your mother
brought me a slice of carrot cake yesterday,” and “That little girl
brings me a lot of good luck.”
On the other hand, when the movement is clearly away from which the action is being regarded or where the speaker is, was, or will be, “take” is conventionally used, as in “
Take your friend to the zoo,” “Your sister
took some gardenias from my garden this morning,” and “The thieves
took even the apple pie from the elderly couple’s refrigerator.”
In the case of most news stories in print, however, the speaker is usually an absent third-person narrator objectively describing the action; as such, he or she is an out-of-sight observer who doesn’t get involved or doesn’t intrude into the action. In short, in printed news told objectively, the news reporter is neither here nor there, and this is when the usual distinctions between “bring” and “take” no longer apply. This was clearly the case of the news reporter who, as you quoted from that article about Gen. Angelo Reyes’s suicide, wrote that “His body will be
brought to Camp Aguinaldo…”
Now, you ask if “brought” was incorrectly used here and if “taken” should have been used instead. I think that from the newspaper reporter’s point of view as an absent spectator, “brought” and “taken” are both correct and can be used interchangeably.
For the same reason, the two other journalistic examples you presented, “He was
brought to the police station” and “She was
brought to the hospital,” are also grammatically airtight; but, of course, so are these versions that use “taken” instead of “brought”: “He was
taken to the police station” and “She was
taken to the hospital.”
Indeed, from the standpoint of the objective reporter, the “brought” versions and the “taken” versions aren’t dealing with coming and going. Indeed, they are not dealing with actions towards or away from the speaker, but with lateral actions right in front of that objective reporter’s eyes, as if on a stage tableau. In such situations, as I said earlier, the distinctions between “bring” and “take” don’t apply.
(From a February 2011 e-mail exchange)
