Based on the admirably diminishing incidence of English grammar and usage errors in their stories during the past several weeks, I actually entertained the notion that the four major Metro Manila broadsheets would finally surprise me with a zero-grammar-error performance. The lack of material to comment on would have been reason enough for me to discontinue My Media English Watch—a most welcome prospect that I have been preparing the Forum for. Well, as the flurry of grammar and usage errors below shows, I guess I just became overly optimistic that they’d be able to sustain their much tighter watch on their English.
So here are their major grammar and usage fumbles along with my usual critiques:
(1) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Dangling modifying phraseArroyo won’t hang around for Aquino inauguration
A 100,000-strong crowd is expected to witness the inauguration of Benigno Aquino III as the Philippines’ 15th president at Rizal Park on June 30 but not President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
That lead sentence presents a serious case of modifier misplacement, with the interruptive phrase “but not President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo” listlessly dangling at the tail end, so far detached from the idea that it was supposed to qualify—“a 100,000-strong crowd”—at the earliest possible opportunity.
As in the case of most dangling modifiers, this problem can be fixed by positioning that interruptive phrase as close as possible to the idea it’s supposed to modify, as follows:
“A 100,000-strong crowd—
but not President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo—is expected to witness the inauguration of Benigno Aquino III as the Philippines’ 15th president at Rizal Park on June 30.”
That looks and sounds much better, doesn’t it? And, of course, it has the added virtue of giving greater drama and sense of immediacy to the statement.
(2) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Wrong treatment of a restrictive relative clauseKiller truck helper in Cavite accident yields to police
CAMP VICENTE LIM, Laguna – The truck helper, who fled from Wednesday’s fiery accident that left nine people dead in Carmona, Cavite, surrendered to the police in Mindoro Occidental, the police said.
The problem with the lead sentence above is its grammatically erroneous treatment of a restrictive relative modifying clause as a nonrestrictive one, thus resulting in bad semantics. That particular relative modifying clause, “who fled from Wednesday’s fiery accident that left nine people dead in Carmona, Cavite,” doesn’t need a comma to set it off from the noun it modifies. This is because it’s actually part and parcel of the noun phrase that’s the subject of the sentence: “the truck helper who fled from Wednesday’s fiery accident that left nine people dead in Carmona, Cavite.” Putting a comma before the relative pronoun “who” signifies that the clause that follows it isn’t essential to the sentence, which, of course, isn’t true in this particular case. Indeed, that clause can’t be dropped because it is essential to identifying that particular truck helper among the universe of all other truck helpers—thus making that comma extraneous.
So here’s that sentence as corrected:
“
The truck helper who fled from Wednesday’s fiery accident that left nine people dead in Carmona, Cavite, surrendered to the police in Mindoro Occidental, the police said.”
(3) Philippine Star: Misuse of the relative pronoun “who” GMA does not harbor grudge towards media
MANILA, Philippines - President Arroyo does not hold a grudge or harbor any ill feeling towards the media who have been very critical of her during her nine-year administration, her spokesman said yesterday.
Deputy presidential spokesman Rogelio Peyuan said Mrs. Arroyo, who admitted last Christmas that she was “a difficult subject to cover,” considers journalists among those who contributed to the successful implementation of the various projects and programs of her government.
The lead sentence above misuses the relative pronoun “who” to refer to an entity other than a person. The rule in English grammar is to use “who” to refer only to human beings, and “media,” of course, doesn’t belong to that category. When referring to nonhuman entities, the relative pronoun “which” should be used in the case of nonrestrictive relative clauses, and the relative pronoun “that” in the case of restrictive relative clauses.
The relative clause “the media who have been very critical of her…” being a nonrestrictive clause, “which” is called for in that sentence along with the obligatory comma before it, as follows:
“President Arroyo does not hold a grudge or harbor any ill feeling towards the media, which have been very critical of her during her nine-year administration, her spokesman said yesterday.”
(4) Philippine Star: Dangling subordinate clauseGovernment lawyers ask court to dismiss case filed by parents vs sex education
MANILA, Philippines - Government lawyers sought yesterday the dismissal of the case filed by parents seeking to stop the Department of Education (DepEd) from implementing the sex education program because the complainants have no legal standing.
The lawyers asked Judge Rosanna Fe Romero-Maglaya of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 88 to junk the case for lack of merit.
The lead sentence above reads badly because the subordinate clause “because the complainants have no legal standing” is dangling and can’t seem to find the main clause that it’s supposed to latch on to. That main clause is, of course, “government lawyers sought yesterday the dismissal of the case filed by parents,” but the 14-word modifying phrase “seeking to stop the Department of Education (DepEd) from implementing the sex education program” gets in the way and prevents a clear and proper modification from taking place.
A quick, easy, and very effective way to fix the problem is to bring the dangling phrase as near as possible to the main clause where it can best do the modifying job, as follows:
“Government lawyers, arguing that the complainants have no legal standing, sought yesterday the dismissal of the case filed by parents seeking to stop the Department of Education (DepEd) from implementing the sex education program.”
(5) Philippine Star: Is the paper using the word “stalwarts” legitimately?LP stalwarts now designating committee heads in Congress
MANILA, Philippines - Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts are now in the process of designating heads of several committees in the incoming 15th Congress in the House of Representatives, with Quezon City representative-elect Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte Jr. likely to be getting the speakership.
Consider my comments here about the use of the word “stalwarts” simply as cautionary and not a definitive prescription against its use. According to my Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, “stalwart” as a noun means either “an unwavering partisan” or “a stalwart person,” with the adjective “stalwart” meaning “marked by outstanding strength and vigor of body, mind, or spirit.”
My question is: Did the writer use “stalwarts” in that news story to mean leaders of the Liberal Party “marked by outstanding strength and vigor of body, mind, or spirit,” or simply as leaders who are unwaveringly partisan? Frankly, neither seems to be an accurate and fair description of the subjects in this case, so I would suggest using a more fitting and less pompous word than “stalwarts.” “Leaders” perhaps?
(6) Manila Bulletin: Intrusive, unwarranted supposition in a photo captionErap&BinayPhotoCAPTION:Vice President-elect Jejomar Binay (left) whispers to former president Joseph Estrada during the oathtaking of a Navotas City government officials. Binay may be seeking advice from Estrada over the dilemma facing a Vice President who is not of the same party as the President.
Having been a newspaperman myself, I have always been under the impression that newspaper photographers and caption writers get instructed early in the game never to enter the minds of their photo subjects and publicly guess what they were thinking at the moment that the photograph was taken. For this reason, I submit that the above caption is intrusive, unwarranted, and a gross violation of accepted journalistic practice.
(7) Manila Bulletin: Subject-verb disagreement error; wrong word choice; inaccurate phrasingDepEd moves to solve school decongestion
The Department of Education (DepEd) said on Friday that they plan to build partnerships with private schools to decongest public schools while additional classrooms are being constructed and repaired.
Education Secretary Mona Valisno said that DepEd is studying other options to be able to decrease the number of students in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide.
“We are finding other cost effective ways to reduce the volume of students in classrooms. As one option, we will talk to private school owners to arrange for reasonable fees if we transfer some students in their schools,” said Valisno.
The first flaw in the news story above is the wrong choice of the word “decongestion” in its headline. The problem to be solved is, of course, the “school congestion,” not the “school decongestion.”
The second flaw is the subject-verb disagreement error in the first sentence. The phrase “they plan” should be the singular-form “it plans” instead because the referent noun is the singular “Department of Education.”
The third flaw is semantic. In the second paragraph, it is illogical and absurd for Education Secretary Mona Valisno to say “that DepEd is studying other options to be able to decrease the number of students in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide.” The problem is obviously a missing qualifier, which, I’m sure, is the phrase “per classroom.”
So the headline and that semantically flawed sentence need to be corrected as follows:
“DepEd moves to solve school congestion“The Department of Education (DepEd) said on Friday that
it plans to build partnerships with private schools to decongest public schools while additional classrooms are being constructed and repaired.
“Education Secretary Mona Valisno said that DepEd is studying other options
to be able to decrease the number of students per classroom in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide.”
(
Manila Bulletin: Imprecise phrasing; wrong pronoun choice; wrong preposition usage19 perish in Cavite road accidents in just 3 days
A total of 19 people have already died in road accidents in the province of Cavite in a span of three days, police records showed.
Due to such an alarming occurence of events, the Cavite Police Provincial Office (CPPO) has renewed their call to vehicle owners and drivers to observe the speed limit and other safety measures, particularly among the province’s highways in 19 towns and four cities.
The first sentence of the lead passage is semantically flawed because of the absence of the limiting adjective “only” in the phrase “in a span of three days.” That phrase should have read as follows: “in a span of only three days.”
In the second sentence, the phrase “due to such an alarming occurence of events” suffers not only from bad spelling—“occurence” should be spelled as “occurrence,” with a double “r”—but also from imprecise, vapid phrasing. That phrase can be more precisely worded as “due to such an alarming rate of road accidents.”
Also, the noun form “Cavite Police Provincial Office (CPPO)” is singular, so the verb phrase that follows it shouldn’t be the mismatched “has renewed their call” but “has renewed its call,” the antecedent noun of “its” being the singular “Cavite Police Provincial Office (CPPO).”
Finally, the preposition “among” is the wrong word for that second sentence; it should be “along.”
That flawed passage should then be rewritten as follows:
“A total of 19 people have already died in road accidents in the province of Cavite in a span of only three days, police records showed.
“Due to such an alarming rate of road accidents, the Cavite Police Provincial Office (CPPO) has renewed its call to vehicle owners and drivers to observe the speed limit and other safety measures, particularly along the province’s highways in 19 towns and four cities.”
(9) The Manila Times: Improper use of the present tense in a news storyPinay student wins bronze in Mathematics Olympiad
A high school student from a Catholic School in Manila continues the winning streak of the Philippines as she corners a medal in the prestigious 22nd Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad (APMO).
Carmela Antoinette Lao, a fourth year student of Saint Jude Catholic School, who is also joining the 51st International Mathematics Olympiad in Astana, Kazakhstan, this July together with Henry Jefferson Morco of Chiang Kai Shek College and Zheng Rong Wu of Zamboanga Chong Hua High School, netted a bronze medal for garnering a score higher than 14, the cut-off score for a bronze medal.
The problem with the first sentence of the lead passage above is that it uses the present tense twice for what was actually a one-time event separate from another event, first in “continues the winning streak” and second, in “as she corners a medal.” Such use of the present tense is usually acceptable in sports stories, when the performance of a particular player or team may stretch over several events or a prolonged competition period. Not in this case, though, since the feat of the Filipina bronze medalist was just a one-time thing even if it was part of the continuing winning streak of the Philippines.
More properly then, that lead sentence should be rendered as follows:
“A high school student from a Catholic School in Manila continued the winning streak of the Philippines when she cornered a medal in the prestigious 22nd Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad (APMO).”
(10) The Manila Times: Another improper use of the present tense in a news story; badly structured sentence; wrong preposition usage SC dismisses RTC clerk for using drugs, failure to comply with court directives
The Supreme Court (SC) under the leadership of Chief Justice Renato Corona continues to weed out misfits in the judiciary as it recently dismissed a regional trial court (RTC) clerk for gross misconduct, which resulted to failure to comply with Court directives. Said clerk was also found positive for using prohibited drugs in 2004.
The lead sentence above suffers from a misuse of the present tense in the verb phrase “continues to weed out misfits in the judiciary as it recently dismissed.” The action obviously took place in the past, so the past tense is obviously called for here.
Also, the verb phrase “resulted to failure to comply” uses the wrong preposition “to”; the correct prepositional idiom uses “in,” so that phrase should be written as “resulted in failure to comply.” Along with the above corrections, the sentence also needs some streamlining to make it read better.
Finally, the second sentence, “Said clerk was also found positive for using prohibited drugs in 2004,” sounds legalistic rather than journalistic.
Here’s a suggested reconstruction:
“The Supreme Court (SC) under the leadership of Chief Justice Renato Corona continued to weed out misfits in the judiciary, recently dismissing a regional trial court (RTC) clerk for gross misconduct that resulted in failure to comply with Court directives. In addition, the clerk was proven to have been using prohibited drugs in 2004.”
(11) The Manila Times: Erroneous use of phrasal verbRP inks 1,660 treaties since 1946 – DFA
At least 1,600 treaties have been entered by the Philippines since 1946, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Secretary Alberto Romulo said Wednesday.
Romulo disclosed this during the launching of the Philippine Treaties: 1946 to 2010 Book Index and CD-ROM which contains the full-text of the country’s international agreements. The Book Index was published by the Foreign Service Institute and written by J. Eduardo Malaya, Maria Antonina Mendoza Oblena and Allan Casupanan of the Foreign Affairs department’s Office of Legal Affairs (OLA).
The correct phrasal verb or prepositional verb phrase is “entered into,” so the phrasing of “at least 1,600 treaties have been entered by the Philippines” needs the preposition “into” after the verb “entered.” That sentence should then read as follows:
“
At least 1,600 treaties have been entered into by the Philippines since 1946, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Secretary Alberto Romulo said Wednesday.”
