Jose Carillo's English Forum
Joe Carillo's Desk => My Media English Watch => Topic started by: Joe Carillo on November 28, 2009, 12:45:54 AM
-
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” (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=527126&publicationSubCategoryId=64)
“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 (http://www.mb.com.ph/node/231325/a-hero-)
“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 (http://manilatimes.net/index.php/news/nation/6718-dfa-reviews-diplomatic-plates-issuance-policy)
“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 (http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/231368/ducks-seen-better-alternative-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 (http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/231323/rp-get-9-m-doses-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).”
-
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.
-
“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 .”
-
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. :D
-
“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 (http://positivenewsmedia.net/am2/publish/Inspirational_25/Efren_Penaflorida_s_work_offers_youth_an_alternative_to_gang_life_receives_100_000_award.shtml) of the CNN Hero of the Year awards ceremonies.
-
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. :D
Regarding the journalistic aspects of news storytelling, I hope my reply to Maxsims above is "refreshing" enough. ;)
-
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.
-
'...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.
-
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"?
-
As with the Oscars, there was but one!
-
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.
-
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.
-
??? ::) :o What does the word "schmyle" mean?
-
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 (http://nobelprize.org/award_ceremonies/)
2. The New York Times, December 1, 2009 issue (http://tv.nytimes.com/show/38981/93rd-Anniversary-Nobel-Prize-Ceremonies/overview)
3. Linus Pauling: The Nature of the Chemical Bond (http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/bond/pictures/1954i.43.html)
Now what have you got in defense of your "'ceremony'-is-always-singular" pet theory? :D
-
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
-
I don't think there's any grammar lapse in that sentence. However, owing to the extreme sensitivity of the situation, the statement was constructed in a deliberately imprecise way so it won't point an accusing finger to any side in the conflict. The general but not necessarily warranted belief is, of course, that some military elements who are based long enough in a particular area become susceptible to becoming beholden to the powers-that-be in that area. In the case of the Marines, however, since they are generally of the roving type with no permanent assignment, they are presumed not to develop any such area-based loyalties and can therefore be expected to be neutral. I suppose this is the hidden logic in that military official's statement, which should really be reassuring rather than perceived to be constituting bias.
-
I must really be so lost. I just can't see how deploying Marines can dispel allegations about the Army's (units in Maguindanao) bias towards the local warlords. If you deploy the Marines, doesn't that merely confirm that the Army cannot be trusted to be impartial guardians of the peace?
-
Joe, Joe, Joe....
Let's take a closer look at your evidence..
The Nobel Prize Award Ceremonies
The Nobel Laureates take center stage in Stockholm on 10 December when they receive the Nobel Prize Medal, Nobel Prize Diploma and document confirming the Nobel Prize amount from King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. In Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates receive their Nobel Peace Prize from the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the presence of King Harald V of Norway. An important part is the presentation of the Nobel Lectures by the Nobel Laureates. In Stockholm, the lectures are presented days before the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony. In Oslo, the Nobel Laureates deliver their lectures during the Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony.
93rd Anniversary Nobel Prize Ceremonies
TV SpecialAlternate Title: NINETY THIRD ANNIVERSARY NOBEL PRIZE CEREMONIES
The first story is from Nobelprize.org, as you recommended.
We first encounter "ceremonies" in the headline. It is plural, no? We read on and find that the writer is referrring to the ceremony (singular) in Stockholm AND the ceremony (singular) in Oslo. So, we have one ceremony plus another ceremony making up two ceremonies. All very mathematically logical, gramatically correct and not a trace of interchangeability in sight.
The second of your examples is from the New York Times. Here we see just "ceremonies" Why? Because the writer is referring to the TWO ceremonies that have characterised the Nobels for yonks.
The same holds for your third example.
QED
-
Sorry, maxsims, I don't think your arithmetic readings for the plural "ceremonies" I had cited as examples are warranted by the textual content of the material. They strike me as phantom computations that aren't really QED*. Indeed, your overly dismissive remarks of my three examples of usage of the plural "ceremonies" are highly suspect, for your conclusions are self-deductive rather than definitive. I was expecting a spirited defense of your "ceremony'-is-always-singular" pet theory, perhaps citing at least a few grammar authorities for it, but all you have presented is abstruse mathematics. It reminds me of the old debate about whether "exercise" should be singular or plural in the term "commencement exercise/exercises." As you most likely know, even if "exercise" looks obviously correct grammatically, the plural "commencement exercises" always wins handily simply because the plural form sounds notionally correct. I think the same thing applies to the plural "award ceremonies" or "awards ceremonies." And come to think of it, the CNN Hero of the Year awards ceremonies actually consisted of one ceremony each for the 10 Heroes of the Year, culminating in the proclamation of Efren Peñaflorida as the CNN Hero of the Year for receiving the most number of votes by mobile phone text--but I really don't want to go into that mathematical rigmarole because I don't think it's necessary. So maxsims, shouldn't you now concede that "awards ceremonies" and "award or award ceremonies" are interchangeable and coequal in usage? As for me, I won't loss any sleep over it.
By the way, maxsims was at his professorial best today and used some abstruse terms for the sheer fun of using them. QED is the acronym for the Latin quod erat demonstrandum, which means "that which was to be demonstrated." (In college, I loved to proclaim QED myself every time I would finally solve a particularly tough differential calculus or spherical geometry equation, but never when I thought I had scored a point in English grammar, which was rarely that tough anyway.) When he used the Aussie term "yonks," he probably meant the people of Yonkers, a city in New York State. As to the word "schmyle" that maxsims bandied about earlier--I think Sky has an unanswered question about this Aussie colloquialism--I still don't know what he meant by it. I can only suppose it's an expression of impatience or exasperation over a hardheaded student who won't accept a professor's learned grammar pronouncements. ::)
-
"...And come to think of it, the CNN Hero of the Year awards ceremonies actually consisted of one ceremony each for the 10 Heroes of the Year..."
Exactly....ceremonies plural and ceremony singular. So where's the interchangeability?
And, come to think of it, I believe "come to think of it" is parenthetical. :)
-
It's good to be just a student. You tend to be more open to choices ;). (ulp :-X)
Here's to add more confusion to the heated discussion on "ceremonies".
In Japan, we say "wedding ceremonies" instead of wedding ceremony. The event really takes hours (or days) to finish, as there are about three solemn ceremonies for the bride and groom. The more traditional the wedding is, and the more "noble" the bride and groom are, the longer and lavish the celebration would be. The modern Japanese wedding even has two, at least, with the first being the traditional ceremony (in kimono), and the second, the Western wedding (in wedding gown), with a fake pastor/priest officiating ;D. In the Philippines, we say just "wedding ceremony". This is because we have just one ceremony usually, and the rest are just tribal rituals.
I think, the use of words like "ceremony/ceremonies" really depends on the nature of the event and orientation of readership. When I was a high school teacher in PI, we always called the commencement exercises as closing ceremonies. These, I think were carried on from past American traditions. I remember my late grandfather's picture, him posing on stage when he graduated from his seventh grade (Elem) in an institution run by an American protestant church. His teachers were Americans. It was the first time I read the word "ceremonies" (from the cut-outs on stage).
-
"...And come to think of it, the CNN Hero of the Year awards ceremonies actually consisted of one ceremony each for the 10 Heroes of the Year..."
Exactly....ceremonies plural and ceremony singular. So where's the interchangeability?
And, come to think of it, I believe "come to think of it" is parenthetical. :)
I can see that madgirl09 has beaten me to the draw by a few minutes, but I don't mind since her posting seems to me in defense of my plural usage for "ceremonies."
Anyway,maxsims, I think we’ve both hit pay dirt here. It looks to me now that you won’t have any objection to the use of the plural “ceremonies” so long as it can be arithmetically demonstrated that there are two or more ceremonies in a particular event. Now, since there were 10 CNN “heroes” during the event at Hollywood’s Kodak Theater, each of whom was honored with a ceremonial awarding, plus another ceremony for Efren Peñaflorida as “CNN Hero of the Year,” there were actually 11 “ceremonies” in all. I’m simply following here the same arithmetical logic that you used for justifying the plural usage of “ceremonies” in my examples from NobelPrize.org, The New York Times, and the Linus Pauling website. Based on that logic, the statement that I had grafted into the original lead sentence at issue here would be correct in its use of the plural “ceremonies”:
“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.”
QED ;)
Frankly, I find this arithmetic exactitude abstruse and overweening, but I can live it. In the same token, can you live with my use of the plural “ceremonies” above?
Now, you ask “where’s the interchangeability” there? Well, following your arithmetical logic, I can replace the plural “ceremonies” with the singular “ceremony” and only the hard-core grammar prescriptivists—knowing that there were really 11 ceremonies in all during the event—will give it much thought and insist on retaining the plural form.
As to “come to think of it,” my use of it is indeed parenthetical, so what’s your problem with that? I’m very much interested to know. ::)
-
"...And come to think of it, the CNN Hero of the Year awards...etc"
I hold to the view that parenthetical phrases require commas fore and aft. Some modernists who favour less punctuation forget that a comma after "and" gives a stimulating emphasis to that word, plus an equally stimulating pause after it.
The "style-schmyle" construction is NOT Australian idiom - it is US of American. As far as I can discover, it began as the New York Jewish way of decrying the previous word. For example, if I disagreed with your use of "plural", I might say "plural-schmural".
I don't know the origins of "yonks", but it sure isn't Australian. I don't know where you got that impression.
Frankly, I find this arithmetic exactitude abstruse and overweening, but I can live it. In the same token, can you live with my use of the plural “ceremonies” above?
Nope. Your first defensive statement was The plural "ceremonies" and singular "ceremony" are freely interchangeable in actual usage. Nothing said since has changed my mind. Perhaps you should bring in the heavyweights again..!
-
Your view that parenthetical phrases strictly require commas fore and aft might apply when the expression follows an adverbial phrase, as in "Practically speaking, come to think of it, (http://, come to think of it,) there may be no basis to what I'm saying." But when what precedes the expression is a coordinating conjunction like "but" and "and," I don't think the comma fore is absolutely needed.
Look at this citation by the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms:
come to think of it
Remember or consider on reflection. For example, Come to think of it, I've got to send in my order now, or I was going to lend him a saw, but come to think of it, he already has one.
The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin.
This usage is confirmed by Dictionary of Idioms by Martin H. Manser. Click this link to Googlebooks and you'll find the following entry (http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=jGlN5U8Rl34C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=come+to+think+of+it+idiom&source=bl&ots=GTMRlufvSy&sig=7RVKS8KpCvg6RLKo7QQbwbSN9uQ&hl=en&ei=IigWS6K5O82IkAXvtKH6Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBTgy#v=onepag):
come to think of it
>'Now I come to think of it, Robby does look like his mother, as you said.' >I've not had a letter from Hugh for a few weeks, but come to think of it, I've not written to him.'
If your view is universally correct, maxsims, those two sentences involving "come to think of it" would look this way:
(1) Come to think of it, I've got to send in my order now, or I was going to lend him a saw, but, come to think of it, he already has one.
(2) >'Now I, come to think of it, Robby does look like his mother, as you said.' >I've not had a letter from Hugh for a few weeks, but, come to think of it, I've not written to him.'
I'm not sure if such craggy constructions and overfastidious punctuation would appeal visually and aurally to any grammarian--whether descriptive or prescriptive.
I therefore stand on the correctness of my usage in this sentence that you put in question:
"And come to think of it, the CNN Hero of the Year awards ceremonies actually consisted of one ceremony each for the 10 Heroes of the Year, culminating in the proclamation of Efren Peñaflorida as the CNN Hero of the Year for receiving the most number of votes by mobile phone text..."
Your explanation for the unfamiliar idioms you used, "style-schmyle" and "yonks," are most welcome. I got the impression that both were of Australian vintage because I heard them first from you--and I never imagined that you'd condescend to use strange American idioms rather than use your own.
As to the "ceremony"/"ceremonies" usage, I'm sad to hear that you remain adamant about the interchangeability aspect. Sorry, maxsims, I don't really consider it such a big matter so I don't feel like bringing in the heavyweights again. If you can somehow find authoritative backing for your view, however, I'd be very much willing to listen. ;)
(All setting of text in blue or boldface mine)
-
(2) >'Now I, come to think of it, Robby does look like his mother, as you said.' >I've not had a letter from Hugh for a few weeks, but, come to think of it, I've not written to him.'
The second "come to think of it" is parenthetical; the first one is not!
-
I agree with you that the first "come to think of it" isn't parenthetical; I was just testing the waters as to how you'd react after seeing that hideous comma after "I." :D As to the second "come to think of it," however, do you still insist that the comma after "but" is absolutely necessary? On the strength of the two citations I provided, maxsims, maybe you should relent just a little bit in the interest of euphony and visually appealing sentence construction. After all, having too many of those commas isn't good for the health of the both of us and for English, too! ::)
-
"...After all, having too many of those commas isn't good for the health of the both of us and for English, too!..."
I say that having too few commas isn't good for English, either.
When I was in primary school, there were common sense rules for comma usage, all but one of which were strict. The exception was the use of the comma to indicate the "natural pause", a rule giving the writer some control over how he or she wished his or her writing to be interpreted. For example, I can imagine Joe Carillo's grade school teacher saying to him, "Young Cariilo, I can understand why you did that, but, if you do it again, you will be in big trouble!" Here, the marked-off "but" gives emphasis to the warning, an emphasis that would not exist without the commas.
As you have previously discussed, there is now much confusion over the use of commas with conjunctions. Equally, there is confusion over defining and non-defining phrases, a confusion that can be blamed squarely on the "less commas" merchants.
As for visual appeal, I consider the comma to be a mark of punctuation, not one of decoration. And a euphonic sentence is any one that can be read easily and with instant comprehensiion.
-
Long live the comma then! Cheers! :)
-
Sir, Joe!
Why do we say "Master of Ceremonies" and not "Master of Ceremony"?
This is what I got from the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: master of ceremonies
Date: circa 1610
1 : a person who determines the forms to be observed on a public occasion
2 : a person who acts as host at a formal event
3 : a person who acts as host for a program of entertainment (as on television)
Is it because of the number one definition which says, "a person who determines the forms to be observed on a public occasion"?
-
Yes, Sky, I would think so, too. Conceptually, you need to master more than just one thing to be master of the set of those things, as in "Master of Ceremonies" and "Master of Arts." But in actual English usage, that distinction isn't strictly followed. There's only a "Master of Science," not a "Master of Sciences." It's probably because the terms for such academic disciplines are mass nouns to be begin with, as in the case of "Education," "Psychology," and "Engineering." They are grammatically singular but notionally plural. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the singular or plural form comes to be adopted not arithmetically but idiomatically, idiosyncratically--meaning that they were not given much thought to begin with.
This reminds me of the story of a foreign archeologist who, upon visiting the Oxford University campus in England, had wondered why the streets in the place were--and still are--so indescribably crooked. He had a profound impression that no one in his or her right mind could have designed those streets, winding and zigzagging and plunging and lurching upwards or sidewise any which way through plain, hill, and dale for no conceivable or rational reason.
The archeologist then set out to research the history of Oxford all to the way down to its ancient beginnings. Had some eccentric road builder or loony academic designed those roads by any chance? Had a builder of mind-boggling mazes been mistakenly chosen to build them? Not by a long shot, the archeologist was to discover after long, painstaking research.
It turns out that the routes taken by those roads were chosen not by humans but by beasts. In ancient times, the wild oxen of Oxford would graze for most the day and, when it was time for them to slake their thirst, they would wend their way down to the Oxford River in the simplest manner that animals would--going straight where there were no natural obstructions such as huge trees and sheer cliffs, making sharp detours where it wasn't possible to go headlong, going uphill or downhill as the terrain dictated, walking onwards until they were finally downriver to take their drink. The oxen simply followed their lines of less resistance for thousands of years, until the humans came and--not inclined to change the natural order of things--simply followed the crooked ways of the Oxford oxen!
As with the streets of Oxford, Sky, so with English usage and idioms--sometimes they have neither rhyme nor reason. Sic transit gloria mundi.
P.S. By the way, Sky, I understand that Oxford got its name practically in the same way--"Ox" from "oxen" and "ford" from the Old Norse word fjord, which means "a shallow part of a body of water that may be crossed by wading." The particular ford in this case is, of course, where the oxen had found it most convenient to drink.
---
*This Latin phrase means, of course, "Thus passes the glory of the world."
-
They were more advanced at Cambridge - they put a bridge over the River Cam!
-
That's a nice and intriguing wordplay, maxsims, so I thought of checking if it has any historical or archeological basis. It turns out, though, that the Cam River wasn't called by that name before the bridge was built. Here's the pertinent excerpt from the history of Cambridge (http://www.colc.co.uk/cambridge/cambridge/history.htm):
"...the town [used to be] known as Grentebrige or Cantebrigge. Eventually the name became Cambridge. However, the river was still called the Granta. Someone thought 'Cambridge must be the bridge over the Cam, so the river should be called the Cam instead of the Granta,' and so the river's name was changed! Upstream, where it flows through Grantchester, the River is still called the Granta. The Latin name for Cambridge is Cantabrigia, which is why degrees are called Cantab. However, this was not the Roman name for the town, which is unknown."
Fascinating! :)
-
Joe,
This is from a Philstar article: "That can only mean the capacity of the state to protect its citizens has lost much of its credence." Any comments?
jfv
-
Regarding this statement:
"That can only mean the capacity of the state to protect its citizens has lost much of its credence."
I think the phrase "has lost much of its credence" is not semantically appropriate nor logically valid as a description of the state's capacity to protect its citizens. Capacity in this case is not measured in terms of "credence," which is a measure of credibility; instead, it is measured in terms of "power" or "capability." For clarity, I would therefore suggest restating that sentence as follows:
"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its capability to protect its citizens."
or:
"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its power to protect its citizens."
If we want to focus instead on the credibility of the state as a protector of its citizens, then that sentence could perhaps be restated as follows:
"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its credibility as a protector of its citizens."
or:
"That can only mean that the state has lost much of its credence as a protector of its citizens."
-
Yes, I agree with your comments 100%. I think your last version was what Mr. Alex Magno had in mind when he wrote the sentence in question.
-
"...not semantically appropriate nor logically valid..."
Isn't this type of construction "neither-nor" and "not-neither-nor"?
-
It's commonly believed that "nor" can only be used in "neither...nor" constructions, but this isn't the case at least from the American English standpoint. The "not...nor" construction is also acceptable.
Here's how my Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary describes the usage:
nor
1 — used as a function word to introduce the second or last member or the second and each following member of a series of items each of which is negated <neither here nor there> <not done by you nor me nor anyone>
2 — used as a function word to introduce and negate a following clause or phrase
3 chiefly British : NEITHER
-
Just another example of the modernists making unwarranted changes to perfectly acceptable (and, as you say, widely understood) constructions.
-
I would agree with you 100% if you agree to take out the "un-" from "unwarranted." 8)
-
If I did that, the sentence would make no sense whatever.