Just a few grammar bugs in major stories of mayhem and triumph

[Joe Carillo]

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.   

[jonathanfvaldez]

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?

[maxsims]

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

[Joe Carillo]

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.

 

 

[maxsims]

"...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.   

[madgirl09]

It's good to be just a student. You tend to be more open to choices  . (ulp  )

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  . 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).

[Joe Carillo]

"...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.

[maxsims]

"...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..!

[Joe Carillo]

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, 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:

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)

 

[maxsims]

(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!

[Joe Carillo]

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." 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!      

[maxsims]

"...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.

[Joe Carillo]

Long live the comma then! Cheers!

[Sky]

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"?

[Joe Carillo]

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."