Messages

1

My Media English Watch / Re: Two subject-verb disagreement errors in a row committed by noted columnist?

« on: January 01, 2012, 07:23:43 PM »

Your “final solution” to the problem was well taken... It makes more sense.  Why waste ink for another word (“each”) that adds very little meaning, if at all, to what the writer was trying to say? “They have separate opinions” is perfect. Why spoil it and discombobulate the readers by writing instead, “They EACH have separate opinions”? For what purpose was “each” inserted there?

2

My Media English Watch / Two subject-verb disagreement errors in a row committed by noted columnist?

« on: December 30, 2011, 01:30:17 AM »

In her column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last December 24, 2011 (“Soft underbelly of the Supreme Court”), Solita Monsod wrote: “Five opinions were uploaded on the website, all regarding the Arroyo-De Lima brouhaha. Justice Antonio Carpio and Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno each have a dissenting opinion, Justice Arturo Brion and Justice Presbitero Velasco each have a separate opinion....” (italicization mine).

The underscored words are egregiously in disagreement, right?

3

My Media English Watch / A grammatically doubtful report about a drug mule’s execution

« on: December 09, 2011, 02:32:07 PM »

Dear Mr. Carillo:

In today’s issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a front page story, “Pinoy drug trafficker executed,” starts as follows:

“Despite prayers and pleas of his countrymen, China yesterday executed a 35-year old man convicted of drug trafficking…”

There is something not quite right there. Shouldn’t it have read as follows:

“Despite prayers and pleas of his countrymen, a 35-year old man convicted of drug trafficking in China was executed yesterday…”?

Have I learned correctly from you?

Sphinx

4

Getting to Know English / Getting the hang of English back formations

« on: November 10, 2011, 12:22:16 PM »

How many other English words have been shortened like “invitation” to “invite” (both alternatively used as a noun)? Or like “consultation” to “consult”?  And lately, Latoya Jackson (after her brother Michael’s doctor, Dr. Murray, was convicted) was heard saying: It’s time to “go after his ‘conspires’”?  BTW, “abbreviated” is a funny (oxymoronic?) word for “short.”

5

My Media English Watch / Re: The case of the self-activated dam that, strangely, also talks!

« on: November 07, 2011, 09:28:15 AM »

The way I see it, "personification" -- like talking flowers, trees, or, okay, dams -- may come under "poetic license" in poetry!  But as a news report, it sounds and it is  totally silly!

6

My Media English Watch / Re: A semantic quandary over the news about the income-earning crocodile

« on: November 01, 2011, 11:39:53 PM »

What is the real role of a communicator? Is it, as is often urged, to communicate ideas in the simplest terms and forms of expression possible? The reason given by those who think that way is that majority of the listeners or readers don’t know any better or understand unfamiliar words or phrases. Thus this injunction: KISS (Keep it simple, stupid!). Isn’t that being condescending?

I’m asking this question in light of my own experience and observation. I enjoy hearing or reading big words. I may have some difficulty understanding them, but they fascinate me and send me leafing through the dictionary in search for their meanings. That way, my vocabulary is expanded.

Some people I know get irritated when they encounter unusual words they don’t understand. They shut their minds and turn away. 

Which kinds of people do you prefer communicating to?

7

Use and Misuse / Are grammarians losing the battle in the real world?

« on: October 19, 2011, 05:25:54 AM »

Hello again, sir,

Are grammarians losing the battle in the real world? Please note these ubiquitous expressions:

1. “Everybody is welcome to join, but must wait their turn”?
2. “Avail our credit facilities”! 
3. “Just between you and I”? 

We are hearing these phrases on TV, radios and reading them on billboards!

8

My Media English Watch / Is it right to say the Supreme Court is “teetering on the abyss of incredulity”?

« on: October 15, 2011, 01:37:44 PM »

Dear Mr. Carillo:

The Philippine Daily Inquirer quoted Sen. Miriam Santiago in its editorial last October 13 that the Supreme Court is “teetering on the abyss of incredulity”—without the customary “(sic).” There seems to be something terribly wrong with that expression. “Teetering on the abyss”? I think the correct expression is “teetering on the brink...”, am I right? When you are already in the “abyss,” you’re no longer teetering or on the edge, about to fall... you’re way down there already!

Secondly, “incredulity” means indisposition to believe. To be “incredulous” means to be unable to believe. In Sen. Santiago’s expression, the SC may have a problem believing...?  I think what she obviously meant was, the SC risks loss of credibility...on account of its recall of its “final decision" in favor of FASAP. I think...

Sphinx