One great, scintillating push for good English!

[Joe Carillo]

It’s not every day—even on a Sunday—that I wake up to be perked up by something supremely better than a great cup of brewed coffee. But today just became one such a Sunday, when my mobile phone rang with this text message from Fred de la Rosa, chairman of the editorial board of The Manila Times, with this note: “Read d edtrials today?” Finger on my computer mouse, I clicked and hopped right away to the online edition of The Manila Times and read its editorial for the day, “Ambivalent about ambient.”

I’ve just finished reading it and I’m delightfully breathless… Let me just say that it’s such great reading for all lovers and teachers and students of the English language, so I’m asking all those who’ve just logged on to Jose Carillo’s English Forum to read it—and to read it without delay!

Read “Ambivalent about ambient” in The Manila Times now!

Of course, you may want to spare a few seconds first to read the quick note that I’ve just texted back to Fred:

“Wow! What can I say, Fred? It’s a great, scintillating, fun editorial and a big, big push for good English! And, of course, I’m floored and flattered by the nomination to the [proposed] English style committee. Thanks a million, Fred! I’ll be honored to accept the nomination. Cheers!”

[maxsims]

Congratulations, Joe Carillo, on your nomination to the Executive Committee.    One of your first duties should be to rewrite the awful example of English that we have just read under "Plain English Day".

Consider the mishmash of tenses used:

"...she should sign..."

"...lawyers will pledge..."

"...is dedicated..."

"...it shall be observed..."

"The highlight of the day is the burning..."

"...celebration is complete..."

You might also have a Captain Cook at the almost-as-bad stuff under Gobble, gobble, too.

[Joe Carillo]

Thanks for your felicitations on my having been nominated to the Executive Committee of the Philippine “National Plain English Day.” As I said earlier, I was flattered by the  nomination, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that these things should be taken with a tiny dose of levity, perhaps also with a grain of salt.

When surveying the wide expanse of journalistic prose in the broadsheets covered by my own media English watch, I used to be tempted to critique even the tiniest flaws in their vocabulary, grammar, syntax, structure, idiom—even style. I soon realized, though, that to do so would not only be ill-advised but counterproductive as well. Perfection in grammar—or at least excellence in it—is much to be desired, of course, but we need to temper this expectation with the reality that journalism is literature in a hurry, written in white-hot haste under the press of relentless deadlines. So, in what’s perceived to be my role as grammar police (a tag that I actually dislike), I have learned to be forgiving of minor grammar lapses in news and feature stories even as I have kept myself exacting and uncompromising with major ones.

Now, regarding what you call “the mishmash of tenses” used in the editorial of The Manila Times last February 7, “Ambivalent about ambient,” I would like to make the following comments on the various verb phrases you have put in question (the italicizations are yours):

(1)
“Before President Gloria Arroyo leaves office, she should sign an Executive Order proclaiming a National Plain English Day.”

I don’t see any problem with the tense usage here; “should” is being used in an auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency. The mandatory aspect of “should,” rather than the future aspect of “will,” is needed here to emphasize that a presidential proclamation is absolutely needed to make the National Plain English Day possible in the Philippines. "Should" (as opposed to "will") also denotes the possibility that the president may choose not to issue the proclamation at all. 

(2)
“On Plain English Day, lawyers will pledge to keep their language simple, lawmakers will pass a resolution vowing clearly worded bills and journalists will publish newspapers completely rid of jargon, clichés and overused/abused words and phrases.”

I presume here that you’d rather that the lawyers “should pledge” rather than “will pledge” or “would pledge” to keep their language simple,” etc. I disagree with that. I think the simple declarative statement using “will” is more appropriate because in the case of the lawyers, they are not mandated or obligated to keep their language simple. It’s just a choice for them. Indeed, the editorial writer was evidently just suggesting that—who knows?—the lawyers may just agree to do so. We all know that as a rule, lawyers are very zealous and protective of their rights in writing the way they please (mostly legalese, of course), so it’s not wise to give them reason to hale you to court for attempting to circumscribe that fundamental right of theirs.

I grant that putting a serial comma after “clearly worded bills” and before “and journalists” in that sentence would have made the sentence read more clearly. (This is one reason why I am advocating the use of the serial comma even before the last item of an enumerative sequence; it makes sentences easier to read and understand. As a matter of style, however, most newspapers have banished the serial comma in such situations—not for better but for the worse, in my opinion.) 

(3)
“Plain English Day is dedicated to the proposition that all government and private documents, reports and publications could be written in simple, understandable English. Instructional manuals/guides and product labels could be models of crystal-clear instructions.”

I presume that here, you want “is dedicated” to be replaced by “will be dedicated” or “would be dedicated” to indicate the futurity of the action. I disagree. The present tense “is” is being used here to indicate that the sentence is a simple declarative statement—more a statement of purpose for all time than for some activity to be undertaken at some future time.

(4)
“It shall be observed in schools, law firms, Congress, editorial rooms, Malacañang, the courts, advertising and PR agencies and other places where English is taught or used extensively, in offices that write, prepare or issue rules, bills, contracts, advertisements commercials and public information.”

You’d rather that “should be observed” be used instead of “shall be observed” or “will be observed”? I don’t think so. It seems to me that the statement above was constructed to sound like a mandatory provision in the presidential proclamation for the Philippine National Plain English Day, in the same spirit as that for Item 1 above. The use of “shall” is therefore called for.

(5)
“The highlight of the day is the burning or the shredding of official documents at the foot of Mendiola Bridge. The program shall be short and the main speech limited to five minutes or less.”

Again, I presume that you would want “is the burning” to be corrected to “will be the burning” to indicate the futurity of the action. I don’t think so. My argument for the use of the simple present tense “is” in Item 3 above also applies here. The present tense “is the burning” has been used to indicate that the sentence is a simple declarative statement—more a descriptive statement for all time than for some activity to be undertaken at some future time.

(6)
“The Plain English Day celebration is incomplete without an Executive Committee.”   

Here, I agree with you that something’s wrong with the tense of “is incomplete.” I think it would be more appropriate to use the modal “would be incomplete.” This is because the absence of the Executive Committee is conditional and not one of the fundamental or permanent features of the celebration.

What emerges from my comments about the usage you questioned in the six sentences above is this: With the exception of the wrong tense usage in Item 6 above, no “mishmash of tenses” was actually committed in them. In the progression of those six sentences in the editorial, we shouldn’t mistake the shifts from the declarative to conditional to modal as mixing up the tenses. They are not. Rather, those shifts are the editorial writer’s way of indicating whether each of those statements denotes an established fact, a mandate, a conditional or modal situation, or a future event. One or two of the shifts may be somewhat disconcerting to strict grammarians, but I believe that no serious grammar violations were committed and that no tenses were mixed up at all.

As to the English of the portion of the editorial under “Gobble, gobble,” I frankly couldn’t find any of what you call the “almost-as-bad stuff.” True, putting the adverb “also” after “verbiage” in “Verbiage afflicts the following phrases…” would have made the continuity better (“Verbiage also afflicts the following phrases…”), and using the article “the” before “rules and regulations” in “Wordy are rules and regulations, peace and order, moot and academic, graft and corruption, and trust and confidence” would have made that sentence read better and pack more punch (“Wordy are the rules and regulations, peace and order, moot and academic, graft and corruption, and trust and confidence”). On the whole, however, I would say that “Gobble, gobble” is fun, compelling reading and its English, grammatically airtight.

[maxsims]

Joe Carillo, we shall have to agree to disagree on "Plain English Day".   And, I fear, on "Gobble, gobble".

Gobble, gobble

Journalese could be as tricky, confusing and dense as the language of utility bills.

Could be?   And what an intro!   What are we in for?

Consider the words operationalize, institutionalize, utilize, normalize, finalize, personalize and materialize.
What do they really mean? Pinoys have even invented “fiscalize,” a word that does not exist.

OK, I've considered them.   With the exception of operationalize, those words are in common use with well-understood meanings.  And i don't believe we can blame journalists for inventing "fiscalize" (although it's to their discredit that they perpetuate it).

Verbiage afflicts the following phrases: health condition, slum area, protest action, top priority, track record, weather condition, heavy downpour entrapment operation, kidnap-for-ransom gang and owner-type jeep.

Agreed that some (not all) of these terms are one word too long, but journalese or just common-or-garden?

Wordy are rules and regulations, peace and order, moot and academic, graft and corruption, and trust and confidence.

I thought the writer was breaking into poetry here!

Throw in crime incidents, fire incidents, poverty incidence and strike incidents.

Is the writer saying that these terms are also one word too long, or that readers are confused over "incidents" and "incidence"?    Perhaps both?

Overused are the words assistance (help, aid), funding (money, cash), stakeholder (participant, player), spearhead (lead, head) and implement (carry out).

Another poetic beginning, and now the writer is giving us alternatives.    Why did he wait until now?

R.A. 1234 is otherwise known as “The Anti-Alias Act of 2010.” We use presidentiable and senatoriable but never congressmaniable.

Again, I don't believe we lay these awful terms at the feet of journalists.

Avoid euphemisms. Use squatter for informal settler, prostitute for commercial sex worker and poor for the less privileged. Revenue enhancement, of course, is tax collection and a bedspacer is a dorm boarder.
Say entrapment instead of buy-bust. Undergo and undertake could go through a face-lift.

Ah!   It becomes clear; this article is instructional.

But journalese could also oversimplify words and reduce them to sticks, like rehab (for rehabilitation), destab (for destabilization), infra (infrastructure) and nego (negotiation). No-el (no election), of course, could lead to no-proc (no proclamation

It could, but does it?    I think the worst you can say about the poor old journos is that they merely repeat the neologisms created by others.   Generally speaking, the modern journalist is more a model of good English than almost anybody else.

[Joe Carillo]

Here's my rejoinder to your comments about The Manila Times editorial, "Ambivalent about ambient," last February 6:

Joe Carillo, we shall have to agree to disagree on "Plain English Day".   And, I fear, on "Gobble, gobble".

Agreed, maxsims! I’ll make my comments point-by-point, rendering them in black text (JoeCarillo) to distinguish them from your comments and from the original material you are commenting on. The original material from The Manila Times (MT) editorial is in blue text; your comments (maxsims), in red text. 

MT: Gobble, gobble

Journalese could be as tricky, confusing and dense as the language of utility bills.

maxsims: Could be? And what an intro! What are we in for?

JoeCarillo: Why not “could be” as an alternative to “can” to suggest less force or certainty or as a polite form in the present tense? Here’s what my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary says about the uses of “could”:

could
Function: verbal auxiliary, past of CAN
Etymology: Middle English couthe, coude, from Old English cūthe; akin to Old High German konda could
Date: 13th century

 —  used in auxiliary function in the past  <we found we could go>, in the past conditional  <we said we would go if we could>, and as an alternative to can suggesting less force or certainty or as a polite form in the present  <if you could come we would be pleased>

As to the expression used in the intro, "Gobble, gobble," maybe some lay readers may not be very familiar it, but I don’t see any problem with its intent. It’s actually jocular short-hand for “Gobbledygook, gobbledygook.” I’ve actually written in my column in The Manila Times about “gobbledygook” as an allusion to the rasping, guttural sound that a turkey makes. Anyway, the dictionary entry for it is as follows:

gobbledygook
Variant: also  gobbledegook 
Function: noun
Etymology: irregular from gobble, noun
Date: 1944

 : wordy and generally unintelligible jargon

So, to answer your question, what we were in for in that editorial was some banter—some lexical fun.

Consider the words operationalize, institutionalize, utilize, normalize, finalize, personalize and materialize.

What do they really mean? Pinoys have even invented “fiscalize,” a word that does not exist.

OK, I've considered them. With the exception of operationalize, those words are in common use with well-understood meanings.  And I don’t believe we can blame journalists for inventing "fiscalize" (although it's to their discredit that they perpetuate it).

Uhmm…That passage is actually a sardonic dig at the so-called “-ize” words—simple nouns made into big, highfalutin verbs. It’s all part of the fun-reading that the editorial writer wanted to develop, that’s all. 

Verbiage [also] afflicts the following phrases: health condition, slum area, protest action, top priority, track record, weather condition, heavy downpour entrapment operation, kidnap-for-ransom gang and owner-type jeep.

Agreed that some (not all) of these terms are one word too long, but journalese or just common-or-garden?

I won’t be so severe in impugning that collection of words. As I said earlier, they are simply part of the instructive wordplay being developed by the editorial writer.

Wordy are [the] rules and regulations, peace and order, moot and academic, graft and corruption, and trust and confidence.

I thought the writer was breaking into poetry here!

Oh, yes, yes, that’s right—he was breaking into poetry, and that’s precisely the point! It’s called rhapsodic rapture in wordplay! Why should only comedians have fun? Journalists hanker for it, too, especially after a dour day dealing with bad-news copy!

Throw in crime incidents, fire incidents, poverty incidence and strike incidents.

Is the writer saying that these terms are also one word too long, or that readers are confused over "incidents" and "incidence"? Perhaps both?

I can’t speak for the editorial writer, maxsims, but I do know that those words were simply top-of-mind choices made during the act of literary creation. We shouldn’t really ascribe any intent behind the choices, much less do them in with paralysis by analysis.

Overused are the words assistance (help, aid), funding (money, cash), stakeholder (participant, player), spearhead (lead, head) and implement (carry out).

Another poetic beginning, and now the writer is giving us alternatives. Why did he wait until now?

I don’t think it’s poetic at all—simply a terrific inverted sentence flexing its rhetorical muscle! But why did the editorial writer wait until this point to give the alternatives? I’m not sure, but I fancy that he didn’t want to overly clutter his earlier exposition with those alternatives—a tact makes a lot of sense to me.

R.A. 1234 is otherwise known as “The Anti-Alias Act of 2010.” We use presidentiable and senatoriable but never congressmaniable.

Again, I don't believe we lay these awful terms at the feet of journalists.

The editorial writer is still on his wordplay binge here. He’s obviously doing it simply for effect—for the sheer the fun of it. Why begrudge editorial writers that chance in lighthearted pieces like this? (Have you guys Down Under lost your sense of humor?)

Avoid euphemisms. Use squatter for informal settler, prostitute for commercial sex worker and poor for the less privileged. Revenue enhancement, of course, is tax collection and a bedspacer is a dorm boarder.

Say entrapment instead of buy-bust. Undergo and undertake could go through a face-lift.

Ah! It becomes clear; this article is instructional.

Yep! It happens to be so.

But journalese could also oversimplify words and reduce them to sticks, like rehab (for rehabilitation), destab (for destabilization), infra (infrastructure) and nego (negotiation). No-el (no election), of course, could lead to no-proc (no proclamation).

It could, but does it? I think the worst you can say about the poor old journos is that they merely repeat the neologisms created by others. Generally speaking, the modern journalist is more a model of good English than almost anybody else.

I’m sorry, maxsims, I can’t answer that one. I’m neither prepared to go into the journalism philosophy behind that editorial, nor knowledgeable enough to compare the lexical competence of “poor old journos” and model “modern journalists.” Why don’t you shoot a little note to the editorial writer himself and ask him to elucidate that point?

[maxsims]

Joe Carillo,

I was warned on the occasion of my first visit to the Philippines that Filipinos have a "different" sense of humour.    This is undoubtedly so, because I - and a few others - find all that schoolboyish nonsense under "Gobble, gobble" to be screamingly unfunny.  Rhapsodic rapture, indeed!   And, of course (to paraphrase a well-known writer), having nothing to do with "journalese". 

Write to the editorial staff?    Now that is funny! 

But my compliments on your spirited defence of your compatriot.   If I ever find myself before a Filipino judge, may I call on you?     

[Joe Carillo]

I greatly appreciate the compliment, maxsims! I’d be delighted to defend you in a court of whatever, but unlike some bona fide lawyers who must earn their keep regardless of the truth, I’ll do so only if your case is defensible. I find it so devastating to my self-worth to have to defend an obvious untruth.

As to my kind of sense of humor, I’m afraid I can only speak for myself. Things that are “screamingly funny” to me may not even elicit a half-smile from congenitally dour people, Filipino or otherwise.