As I always emphasize in my English writing lectures, it is extremely perilous to construct sentences that position the operative verb too far away from its subject. We need to always keep in mind that one major characteristic of English is that a verb performs optimally when it is positioned as close as possible to its subject or to the noun doing the action. Every time we overlook this, our sentences will tend to be difficult to read and to grasp even if they remain grammatically and structurally correct; in the worst cases, our sentences may succumb to serious subject-verb disagreement errors and may even become completely incomprehensible.
This, in varying degrees, is the problem with the following two sentences that I came across in two broadsheets last week:
1. This lead sentence of a column in the opinion section of one of the broadsheets:
“With a kitty of P11.3 billion, it is not unexpected that the partners who won the Commission on Elections (Comelec) contract for the automation of the 2010 national elections to break up on the matter of sharing the spoils.”
2. This lead sentence of a news story in the other broadsheet:
“Local military officials in Southern Mindanao heaved a sigh of relief after the seven members of the elite Special Forces who were earlier reported missing after a fierce clash with the communist rebels in Compostela Valley were able to return back to their camp.”
Precisely what’s wrong with the construction of the two sentences above and how can we rectify them and avoid them?
MY CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS:
1. The problematic lead sentence of the column in the opinion section of one of the
broadsheets:
“With a kitty of P11.3 billion, it is not unexpected that the partners who won the Commission on Elections (Comelec) contract for the automation of the 2010 national elections to break up on the matter of sharing the spoils.”
I had to read the above sentence several times to figure out what it was saying. The problem with it is actually manyfold. Aside from using the expletive “it” form (a grammatically valid construction that can sometimes trip both writer and reader alike), it also uses the double-negative phrase “not unexpected” and two successive layers of relative phrases (“that the partners who won”). By themselves and more so when used together, these grammatical forms are a formula for grammatical disaster if we are not extra-cautious in using them.
An even worse problem, however, is that the operative verb phrase of the relative clause in that sentence—“that the partners who won the Commission on Elections (Comelec) contract for the automation of the 2010 national elections to break up on the matter of sharing the spoils”—is 17 words away from its subject. That operative verb phrase is, of course, “break up,” and its subject is the noun “partners.” Because they are so far apart, the writer lost sight of their true grammatical relationship and was unable to link them properly and logically, resulting in an incoherent, semantically flawed sentence. In the process he also used the wrong verb form, the infinitive phrase “to break up.” Indeed, the resulting construction is so confusing that I’m sure that until now, many of you are still wondering precisely what it is that the sentence is saying.
The only way to ferret out the message that has been inadvertently obscured by the grammatical problems enumerated above is to totally rewrite that sentence with at least this minimum objective: bring the noun “partners” and verb phrase “break up” as close together as possible.
Here’s a first attempt:
“With a kitty of P11.3 billion, it was not unexpected that the partners who won the Commission on Elections (Comelec) contract for the automation of the 2010 national elections would break up on the matter of sharing the spoils.”
For clarity and grammatical correctness, the expletive clause “it is not unexpected” is rendered here in the past-tense form “it was not unexpected.” Also, the operative verb phrase is now in its correct and proper form—the modal “would break up” instead of the improper infinitive form “to break up.” The sentence thus makes sense now, but the operative verb phrase and the subject noun “partner” are still an uncomfortable 16 words away from each other. We must find a way to bring them closer to make the sentence even clearer and read better.
Second attempt:
“With a kitty of P11.3 billion, breaking up on the matter of sharing the spoils was not really unexpected between the partners who won the Commission on Elections (Comelec) contract for the automation of the 2010 national elections.”
The construction above has reduced the distance between the operative verb phrase (now a gerund phrase) and its subject noun to 13 words. It’s not really much, but I think it’s the best we can do to the original sentence in question. At any rate, the use of the gerund phrase “breaking up on the matter…” in the construction above obviously has greatly clarified what the writer intended to say.
2. The lead sentence of the news story in the other broadsheet:
“Local military officials in Southern Mindanao heaved a sigh of relief after the seven members of the elite Special Forces who were earlier reported missing after a fierce clash with the communist rebels in Compostela Valley were able to return back to their camp.”
This is a highly convoluted sentence that defies comprehension, and the problem lies in the construction of the prepositional phrase “after the seven members of the elite Special Forces who were earlier reported missing after a fierce clash with the communist rebels in Compostela Valley were able to return back to their camp.” Note that in this phrase, the operative verb phrase “were able to return” is 21 words away from its subject, the noun “members.” As in the other problematic sentence we discussed, therefore, one major grammatical reconstruction task we need to do is to attempt to bring that operative verb phrase and its subject noun as close together as possible.
I must say at the outset that there’s no easy way to make a satisfactory reconstruction of that sentence. In fact, all I could think up is to use the so-called discontinuous noun phrase strategy. It would involve breaking up the unduly long prepositional phrase in that sentence to allow for an earlier appearance of the operative verb. Here’s how I propose to execute this admittedly very delicate grammatical operation:
“Local military officials in Southern Mindanao heaved a sigh of relief with the return to camp of the seven members of the elite Special Forces who were earlier reported missing after a fierce clash with the communist rebels in Compostela Valley.”
In the above reconstruction, the use of the prepositional phrase “with the return to camp” right after the main clause “local military officials in Southern Mindanao heaved a sigh of relief” enables the sentence to deliver the intended message (“the return to camp”) as early as possible, thus eliminating the grammatical barriers and sources of confusion that bedeviled the original sentence.
Another improved version using "after the return to camp" instead of "with the return to camp":
“Local military officials in Southern Mindanao heaved a sigh of relief after the return to camp of the seven members of the elite Special Forces who were earlier reported missing after a fierce clash with the communist rebels in Compostela Valley.”
SELF-TEST:
Test how grammar-savvy you are by analyzing and telling me what the problem is with the following lead sentence of a news story in a recent issue of a broadsheet:
“As promised, electricity being a basic commodity for human existence must reach far-flung communities.”
The member who submits the best analysis will receive an autographed copy of my recently released book, Give Your English the Winning Edge. Don’t post your analysis in the Forum; send it to me by e-mail so others will not get to see and copy it. The submission deadline is midnight of Wednesday, July 15.
-----
What do you think of the state of English usage in the Philippine media today? Has it improved or has it worsened? Why do you think so? Click the Reply button to post your thoughts on Jose Carillo’s English Forum.
