As far back as I can remember, Filipino students are taught that although the proper noun “Philippines” ends with the letter “s,” it’s not grammatically plural but singular. The country became known by this common name when it was an American colony from 1898 until the Commonwealth period. The name “Philippines” is, of course, short for the full name the American colonial authorities had given it—the “Philippine Islands,” which in turn was a direct translation of the Spanish name “
Las Islas Filipinas.” Going by its sense as a collective noun that stands for a single entity, “Philippines” has since been established in usage as a singular noun.
This is why I was nonplussed when I saw that the
Philippine Daily Inquirer apparently considers “Philippines” a plural noun, as shown in the following lead passage from a news story in its July 25, 2011 issue (underscoring mine):
Philippines urged to leverage key competencies
Instead of complaining about how the Philippines tend to rank low in various competitiveness surveys, both the public and private sectors should consider collaborating to capitalize on the country’s key competencies and address inadequacies.
According to Center for Industrial Competitiveness executive director Virgilio Fulgencio, what was often noticed was the country’s low overall position in these surveys, neglecting to see where the country excelled and which areas could be leveraged for better ranking results in the future.
In the lead sentence above, unless the use of the present-tense plural verb form “tend” is simply a proofreading oversight, the
Inquirer has committed a serious subject-verb disagreement error. Frankly, though, I would not have seriously entertained this latter possibility if not for the fact that almost a month ago, on June 28, 2011 to be exact, Malacañang copied me an e-mailed media release quoting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as having cited the Philippines in a CNN interview as among “the countries that have made a lot of progress” in the global campaign against human trafficking. The pertinent passage is as follows (underscoring mine):
“Look at what the Philippines have done in a change of administration,” Mrs. Clinton told Jim Clancy of CNN International’s Freedom Project. “The Philippines probably export more people of their citizenry than nearly any other country in the world. They go all over the world to work in many different settings. And until the new administration of President Aquino, we didn’t really have the level of commitment we were seeking. We do now, and we see a sea change of difference.”
By using the clauses “what the Philippines have done” and “The Philippines probably export more people,” it’s clear that Secretary Clinton thinks that “Philippines” is a plural noun that needs the plural form of the verb. I therefore e-mailed the following note to the Office of the Presidential Spokesperson in Malacañang suggesting that the error be rectified:
May I suggest that you might as well…correct the repeated faulty grammar in US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement as quoted. Everybody knows that the word “Philippines” is a proper noun in the singular form, but Secretary Clinton wrongly uses it in the plural sense in “what the Philippines have done” (“have” should be “has” instead) and in “The Philippines probably export more people of their citizenry” (“export” should be “exports” instead). I’m sure that Secretary Clinton won’t mind the copyediting. In any case, I’m afraid that if that statement is published as is, it could needlessly create a grammar furor that might just detract from the import of what she is saying.
I didn’t get a response from the Office of the Presidential Spokesperson to that note, so I presumed that they didn’t consider the subject-verb disagreement errors in the use of the name “Philippines” serious enough to disturb the favorable quote, or that they thought the matter was simply a stylistic difference in English usage that can be legitimately glossed over.
Now that the grammatical situation has cropped up again in the case of the
Inquirer story, I wonder if the time isn’t ripe for the Philippines to officially and categorically decide—for all the world to know—whether its name is to be treated as singular or plural.
SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:(1) ABS-CBN News: Subject-verb disagreement2 Chinese blacklisted after tiff with PNoy in-law
MANILA, Philippines - The 2 Chinese mediamen who figured in an altercation with the brother-in-law of President Benigno Aquino III has been ordered blacklisted and are now on their way back to Beijing.
In an interview with ANC, Bureau of Immigration intelligence chief Maria Antonette Bucasas-Mangrobang said the “commissioner has ordered their immediate departure as well as their inclusion in the bureau’s blacklist.”
The lead sentence above has a subject-verb disagreement error between the plural noun phrase “2 Chinese mediamen” as subject and the singular-form verb phrase “has been ordered blacklisted.”
That verb phrase should therefore be in the plural-form “have been ordered blacklisted” instead.
Here’s that problematic sentence as corrected:
“
The 2 Chinese mediamen who figured in an altercation with the brother-in-law of President Benigno Aquino III
have been ordered blacklisted and are now on their way back to Beijing.”
(2) Manila Bulletin: Highly misleading statementSensible Footwear Saves Lives, Money
MANILA, Philippines—Rains batter the Philippines throughout the year, yet Filipinos ignore a rain gear considered vital by the rest of the world: Rubber boots.
It is a common sight on TV: School children, employees and commuters sloshing through the rain with shoes, socks and stockings soaked and dripping. In other countries, rubber boots are worn on the commute when it rains, to be replaced by leather shoes as soon as the students and employees reach their destinations.
To say that “rains batter the Philippines throughout the year” is false and contrary to fact. Firstly, as everybody knows, it doesn’t rain in the Philippines throughout the year. Secondly, it’s also false to generalize that rains “batter” the country; they do so—and only figuratively at that—when they are blown in by strong typhoons. The transitive verb “batter” means “to beat with successive blows so as to bruise, shatter, or demolish,” and rains in the Philippines don’t routinely and continuously do that. Most of the time they benevolently “moisten” or “soak” parts of the country and, at their worst, “flood” some areas. Indeed, to use the verb “batter” for the action of rain in this country is a rank generalization that demonizes what’s actually a beneficial natural phenomenon that we should be thankful for.
Here’s a rewrite of that lead sentence that’s factual and semantically correct—and that gives justice to rain as experienced in the Philippines:
“
Rains flood many parts of the Philippines at various times of the year, yet Filipinos ignore a rain gear considered vital by the rest of the world: rubber boots.”
(3) Manila Bulletin: Wrong choice of wordP30B allocated for irrigation repair
SAN FERNANDO CITY, Pampanga — The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) Administrator Antonio Nangel disclosed yesterday that his office has allocated P30 billion in loans for the initial start of construction of the restoration and rehabilitation of non-functional irrigation systems in the country.
The NIA Administrator said the projects will be expected to restore 525,017 hectares of ricefield as part of the six-year irrigation program in support of the Rice Self-Sufficiency Roadmap (RSSR).
The lead sentence above wrongly uses the adjective “non-functional” in the noun phrase “non-functional irrigation systems in the country.” When a system, equipment, or machine is nonfunctional, it means that it’s inherently unable to perform a regular function because of, say, wrong design at the very outset or poor construction. Since the statement from the NIA specifies that the irrigation systems will be restored and rehabilitated, it’s clear that they used to function regularly but had since gone into disrepair or disuse. To call them “non-functional irrigation systems” is therefore grammatically and semantically incorrect; instead, they are “non-functioning irrigation systems.”
That lead sentence should therefore read as follows:
“The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) Administrator Antonio Nangel disclosed yesterday that his office has allocated P30 billion in loans for the initial start of construction of the restoration and rehabilitation of
non-functioning irrigation systems in the country.”
(4) The Philippine Star: Misplaced modifying phraseCebu to be presented as anti-trafficking model to US Congress
CEBU CITY, Philippines – The International Justice Mission (IJM) will present Cebu as a model in the anti-human trafficking response to the US Congress.
IJM national director Andrey Sawchenko brought the staff of US Senator Thad Cochran to Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia yesterday for a briefing on the programs of the provincial government against human trafficking and modern-day slavery.
In the lead sentence above, the prepositional phrase “to the US Congress” is misplaced because it mistakenly and absurdly modifies the noun phrase “anti-human trafficking response” instead of becoming the receiver of the action of the verb “present.”
Here’s a rewrite of that lead sentence that puts “to the US Congress” in its proper position:
“The International Justice Mission (IJM) will present Cebu
to the US Congress as a model in the anti-human trafficking response.”
