Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - aurorariel

Pages: [1]
Very interesting- the speaker may intend to use indicative present, indicative past or subjective--where the verb takes on the form of an infinitive with "to" being dropped.   

I just don't recall--were Filipinos ever critical of the younger President Bush's "nuc/kular" [difficult to spell] English that even journalists later accepted for elegance or any type of reason? 

I agree with you, for indeterminate gender, objective or possessive his/her has been difficult to sell.  Yet, textbooks, more than oral communication, seem to be bent on pushing the awkward nominative s/he. 

These verbs are the equivalents of "the devil made me do it."  I remember when we as young students looked at these disasters as opportunities to use the passive voice like, "I was forced to ----.  But I have to admit using your causative verbs with disguised infinitives (to, omitted) have some elegance that could tempt glib talkers to spew. 

“Sandra gets out of the car, catches up with the boy, and says, ‘You said you were going to the gym. Well, the gym is closed. Tell me, Mike, why were you going to the gym?’

Somehow, I felt so certain "were" is the thing to say. She informed him that the gym is closed.  Thus, she reasonably assumed Mike is no longer going to the gym. 

Am I that far off here?   

Publishers usually have editors and proofreaders who review the form and substance of the drafts of books slated to be published.  Of late, however, books not only in English (science, history, etc.) have escaped the scrutiny of such critical reviewers.

Maybe, necessary ERRATA should be published for known adopters of the book at the expense of the publishers and the authors who earned royalties from such books.  For these ERRATA, there should be royalties to those who uncovered the errors and submitted corrections or positive recommendations.

I am proud of Mr. Pacquiao as a world champion and a real pride of the Philippines.  He succeeded in his attempt in search of excellence in his preferred vocation or calling. 

As an elected official, he needs to communicate with various constituencies.  If his advisors really care much about him and his communication, they would advise him to use the language (communication tool) that serves him best, a Pilipino language or two or more, since there are many Pilipino languages (Tagalog, one of the Visayan languages, Ilocano, Bicolano, Pampagueno, etc. and to not use a foreign language.

After all, as he has shown excellence in boxing, why should he not show excellence in communication in his preferred native tongue?


Concern-- as in "I am concerned." (adj. or past participle)
"It concerns me or them." (with an object)
"... a concerning factor." (gerund).  Although this sounds correct in form,
it is awkward for me.  I felt someone is not telling me the indirect object that
I am waiting for.  I prefer to say "disconcerting."

Similarly, for a modifier, instead of saying a worrying factor, I'd rather say, a worrisome factor.
Instead of saying an awing factor, I'd rather say, an awesome factor.

You Asked Me This Question / Re: uses of "me" and "I"
« on: December 19, 2010, 12:23:23 PM »
Sorry for late posting.  I have 3 points to make.

1) Lyricists with poetic license have written songs saying, "For you and I."  For sure, this adds to the confusion on uses of "me" and "I." 

It's easy to forget that for either nominative or objective case, the second person "you" is fine.  Yet for first person, nominative case is "I" and objective case is "me." 

2) It seems that while we traditionally use the first person in deference to others, present speakers no longer observe such courtesy.  Instead of saying "My friends and I" they do not mind saying, "I and my friends" and maybe to avoid using "I" at the beginning of a sentence, they say,  "Me and my friends."

3) It seems that the discussion on cavalierly vs. cavalier has become a bit lively and more.

I prefer your use of adverb over an adjective.  Between a person and an act, I'd rather criticize an act.  As Catholics should learn, we should hate sin but we pray for the sinner.

I want to thank you for reminders to join the forum.  I try to login as often as I can.  I enjoy your lessons and critiques and the enlightening contributions of forum participants.

My comment relates to "fiscalizer" as a Philippine invention. This is not the first. As a beginning accounting student of the 1950s, we had to give it to whoever introduced "routinary" (a multisyllabic form of routine) and "dation in payment" (English for dacion en pago or tender of payment. They sounded legitimate for the young learners because they could be a direct translation of Spanish terms. Students did not question the professors who introduced them to the words, but for some of us who always consulted the dictionary for "new" additions to our vocabulary, we beamed everytime a law professor or a lawyer uttered these terms and we treated him like a stand-up comic doing some malapropisms. Anyway, have these terms finally become part of educated English? Or, have they become professional jargon that has crept into good general usage? I have found it difficult to use these terms, so I just don't.

This is a special communication.  As an accountant who is so used to jargons in accounting and in management, I have learned to recognize the right of various professions to introduce concepts and stipulate meanings.  A profession, not an individual adopt certain concepts and co-professionals accept them but with deference to good usage and grammar. 

It seems that we are referring to a phrase that is really a part of "Legalese" that takes advantage of English.  It seems too that individuals and professionals should stick to the proper expressions like "to enter a guilty plea" or "the defendant/someone plead guilty" or "found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." 

I plead guilty for having clicked the wrong key when I posted in another section a comment on "routinary or rutinary" and "dation in payment"  while I intended to post my comment in the section relating to "fiscalizer" and also "guilty plea."

I am glad to hear such good news. It reminds me of the Polio Foundation, with its major goal to self-destruct.
In the late 1990s when I was there in the Philippines, I was an adviser to graduate students desiring to come up with special research projects relating to their major, namely Education.
Teaching high school English was their concentration. They had difficulty in getting started. As students, they did not learn to ask good questions about any subject that they need to study.
They indicated that they had instructions from their principal to do projects that would help improve instruction in their areas of specialization.
I suggested that they buy three broadsheets for a week—the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Philippine Star, and the Manila Bulletin. Read in full the stories in the front pages. Find and note the grammatical errors. That ought to help them identify certain areas of improvement in instruction of English for high school students.
Two of my advisees had real problems. They were high school teachers and they found no errors, while three of the better advisees found more than 50 errors in the same broadsheets that they examined. The errors related to (1) gender (“he”/“she”), confusion in relating a pronoun to a husband or a wife; mixing up “she” with “him”/“his” and mixing “he” with “her” in the same sentence/paragraph although referring to the same person; (2) number, confusion in mixing up the usage of “he” with “their”/“them,” “they” with “his”/“him,” and “it”/“he”/“she” with the plural form of verbs; and mixing up “they” and “them” with the singular form of verbs; (3) tenses, confusion in matching the verb forms that should go with “have,” the infinitives, and the passive/active voice; and (4) case, confusion mostly in the objective case.
Anyway, [it is good to know that] the broadsheets now seem to be only a minute part of the problem. The young people are now learning more from TV shows and are getting sold to the style of smart-looking Taglish speaking celebrities. It is amazing how fast the waves of change have influenced global usage and communication.
Soon enough Webster’s and Roget’s and Funk and Wagnalls will be made obsolete by Wowowee and Kris Aquino and the Rap Groups here in the USA.

Getting to Know English / Re: Simply to Get the Ball Rolling
« on: May 05, 2009, 10:18:46 PM »
Hi, Mr. Carillo,

Thank you for inviting me to this forum. 

I agree with and truly like your responses.  In regard to "told me" (with an indirect object) and "told to me" (with an object of the preposition), my desire to vary the expressions (with your correction), stems from the importance of knowing the seriousness of the message and the extent that the message had been subjected to translations and paraphrasing, before it reached me.  "Told to me" suggests a personal and purposeful communication more than "told me" in passing.  "Told the truth" is where we have a direct object.

Many problems in usage that I have seen suggest a need for the speaker to decide what to say more than grammar and usage.  I like your distinction between on behalf (agency) and in behalf (recipient of benefits).  I like your "putting in context" the selected expressions before presenting your suggestions.


Pages: [1]