Topics

1

Use and Misuse / "Openly" and "Testimonies provided for"

« on: July 15, 2011, 10:11:37 AM »

I came across this lead sentence in a GMAnews online report (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/226345/world/us-govt-appeals-court-order-on-gays-in-military):

SAN FRANCISCO - The Obama administration asked a U.S. appeals court to reconsider an order that requires the immediate end to a policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, according to a court filing.

From reading just this sentence, one would be tempted to ask - but can gays and lesbians serve in a more discrete manner, such as by being undercover agents or informants?   Of course we know that what the writer meant to say was that openly gay and openly lesbian (is there such a term?) persons were prevented from serving in the US military prior to the reversal of that policy.

Would this rewrite be correct, and if not, how would you rewrite the above sentence?

The Obama administration asked a U.S. appeals court to reconsider an order that requires the immediate end to a policy preventing openly gay and openly lesbian persons from serving in the military, according to a court filing.

I also watched a Malacanang news conference about Zaldy Ampatuan last July 13 where Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda kept saying "...testimonies provided for in court".  Where the testimonies the beneficiaries of some largesse from the court?  To "provide for" means to give someone what they need (e. g. Usually, a father provides for his family.) or to include a provision for, as in a law or regulation (e. g. The RH bill provides for mandatory sex education.)  He should not have included the preposition "for" and just said "testimonies provided in court".

Thanks!

2

Use and Misuse / Use of "way back"

« on: June 06, 2011, 06:54:14 PM »

I often see the phrase "Way back in 19xx..."  and I cringe because I think the writer should have just said "In 19xx..."  For me, a person who uses "way back" in this manner sounds verbose.  And, for some reason, I always associate this term with people who were one generation older than me, those who grew up and were educated during the American time. 

The following sentence from Rotting fish due to fish-kills: another food for thought By Dr. Flor Lacanilao is what set me thinking about this:

"Way back in 1961-1964, when there were no fishpens in the Lake, the annual catch of small fishers there was 80,000-82,000 tons."

Does the use of "way back" here give any added value, or should the writer have said "From 1961 to 1964, when there were..."? 

3

My Media English Watch / Apostrophes

« on: January 24, 2011, 08:40:09 AM »

I am again unsure about this since I came across this error in today's column by Conrado de Quiros, whose writing I admire greatly even though I do not always agree with his sentiments.  I would appreciate if you can confirm or correct my observation.

De Quiros wrote: 

"The DOJ-NBI point to the New People’s Army, the families and friends of the victims point to the military, the latter having the word of the survivors’ themselves to go by. Co and company, they say, did not die in an encounter, they were rubbed out."

I think the use of the apostrophe in the word "survivors'" is wrong.  The apostrophe denotes possession;  however, the preposition "of" already provides this.  If the phrase had been "... the survivors' word" then the apostrophe is required.  However, for the phrase "the word of the survivors'", the apostrophe is redundant.