Messages

1

My Media English Watch / Re: Two subject-verb disagreement errors in a row committed by noted columnist?

« on: January 04, 2012, 12:07:35 AM »

If you remove the word "each" from the phrase "Justice Antonio Carpio and Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno each have a dissenting opinion", it is not clear whether there were two separate dissenting opinions or there was one dissenting opinion which was prepared by the two justices.  To me, inserting the word "each" makes it succinctly clear that there were separate opinions.

2

My Media English Watch / Re: When media falls for or becomes acquiescent to PR gobbledygook

« on: September 05, 2011, 09:31:09 PM »

Hi, Joe!  I think there is still an error in the corrected sentence for the article about Bataan.  You gave the following as the corrected sentence:

“Bataeños and investors in the province are looking forward to cheaper electricity rates once the construction of the 600-megaWatt (mW) GN power plant is completed and made operational next year.”

The subject of the second verb phrase "made operational next year" is "construction", and if we remove the first verb phrase, the adverbial phrase becomes "... once the construction... is made operational next year."    But what will be operational is the power plant.  So I suggest the following as the corrected sentence:

“Bataeños and investors in the province are looking forward to cheaper electricity rates once the 600-megaWatt (mW) GN power plant is completed and made operational next year.”

Also, regarding the artice on Camiguin Island, the phrase "made a cleanliness drive" seems to be wrong.  Shouldn't the verb here be either "initiated" or "launched?"

3

My Media English Watch / Re: Let’s be firm on whether the name “Philippines” is singular or plural

« on: July 25, 2011, 11:46:40 PM »

Of course the name "Philippines" is singular.  Isn't the name "United States" singular as well?  The noun "Philippines" refers to a country - one country, therefore singular.  I don't see how it can be considered as plural.  People who think it's plural are simply misled by the the "s" at the end.  It's a proper noun, and it does not matter if it ends in an "s" or not. 

Also,  our country's full name is "Republic of the Philippines", and "Philippines" is our country's short name.  So if you substitute the full name for the nickname, then I think there will no longer be any arguments about the name being plural, "Republic" being clearly singular.

On the other hand, if you consider the name "United States of America", the noun is "States" which is described by the adjective "United" and the phrase "of America".  "States" is a plural noun.  But even then, nobody ever says "the United States are..."  One country, therefore singular.

4

Use and Misuse / Re: Use of "way back"

« on: July 18, 2011, 11:54:54 AM »

Hi, Joe,

I agree with you that using "way back" does add flavor to an exposition.  I noted your use of the phrase "way back" in your recent essay entitled Writing well in English no guarantee of speaking well in English.

In the last sentence in your post, part of which I quote here:

"... I wrote the essay below—rather harshly and dismissively, I regret to say—in my English-usage column in the Times way back in 2006."

I think you used "way back" correctly, in that the event (writing the essay) now seems like it happened ages ago to you because you now regret your dismissive and harsh tone.  There are still instances, however, where using "way back in" instead of simply "in" seems to me to be verbose.  I think using "way back" provides some kind of telescoping effect.  If I see that phrase, I expect to see somewhere in the sentence or paragraph immediately surrounding the phrase some reference or hint as to why the event is considered to be something which happened "from far in the past" or "from a much earlier time".  If there is no such reference, I feel like I am missing the point of why the writer used "way back".  In your sentence, as I said, the idea is complete because there is an element of regret.

5

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

« on: July 15, 2011, 09:52:11 PM »

Thanks, Joe, for going beyond the question, as always, and providing an analysis of the reason that Reuters made the mistake.  While the phrase "openly gay person" sounded right to me, I didn't realize until I read your analysis that this had to do with using "gay" as an adjective rather than as a noun.

6

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!

7

My Media English Watch / Re: Wage war against water hyacinths, not against water lilies in general

« on: July 12, 2011, 09:02:56 AM »

Yes, I agree that your revision removes any ambiguity.  I particularly like your point about the naughty grammarian.  Thanks!

8

My Media English Watch / Re: Wage war against water hyacinths, not against water lilies in general

« on: June 28, 2011, 09:24:43 AM »

Thank you very much for your clarification about water lilies and water hyacinths.  I like plants and flowers, and always try to find out what the "real" name is of a plant or flower.  I noticed that even the plant and flower vendors do not know the real names of the items they are selling - and I am not just talking about local vendors, but also about those in other countries which put the pictures and names of the items they are selling on their websites.  I've even seen books where one particular plant is classified under two different families, or where the author notes that a particular plant has now been reclassified under a different family.  That is as far as scientific names are concerned.  When it comes to common names, there are so many overlaps - one plant having many common names, or one name being attributed to many different kinds of plants.  There is a site that I've found useful, which gives the various common names as well as the scientific names of local plants.  Here is the page about the water lily, which is also called water lotus.  Tagalog names for it are "Labas" "Lauas" and "Pulau".  http://www.stuartxchange.com/Lauas.html.

On a separate matter altogether, regarding item 9 in your post, what do you say to the following revision of the sentence:  "While we were walking along the Mother Mary Joseph Hall at Miriam College last week, Dr. Victoria Apuan took me by the arm and brought me to her office."   The impression I had from reading the original sentence was that the author and Dr. Apuan were both walking along the hall, and then Dr. Apuan decided to take the author to her office to show her the picture on her computer.  Your revision gives me the impression that the author was walking alone and Dr. Apuan accosted her and brought her to her office. 

9

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..."? 

10

My Media English Watch / Re: Fused sentences are very serious and annoying grammar violations

« on: May 23, 2011, 07:08:44 AM »

Hi!  In item (5), in the sentence "Operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Friday swooped down a posh village in Pasig City and arrested at least eight foreign nationals allegedly being hunted by the Taiwanese government for alleged cyber crime.", there is a missing preposition.  The correct phrase is "swooped down on a posh village in Pasig City".

In today's issue of PDI, I came across a wrong preposition in the article A musical history of the evergreen university. 

The event is expected to draw some 3,000 alumni at the SMX Convention Center at the SM Mall of Asia Complex in Pasay City.

The first "at" should instead be "to" since the correct phrase is "draw to" and not "draw at".

11

My Media English Watch / Re: When religion makes undue intrusion into governance and news reporting

« on: February 21, 2011, 11:16:00 AM »

Yes!  Thanks for posting this.  I definitely share your views.  But first, a note on the semantics.  My personal awareness of the phrase "storm the heavens" came only in the last decade or so, but it seems that this had been around for at least half a century. I googled "storm the heavens" and came across this page http://bluepanjeet.net/2009/04/18/4474/storm-heavens-prayers-storm-novena/. It talks about a "Storm Novena" and reposts an article published in 1947.  The 1947 article cited passages from Luke from which it concluded that "Thus man has power over God."   So you are correct that the Inquirer's headline implies that God is being compelled to do something.  But I think the headline writer was just using a cliche and was not implying anything violent.  There are also “prayer warriors” and the proverbial “battle of good versus evil”.

More important than the semantics is the issue of going overboard about the three convicted Filipino drug mules.  As the highest official of the Philippine government, the President is expected to maintain a good sense of balance and dignity.  The statement attributed to him, which did sound as if he was calling on us to avert a doomsday scenario, as you so aptly described it, seemed to be, well, unhinged.  His excuse could be the fever that he suffered from at the time the statement was published, but did his whole communication staff also have fever at that time?  It certainly seems as if they were struck by a religious fervor (do “fever” and “fervor” share a common origin?) that led them to the overly dramatic and overtly Catholic rhetoric.

Probably his communication staff was reacting to the media’s hype over the three convicted Filipinos.  Well, someone told me that media is business, so since hyping this issue seems to be good business, we can understand why media insists on giving it more than its reasonable share of coverage.  But the presidential communications staff should stop thinking like media people and start thinking like statesmen.  They should give the Office of the President its dignity and grace.  I hope there will be no more statements of this kind in the future.

12

Essays by Joe Carillo / Re: The bare infinitive solution to some intractable sentence constructions

« on: February 07, 2011, 11:59:42 PM »

I noted this phrase in your essay above:  "take note that Sentence 2 also works properly and sounds perfectly."  I would have said "... sounds perfect", since the verb "sounds" in this phrase is a linking verb. 

13

Badly Written, Badly Spoken / Re: Inscrutable English of a foreword to a college magazine in India

« on: January 28, 2011, 11:07:43 PM »

I see that no one has taken up the challenge of translating this to something which can be understood at first reading, so I will give it a try.  Step one is a literal translation: substituting the weird words and phrases with understandable words or phrases, but retaining the general style of the sentences.

Dear Readers,

We are proud to say that this College Annual Magazine is a product of the hard work of qualified people.

It is an announcement that our college has a collection of versatile people who have clear ideas about prevalent issues in society.  We believe that our readers will be invigorated after reading these articles, which deal closely with sensitive and unique ideas.

The Editorial Board thanks the members for their meritorious and sincere effort in bringing this Magazine out.  We also thank Management for their encouragement and cooperation toward the successful completion of this annual book. 

Once again we bow our heads in recognition of Management’s untiring effort to uplift the condition of the college staff and to continue the progress of our college.

We also thank M/s Edison Printers for their good and prompt service.

Having understood what they are trying to say, we can then attempt to rewrite it in a better style, but still retaining all of the ideas expressed above.

Dear Readers,

We are proud to present to you this College Annual Magazine. 

This is a collection of views on prevalent issues in our society, which are examined with sensitive and unique perspectives.  We hope that you will find these articles interesting and that these will move you to take further action.

We wish to thank the contributors and magazine staff for their hard work and dedication.

We also thank the school administration for their encouragement and support toward the successful completion of this magazine.  We take this opportunity to acknowledge their untiring effort toward the betterment of the college staff and the continuing progress of our school.

Lastly, we thank M/s Edison Printers for their excellent work.

14

My Media English Watch / Re: Apostrophes

« on: January 26, 2011, 07:12:34 AM »

Thanks for the reply.  I found another misuse of the apostrophe in one of the Inquirer's frontpage news stories today.  In the following sentence from the article "Killer’s gun traced to ex-governor’s aide",

Amurao said Lesias had told investigators that he had passed the gun to another Reyes’ aide, Arturo “Noynoy” Regalado.,

there should be no apostrophe after the word Reyes. 

The proofreader or writer probably thought that the word Reyes is possessive and so he added an apostrophe.  I think an apostrophe would be required if the phrase had been "to another of Reyes' aides".  However, in the sentence quoted above an apostrophe should not be used and the correct phrase is "to another Reyes aide".  I know this to be a correct analysis but I could not figure out the explanation.  Can you help?

15

Use and Misuse / Re: Are 'persons with disabilities' better than 'disabled persons'?

« on: January 25, 2011, 08:13:09 PM »

This is off-topic in a way, but I would just like to point out two errors in the following sentence:

"In the term “disabled persons,” the adjective “disabled” modifies the noun “persons,” thus conveying the idea that in each case, the disability applies to the “person” as whole and not just to a particular sense or part of the body; the incapacitation is such that the person can’t fend off for himself or herself."

1.  The article "a" is missing before the word "whole" in the phrase "applies to the “person” as whole ".  The correct phrase is "applies to the “person” as a whole".

2.  The word "off" should not be in the phrase "the person can’t fend off for himself or herself".  To "fend off" means to prevent from happening.  Also, it is a transitive verb (or should I say verb clause?) and requires an object. The correct phrase is "the person can’t fend for himself or herself".   

Which brings an interesting question to mind.  I googled the word "off" and I understand that it can be a preposition, as well as an adjective, or even a verb.  In the phrase "fend off", is "off" a preposition?  I think it is.  Please confirm or correct.  Thanks!