Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10

Site Announcements / Playlist Update (December 2 - 8, 2023) of Jose Carillo Forum’s Facebook Gateway

« Last post by Joe Carillo on December 07, 2023, 11:28:13 AM »

PLAYLIST UPDATE FOR DECEMBER 2 - 8, 2023 OF JOSE CARILLO ENGLISH FORUM’S FACEBOOK GATEWAY

Simply click the web links to the 15 featured English grammar refreshers and general interest stories this week along with selected postings published in the Forum in previous years:

1. Getting to Know English Better: “Dealing decisively with the ‘who’ versus ‘whom’ conundrum”

2. Essay by Jose Carillo: “The genesis of corporatese”

IMAGE CREDIT: LINKEDIN.COM

3. You Asked Me This Question: “How litotes and the double negative differ”

4. English Use and Misuse: “A recurrent misuse of ‘between’ when setting a range”

5. English Use and Misuse: “Techniques for gender-free or gender-neutral writing” by Gerry Galacio, Forum Contributor

6. Getting to Know English: “How the two types of English determiners work"

7. Readings in Language Retrospective: “Charming take on writers as not-so-great conversationalists"

8. My Media English Watch Retrospective: “How ‘right of reply’ differs from ‘right to reply’”

9. Language Humor At Its Finest: “30 famous thoughts by astute minds”

10. Education and Teaching Opinion: “A lot of hot air” by Antonio Calipjo Go, Forum Contributor

11. Your Thoughts Exactly: “Warmth of chilly December" by Maximo Tumbali, Forum Member and Contributor

12. Time Out From English Grammar: “Measuring up to the human body’s perfection in architectural terms”

13. Readings in Language Retrospective:: “Bracing nuggets of wisdom about the writing process”

14. Message from the Forum Lounge: “Once again, how to say 'Merry Christmas!' in 75 of the world’s languages”

15. A Forum Lounge Retrospective: “A kid’s view of the Christmas Story” (Video on YouTube)

Click this link to earlier Playdate features!

Visit Jose Carillo's Blogspot on the English Language

Getting to Know English / Dealing decisively with the “who” versus “whom” conundrum

« Last post by Joe Carillo on December 06, 2023, 05:35:22 PM »

At about this time in 2014, a Forum member called my attention to this sentence in a newspaper feature article: “I remember a memorable experience in the 1970s with my paternal grandmother, a feisty devout Buddhist living in Davao who I frequently visited.”

He then posed these two questions: “Is the use of the subjective ‘who’ in the sentence above correct or acceptable? Or should the objective ‘whom’ be used instead?”

To start with, I told the Forum member that prescriptive grammarians condemn the use of the subjective “who” in that sentence construction and would demand adamantly that it be replaced with the objective “whom.” Personally, though, I find this demand ill-advised because it makes the sentence sound too formal, too stilted, and too stuffy: “I remember a memorable experience in the 1970s with my paternal grandmother, a feisty devout Buddhist living in Davao whom I frequently visited.”

So what do we do to avoid this “who”/“whom” impasse? We can attempt a mild rewrite that uses neither “who” nor “whom” that knocks off the phrase “living in Davao” but retains the sense and tonality intended of the original:: “I remember a memorable experience in the 1970s with my paternal grandmother, a feisty devout Buddhist I frequently visited in Davao.” The aspect of the subject’s “living in Davao” is lost in that reconstruction, of course, but I think it’s a small price to pay for skirting the “who” vs. “whom” conundrum while nicely streamlining the sentence.

But then why should we go to such lengths when presented with the choice between “who” and “whom”? It’s because aside from being highly debatable, the use of either “who” or “whom” is often too problematic from both the style and language register standpoints.

The grammatically unassailable “whom,” which is the true objective-case form of “who,” just doesn’t sound right to the modern ear; in many cases, in fact, “whom” imbues an unwanted pedantic, standoffish academic tone to what should be a simple conversational statement. On the other hand, using “who” instead often gives us with the uncomfortable feeling that something’s not right with the sentence.

On the very day that I was writing my reply to the “who”/“whom” question, a Harvard Magazine mailer providentially landed on my mailbox. It had this very timely advertorial question: “Whom Will You Honor This Mother’s Day?” That interrogative construction is actually one of the few iffy “whom” usages that I can tolerate without getting overpowered by the itch to replace it with “who,” but frankly, I’d be more comfortable and at peace with that message if it had used “who” instead: “Who Will You Honor This Mother’s Day?”

Other than total reconstruction, there are actually two ways of avoiding “whom” in an icky sentences like this: “The salesman whom we hired for the new product is doing a terrific job.” One is to drop the relative pronoun altogether as in this elliptical construction: “The salesman we hired for the new product is doing a terrific job.” The other is to use the relative pronoun “that” instead: “The salesman that we hired for the new product is doing a terrific job.”

Personally, I wouldn’t hesitate to use “that” in such cases. After all, early English actually used words related to “that” to mark relative clauses, and used “who” and “whom” only as question words and as indefinite pronouns in such constructions as “I wonder who were at the hunt.” Indeed, it was only because of the strong influence of Latin on written English in the 1800s that led to the “highbrow” use of “who” and “whom” as relative pronouns.

These days, however, many native English speakers are rediscovering the grammatical virtue of “that” as an all-purpose relative pronoun. I do think that even nonnative English speakers these days can follow suit with very little danger of being marked as uneducated yokels.

Read this essay and listen to its voice recording in The Manila Times:
Dealing decisively with the “who” versus “whom” conundrum

(Next: The genesis of corporatese) December 14, 2023

Visit Jose Carillo’s English Forum, http://josecarilloforum.com. You can follow me on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) and e-mail me at j8carillo@yahoo.com.

Education and Teaching / Opinion: A Lot of Hot Air

« Last post by Joe Carillo on December 02, 2023, 10:57:48 AM »

A Lot of Hot Air
By Antonio Calipjo Go

The Department of Education’s pilot implementation of its “revised and recalibrated” Matatag Curriculum started last September 25 in 35 public schools from seven regions of the country. The Alliance of Concerned Teachers has appealed to the DepEd to stop implementing what in its estimation is “a premature and experimental program that would only treat the students of the arbitrarily selected public schools as nothing more than guinea pigs, as the process of revision of the former curriculum did not undergo an open, democratic, and genuine consultation with education stakeholders.”

In the National Capital Region, only five public schools in Malabon were selected. Is this not discriminatory, given that the students of these schools will have no choice but to serve as laboratory rats to test whether the new curriculum will work or not? Why were public schools in the more sophisticated cities of Manila, Makati, and Quezon not included in the pilot test? As a parent, how would you feel if it was your child who will be used in an experimental and exploratory excursion into something that has never been tried and tested?

Jocelyn Andaya, director of the Bureau of Curriculum Development, even had the temerity to boast that “The introduction of the new curriculum is a significant milestone in transforming the Philippine basic education system. We decongested and reduced the number of learning competencies from 11,738 to only 3,664, for a reduction of 70%.” This means that the Matatag Curriculum will be teaching only 30% of what students are supposed to be learning!

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the DepEd implemented the curriculum that it called “The Most Essential Learning Competencies” in response to the challenges and restrictions of conducting online classes in the public schools. The number of learning competencies in the MELC was reduced from 14,171 to 5,689.

In-person classes in public schools started in November 2022. What then is the logic behind the decision to now reduce the learning competencies from 11,738 to just 3,664? When you take away 70% of what students are supposed to take up, what is left for public school teachers to teach? What will be left for public school students to learn? Paano naging “matatag” ang isang bagay na ampaw at walang laman? Ang hungkag ay hindi matatag! (What’s empty and weak is not stable and strong!)

How can the DepEd now say that its reckless and irresponsible act of spaying, neutering, and castrating the curriculum is an onward, forward, and progressive development? The new curriculum practically ensures that more public school students need not learn as much as before or as much as they ought to in order to pass on to the next higher grade level. This will only exacerbate the dead-serious problem of mass promotion in the public schools and we will only be promoting and graduating more and more least-deserving students as the years go by, in effect producing progressively weaker and weaker breeds of Filipinos who, having been miseducated and maleducated, are therefore subnormal, substandard, and subpar.

“Intensified Values and Peace Education” is highly touted by the DepEd as being the focus of its new Matatag Curriculum and yet, pronouncements coming from Education Secretary Sara Duterte belie these otherwise noble intentions. She herself admitted that her Department, using the Php150 million confidential funds allotted to her as Education Secretary, had been monitoring its own personnel, students, teachers and educators in connection with the purported recruitment activities of the New People’s Army in public elementary and secondary schools.

She justifies her actions by saying that “Whoever opposes my confidential funds is opposed to peace. Whoever is opposed to peace is an enemy of the people.” She must be forgetting that people still remember how, when she was still the Mayor of Davao City in 2011, she punched and pummeled a court sheriff who was only implementing a court order to demolish houses in a disputed property.

During an interview with his “spiritual” adviser Apollo Quiboloy on the SMNI television network, Secretary Sara Duterte’s father, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, threatened the life of a sitting lawmaker of Congress, ACT Teachers Representative France Castro, by saying: “The first target of Inday Sara’s intelligence fund would be you, France (Castro). I want to kill all you communists!” Last October 10, he publicly admitted that he spent his own intelligence funds to carry out extrajudicial killings in Davao City when he was still its Mayor.

You will not find a more unpeaceful, quarrelsome, hostile, and antagonistic pair of public officials like this father-and-daughter team anywhere else in the world. I shudder to think about what values Sara Duterte’s Matatag Curriculum will be promoting and propagating to educate our children! In the end, who will answer for the long-term damage and harm this hasty and haphazard policy of the DepEd will do to our children and our nation?

The DepEd should instead focus on addressing the Learning Crisis that currently grips the entire country by (1) stopping the practice of mass promotion in public schools; (2) making sure that public elementary school students are able to read and understand simple English words and sentences before they graduate in Grade 6; and (3) serving as role models to the children of this nation by living lives that show, reflect, and highlight the values of goodness, kindness, benevolence, and compassion.

This commentary was provided by Mr. Antonio Calipjo Go to the Forum, to a Philippine daily newspaper, and to several other recipients in reaction to the Department of Education’s pilot implementation starting last September 25 of its revised and recalibrated Matatag Curriculum Mr. Go, a retired academic supervisor of the Marian School of Quezon City, is an advocate of good English usage who has been waging a crusade against badly written English-language textbooks in the Philippines for many years now. Several of his no-nonsense critiques and personal essays have appeared in the Forum over the years.

Use and Misuse / Techniques for gender-free or gender-neutral writing

« Last post by Gerry T. Galacio on December 01, 2023, 06:43:24 AM »

A. Introduction: traditional writing, gender-neutral or gender-inclusive language, gender-free language, singular they

Traditional writing uses masculine pronouns like "he" or "his" to refer to both men and women.

"Gender-neutral" language, on the other hand, uses "he or she," "his or her," "he/she," "his/her," "she or he," "her or his," "she/he," "her/his," or the "singular they." Another term for gender-neutral language is "gender-inclusive language."

Most Filipinos are not aware that "they" or "their" can be singular. Bryan A. Garner, author of "Garner’s Modern American Usage" says that "singular they" has existed in the English language as early as the Book of Proverbs of the Old Testament. Garner cautions, however, that if you work for an office or organization that doesn't know about "singular they," don't use it because people might think that you're illiterate.

The British Columbia Securities Commission advocates the use of "gender-free" language (Plain Language Style Guide, 2008). The BCSC explains that the occasional use of “he or she” and other gender-neutral terms may be non-intrusive, but their repetitive use distracts and annoys readers.

IMAGE CREDIT: GALLUP NEWS

Achieve gender-free language by making the subject plural

B. Example from the Plain Language Style Guide (2008)of the British Columbia Securities Commission:

Traditional use of masculine pronoun:

The borrower who is not prompt in making the payments due under his mortgage risks losing his home through a foreclosure procedure.

Gender-neutral language ("his or her"):

The borrower who is not prompt in making the payments due under his or her mortgage risks losing his or her home through a foreclosure procedure.

Gender-free language (by making the subject plural):

Borrowers who are not prompt in making the payments due under their mortgages risk losing their homes through foreclosure procedures.

C. Richard Lauchman, in his free PDF (A Handbook for Writers in the U.S. Federal Government), provides six ways to cut "his," "his/her," "his/hers," "his or her," "s/he":

1. Cut “his/her,” “his or her” from the sentence, if possible.

Original sentence:

Every writer must use his/her good judgment.

Rewritten:

Every writer must use good judgment.

2. Use "you."

Original sentence:

"Each researcher must bring his/her driver's license or other photo identification."

Rewritten:

You must bring your driver's license or other photo identification.

3. Make the first term plural, and then use "their."

Original sentence:

Each researcher must bring his/her driver's license or other photo identification.

Rewritten:

All researchers must bring their driver's license or other photo identification.

4. Use an article ("a," "an," or "the").

Original sentence:

Each researcher must bring his/her driver’s license or other photo identification.

Rewritten:

Each researcher must bring a driver’s license or other photo identification.

5. Write a passive construction.

Original sentence:

Each researcher must bring his/her driver’s license or other photo identification.

Rewritten:

A driver’s license or other photo identification is required.

6. In a lengthy document, you can use "he" and "she" interchangeably.

D. UN Guidelines for gender-inclusive language in English at https://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml with self-paced exercise in PDF format at https://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/assets/pdf/EN-Toolbox-Apply-the-guidelines-to-a-text_(self-paced).pdf

Topics discussed in the UN Guidelines are:

1. Use non-discriminatory language

1.1 Forms of address
1.2 Avoid gender-biased expressions or expressions that reinforce gender stereotypes

2. Make gender visible when it is relevant for communication

2.1 Using feminine and masculine pronouns
2.2 Using two different words

3. Do not make gender visible when it is not relevant for communication

3.1 Use gender-neutral words
3.2 Using plural pronouns/adjectives
3.3 Use the pronoun one
3.4 Use the relative pronoun who
3.5 Use a plural antecedent
3.6 Omit the gendered word
3.7 Use the passive voice

E. "Avoiding Sexism in Legal Writing — The Pronoun Problem" by Matthew Salzwedel:

Garner says that legal writers can simply avoid the pronoun problem by:

Deleting the pronoun. For example, instead of writing "No one can be elected to be a judge after he has reached the age of 65," a writer can say "No one can be elected to be a judge after the age of 65."

Changing the pronoun to an article like a(n) or the. For example, instead of writing "The attorney must file his brief by the deadline," a writer can say "The attorney must file the brief by the deadline."

Pluralizing the sentence so that he becomes they.

Site Announcements / Playlist Update (Nov. 25-Dec. 1, 2023) of Jose Carillo Forum’s Facebook Gateway

« Last post by Joe Carillo on November 29, 2023, 07:38:11 PM »

PLAYLIST UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 25 - DECEMBER 1, 2023 OF JOSE CARILLO ENGLISH FORUM’S FACEBOOK GATEWAY

Simply click the web links to the 14 featured English grammar refreshers and general interest stories this week along with selected postings published in the Forum in previous years:

1. Getting to Know English: “Is your ‘were’ in the indicative or subjunctive mood?”

2. Essay by Jose Carillo: “The language of business”

IMAGE CREDIT: LINKEDIN.COM

3. You Asked Me This Question: “The strange grammar of ‘need’ as modal auxiliary”

4. Badly Written, Badly Spoken: “Thrown off by the highly officious and bureaucratic ‘regards’ idioms”

5. Advice and Dissent Retrospective: “Can religion be computer-coded so it can be acceptable to all of humanity?"

6. Students’ Sounding Board: “Dropping the introductory word ‘that’ in indirect speech”

7. Education and Teaching: “Constructing a story, writing a house” by Antonio Calipjo Go, Forum Contributor

8. Notable Works by Our Very Own: “Tales of the longest-staying Malacañang resident except for one”

9. Language Humor at its Finest: “24 boggling imponderables to think through”

10. Time Out From English Grammar: “Bill Gates funds developer of feed additive that reduces cow burps and farts”

11. Your Thoughts Exactly: “Some tangled tropes that annoy me” by Isabel Escoda, Forum Contributor

12. The Forum Lounge: Parenting Letter: “Dear Mama and Papa,” contributed by Justine A., Forum Member

13. Your Thoughts Exactly: “Friendships chiseled so deeply in our mind,” contributed by Angel Casillan, Forum Member

14. A Forum Lounge Retrospective: Video -- “The Beauty of Pollination,” contributed by Angel Casillan, Forum Member

Click this link to earlier Playdate features!

Visit Jose Carillo's Blogspot on the English Language

Use and Misuse / Senate and House bills on Plain Language/Plain English (19th Congress)

« Last post by Gerry T. Galacio on November 29, 2023, 07:05:18 PM »

A. What is Plain English?

From Professor Robert Eagleson, Australia at https://www.plainlanguage.gov/about/definitions/short-definition/

"Plain English is clear, straightforward expression, using only as many words as are necessary. It is language that avoids obscurity, inflated vocabulary and convoluted sentence construction. It is not baby talk, nor is it a simplified version of the English language. Writers of plain English let their audience concentrate on the message instead of being distracted by complicated language. They make sure that their audience understands the message easily."

B. Terms synonymous with Plain English

The term "Plain English" is used in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. In other countries such as the USA, the term used is either "Plain Language" or "Plain Writing" because it includes languages other than English. In the European Commission (executive arm of the European Union), the term used is "Clear Writing."

C. Clarity, not brevity, the goal of Plain Language/Plain English

Whether Plain English, Plain Language, Plain Writing, or Clear Writing, the goal is clarity for public communications of government offices and of business organizations. Whether government regulations, commercial contracts, medical waiver forms, all of these must be written in such a way that ordinary readers can make sense of them.

For people who might say that law is a technical field and that legal documents can only be written precisely through traditional legal language, consider the following:

1. Several years ago, all the US Federal Rules of Court were restyled using Plain Language guidelines.

2. Since 1984, the Michigan State Bar has been advocating for the use of Plain English in legal documents.

3. The National University of Singapore Law School uses as its textbook "Plain English for Lawyers" by Richard Wydick.

4. In 2010, the "Plain Writing Act" was enacted in the USA, requiring federal agencies to write "clear government communication that the public can understand and use."

For more information, please watch "Demand to Understand: How Plain Language Makes Life Simpler | Deborah Bosley | TEDxCharlotte" at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OXcLwlZOE1s

D. The International Standards Organization (ISO) published its Plain Language Standard last July. The ISO says:

"This document establishes governing principles and guidelines for developing plain language documents. The guidelines detail how the principles are interpreted and applied.

"This document is for anybody who creates or helps create documents. The widest use of plain language is for documents that are intended for the general public. However, it is also applicable, for example, to technical writing, legislative drafting or using controlled languages.

"This document applies to most, if not all, written languages, but it provides examples only in English."

E. History of Plain Language bills filed in the Philippines

1. As early as the 14th Congress, (2007 to 2010) several bills were filed in the Senate and the House of Representatives seeking to require the use of Plain Language in government communications. There were also Plain Language bills filed in the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Congress. Sadly, however, not one of these bills went beyond the committee level.

The late Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is probably the first legislator to introduce a Plain Language bill in the Philippines. During the 14th Congress (2007-2010), she introduced SBN 3138 "Plain Language Act" and SBN 3503 "Plain Language in Health Insurance Act."

During his three terms in the House of Representatives, Rep. Rene Relampagos (1st District, Bohol) filed several Plain Language bills.

2. For the 19th Congress (2022-2025), there are two Senate bills and three House bills that seek to require the use of Plain Language in government communications.

Senate bills:

(a) SBN-273: Plain Language in Government Documents Act

"An Act Requiring the Use of Plain Language in All Government-Issued Public Advisories, Notices, Announcements and Similar Documents Intended for Public Dissemination and Distribution"

Filed on July 11, 2022 by Sens. Manuel "Lito" Lapid and Joel Villanueva; http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3801235340!.pdf

"This bill seeks to require all national government agencies, offices, instrumentalities, including government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs), to adopt the use of plain language in English, Filipino and/or other regional languages or dialects in all government-issued public advisories, notices, announcements and similar documents intended for public dissemination and distribution."

(b) SBN-714: Plain Writing for Public Service Act

"An Act Enhancing Citizens' Access to Government Information and Services by Requiring All Government Documents to Be Written in Plain Language and If Necessary, Translated to Local Language or Dialect"

Filed on July 18, 2022 by Sen. Grace Poe; https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3840134856!.pdf

"An informed citizenry is vital to nation building. If people know and understand laws, rules and regulations they are empowered to make informed decisions. To this, the government must take an active role in making sure that it communicates information that people can easily understand and comprehend. The use of plain language and the translation to local language or dialect improves the citizen's access to government information and service."

Note:

Sen. Grace Poe filed Plain Language bills as early as the 16th Congress.

House bills:

(a) HB05418: Plain Language for Public Service Act

"An Act To Enhance Citizens' Access to Government Information and Services by Establishing a System in which Government Documents Issued To the Public must be Written in Plain Language and Translated to the Local Language or Dialects, if necessary, and for other purposes"

Filed by Rep. Patrick Michael Vargas; https://hrep-website.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/legisdocs/basic_19/HB05418.pdf

"The strength of a nation is determined by how well-informed its general public is. People who are equipped with the right knowledge through a transparent government are better capable of making decisions as they are aware of and comprehend the laws, rules, and regulations.

"In many government agencies however, communications are not always as comprehensible to ordinary citizens who so mostly deserve to understand and use the information.

"Often, instructions and guidelines are written in a language that they
are not fluent in leading to delay and additional cost when transacting with the government.

"This bill seeks to address this communication problem by proposing a measure that will ensure that public or government communications, especially those in written form, are easily understood by its end-users."

(b) HB05465: Plain Language in Government Documents Act

"An Act Requiring the Use of Plain Language in All Government-Issued Public Advisories, Notices, Announcements and Similar Documents Intended for Public Dissemination and Distribution"

Filed by Rep. Ernesto "Ernix" Dionisio Jr.; https://hrep-website.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/legisdocs/basic_19/HB05465.pdf

"The government should aspire to make itself more accessible to the citizenry. To achieve this, communication between the former and the latter must be in general terms, unless the situation requires the use of more technical words. However, the government must ensure that relevant information reaches the masses lest it alienates them from vital knowledge."

"To ensure the widest accessibility, clarity and easy understanding of public information, all national government agencies, offices, instrumentalities, including government-owned and-controlled corporations (GOCCS), are hereby mandated to adopt the use of plain language in English, Filipino and/or other regional languages or dialects, as may be deemed necessary, for all covered documents."

Note:

Rep. Ernesto "Ernix" Dionisio Jr. mentions "communication between the former and the latter must be in general terms, unless the situation requires the use of more technical words." Bryan A. Garner, the editor of the authoritative Black's Law Dictionary, says that there are less than 200 terms of art ("technical words") in law.

(c) HB09158: Communication and Language Effectiveness for Accessible and Responsive (CLEAR) Government Act

"An Act to Enhance Citizens' Access to Government Information and Services by Requiring All Government Offices to Adopt Plain Language in All its Written Communications to the Public, and for other purposes"

Filed by Reps. Lani Mercado-Revilla, Bryan Revilla, and Jolo Ramon Revilla III; https://hrep-website.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/legisdocs/basic_19/HB09158.pdf

"In pursuit of effective public engagement and understanding, all government offices shall adopt the use of plain language in English, Filipino and/or other regional languages or dialects, as may be deemed necessary."

Note:

HB09158 is inspired by the US "Plain Writing Act of 2010."

Getting to Know English / Is your “were” in the indicative or subjunctive mood?

« Last post by Joe Carillo on November 29, 2023, 03:17:25 PM »

It won’t be surprising at all if this basic grammar question still stumps not just a few English writers and speakers among us: “How do you know if a sentence that uses ‘were’ is indicative or subjunctive?” I say this because this happens to be a very-often asked reader’s question in the almost 21 years that I’ve been writing this column.

So let’s demystify this usage again by doing a quick refresher of the uses of “were,” which of course is the familiar past-tense form of the linking verb “be” in the third-person plural. In “The villagers were happy,” for example, “be” takes the form “were” because “villagers”—the subject—is in the third-person plural and the action is in the past tense. But when the subject is in the third-person singular “villager” and the action is in the present tense, “be” takes the normal form “is”: “The villager is happy.”)

Statements like “The villagers were happy” and “The villager is happy” are in the indicative mood, which in English is the mood for conveying the idea that a condition or act is an objective fact, an opinion, or the subject of a question. In such statements, the speaker is talking about real-world situations in a straightforward, truthful manner, and the linking verb “is” takes its normal inflections in all the tenses and obeys the subject-verb agreement rule.

The polar opposite of the indicative mood is the subjunctive mood, which conveys possibility, conditionality, or wishfulness rather than an objective fact or condition. The subjunctive is the mood in these sentences: “If I were the dean of that college, I would have fired that incompetent professor by now.” “They wish that their president were more circumspect in his pronouncements.”

In the first example above, note that “be” is in the plural past-tense form “were” although the subject is the singular first-person noun “I”; in the second, “be” is likewise in the plural past-tense form “were” although the subject is the singular third-person noun “president.”

This is the understandable baffling answer for why subjunctive mood sentences in English use “were.” Always keep in mind that in the subjunctive mood, regardless of the person and number of the subject, the linking verb “be” always takes the plural past-tense form “were” instead of “was” or “is.”

There are four grammatical situations that specifically need the subjunctive “were” rather than the indicative “was” or “is:”

1. When the sentence indicates a supposition or possibility. In “if”-clauses indicating a supposition or possibility, the subjunctive “were” is used regardless of whether the doer of the action is singular or plural: “If I were to accept that foreign assignment, I’d have to take my family with me.” “Many legislators would be indicted for graft if the Ombudsman were to apply the law regardless of their party affiliation.”

2. When expressing a desire or wishful attitude. In “that”-clauses that follow main clauses expressing a wish, the subjunctive “were” is used: “I wish (that) she were more amenable[/i] to a compromise.” “I wish (that) I were the class president.” The wish or desired outcome is neither a present reality nor a future certainty.

3. When describing the outcome of an unreal situation or idea that’s contrary to fact. Given a hypothetical state or outcome, the subjunctive “were” is used in expressing the condition that’s unreal or contrary-to-fact: “If its polar electromagnetic field were not there, Earth would be devastated by intense solar radiation.” Without “if,” such constructions can sometimes take an inverted syntax: “Were its polar electromagnetic field not there, Earth would be devastated by intense solar radiation.”

4. When expressing doubt about certain appearances or raising a question about an outcome. Statements that cast doubt on observed behavior or raise a question about a presumed outcome should take the subjunctive “were” form: “Rod acted as if he were the only knowledgeable newspaperman in town.”

I trust that after reading this column, the subjunctive “were” will no longer be an exasperating grammar puzzler to any English writer or speaker among us.

Read this essay and listen to its voice recording in The Manila Times:
Is your “were” in the indicative or subjunctive mood?

(Next: Dealing decisively with the “who” vs. “whom” conundrum) December 7, 2023

Visit Jose Carillo’s English Forum, http://josecarilloforum.com. You can follow me on Facebook and Twitter and e-mail me at j8carillo@yahoo.com.

Essays by Joe Carillo / The Language of Business

« Last post by Joe Carillo on November 27, 2023, 08:33:16 PM »

The Language of Business
By Jose A. Carillo

As someone who worked for many years in corporate communication, I am sometimes asked what language would be best for business. Is it that bewildering language called corporatese, which uses stilted and convoluted English like “It has come to the undersigned’s attention that…” or “Yours truly respectfully requests that immediate action be taken on the aforementioned matter”? I must admit that for a while I was so beguiled by such lofty language that I started using it myself. I began to think that to be believed, to be followed, and to get results, you must not write as you would talk. You must use language several notches higher and airier than the English of ordinary mortals. Corporatese was the language of authority, of distinction. You must learn it by heart to be effective, to climb quickly up the corporate ladder.

IMAGE CREDIT: LINKEDIN.COM

In time, however, it dawned on me that corporatese simply could not be the language of business. How could sensible people who want results use such an obtuse, roundabout language? I also discovered that corporatese had become the norm in many companies not because it made communication more effective, but because it had been handed down by generations of executives who did not know any better. So, if not corporatese, what business language then is better? My answer now is this: it all depends on who the audience is. Our language of choice should carefully consider the odd mixture of executives, managers, staff, and workers in an organization. Each of them brings a business language of his own into the organization. The accountant will talk accountese with fellow accountants, the lawyers will talk legalese, the researchers will talk researchese, and the marketing people will talk…well, how about calling it marketingese? The corporation on a typical day is, in fact, a Babel of the argot of every profession, occupation, or trade that finds it way into its fold.

This was the situation when one time, an accountant in the corporation I worked for jokingly threatened his associates, most of them also accountants, in these exact words in Tagalog: “Huwag kayong magluluko at isang journal entry lang, yari kayong lahat.” [“Don’t fool around with me because I could do you all in with just one journal entry.”] Of course, being a non-accountant and too ashamed to ask, it took me a long time to understand that line. You have to know accounting intimately to discover how deliciously malicious that remark is; I will not even attempt to explain it here, so better ask your own friendly accountant what it means.

The point I would like to make is that in that remark, we are up against deep jargon—that short-cut language of professionals and tradesmen to the highly specialized knowledge in their heads. If he didn’t use jargon, it probably would have taken my accountant-friend ten times longer to drive home his point, and the joke would have been lost.

In any case, I actually hated jargon because it was often my job to interpret it painstakingly in writing for lay readers. But soon I learned to tolerate it, especially when I discovered that it was actually the professional’s way of being brief, concise, and to the point when talking business. Also, I saw that when used solely within a circle of peers, jargon could actually be as harmless as the coded language we sometimes cultivate with very close friends.

IMAGE CREDIT: COMPANIESHOUSE.BLOG.GOV.UK

The problem with jargon arises only when professionals and managers habitually use it even when writing or talking to lay people. Then it becomes a serious communication stumbling block. You probably have heard and seen some of those jargon-struck executives guesting on TV or radio, so confident that they look and sound brilliant with their jargon, but actually befuddling us with every word they say. They are the same people who, back in their organizations, will write corporatese and highly technical memos and letters that need to be painstakingly deciphered word for word, phrase by phrase. They have become so immersed and comfortable with corporatese and jargon that they could not imagine that they have actually become dark harbingers of confusion.

These jargon-fanciers, of course, are unfortunate that they have not yet discovered one thing--that the most successful executives and managers are those who do not publicly use corporatese and who, outside their professional circles, shun jargon like the plague. These executives and managers are the better communicators because they know that the language of business should neither be stilted and obtuse nor technical, but one that, without having to be clarified, can be understood perfectly by most everyone. The language that meets all of these criteria is, of course, plain and simple English. It is the English that knows and respects its audience, no matter who they are. It is, in fact, the superior business language that we have been looking for all this time—not knowing that we already had it and had already been using it all along.

****

The above essay on the "The Language of Business" appears in Part III - "Usage and Style" of Jose Carillo's book English Plain and Simple: No-Nonsense Ways to Learn Today's Global Language (Third Updated Edition, 2023; 500 pages), copyright 2008 by the ManilaTimes Publishing Corp. The book is available at National Book Store and Facebook branches in key Philippine cities. For volume orders and overseas deliveries, send e-mail inquiring about pricing and bulk discounts to Manila Times Publishing Corp. at circulation@manilatimes.net, or call Tel. +63285245664 to 67 locals 117 and 222.

Education and Teaching / Constructing a Story, Writing a House

« Last post by Joe Carillo on November 25, 2023, 12:50:41 PM »

Constructing a Story, Writing a House
By Antonio Calipjo Go, Forum Contributor

Writing a story is like building a house.

Your central idea, your theme, is the foundation upon which you build. Your sundry thoughts and notions are your nouns, pronouns and verbs, the blocks of bricks and pieces of stones that, piece by piece, give form, body, volume and structure to the content of your piece, the substance of your writing.

IMAGE CREDIT: ISTOCKPHOTO

Your opening sentence is the door, the main entrance to your house. If what you’ve come up with is a good introductory sentence, if your porch is sunny and bright, people will be drawn to come visit, will want to take a look at what you have in store there. Your first statement should catch the attention of passersby, pique the curiosity of your readers and invite a connection with your visitors.

The component paragraphs are the rooms of your house and each should serve to create the final big picture of how your house will eventually look like and take on an identity of its own.

Everything must be in their proper place. You wouldn’t be placing your toilet or bathroom right after the entrance hall, would you? The foyer leads to the living room, then the dining area and then the kitchen. Your conjunctions are the stairs that lead ever inward and upward, the deeper you go into your narrative. The bedrooms are the inner sanctum of your house, repositories of the innermost workings of your mind, the most secret stirrings of your heart.

Your closing statement is the roof that finishes and completes the entire construction. It has to be robust and strong, able to withstand the elements while making something of a statement, so that people seeing it from afar will say: What a pretty place!

Then and only then should you embellish, after you’ve written down your most important thoughts. Then and only then may you summon your adjectives and adverbs and lay down the carpets, hang the curtains, put up the blue lights and the chandeliers, the windchimes and the mirrors.

And, if you’re still up to the job, install the garden, bring in the grass and the flowers. Send in the gargoyles, your idioms, your figures of speech.

Your house need not have seven gables. It need not be situated at some distant wuthering heights. It is what you have to say that matters, and how you express and articulate your message. Truthfulness and honesty are the foundations of a sturdy house, what makes a house a home. If you have nothing worth saying, zip it. Go build yourself a shack or a lean-to or anything the big bad wolf could easily huff and puff to smithereens in one go.

Wanting is a verb, an action word. If you have this hunger to share what you are thinking or feeling, record it before it goes away. Capture it, in permanent black and white, and freeze that memory, fossilize that dream, house that moment.
------------

This advice was the response of Mr. Antonio Calipjo Go to a student of his who had sent him this query: “How Can I Write a Good Story?” A retired academic supervisor of the Marian School of Quezon City, Mr. Go is an advocate of good English usage who has been waging a crusade against badly written English-language textbooks in the Philippines for many years now. Several of his no-nonsense critiques and personal essays have appeared in the Forum over the years.

Site Announcements / Playlist Update for November 18 - 24, 2023 of the Forum’s Facebook Gateway

« Last post by Joe Carillo on November 23, 2023, 06:45:19 PM »

PLAYLIST UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 18 - 24, 2023 OF THE FORUM’S FACEBOOK GATEWAY

Simply click the web links to the 14 featured English grammar refreshers and general interest stories this week along with selected postings published in the Forum in previous years:

1. Getting to Know English: “Still baffled when to use ‘can’ or ‘could’ and ‘will’ or ‘would’?”