|
I am sharing with readers this reaction of US-based
reader Jun Castor to my column last week:
Reading your most recent column,
I couldn’t help chuckling a wee bit as I imagined the Carillo
family collectively gritting their teeth as they fumed over the
participants’ uncharacteristic animations and use of tired
clichés in that TV debate you mentioned [ANC’s “Square Off”
student debates].
It seems obvious that if
those clichés are widely used [“at the end of the day” and
“at this point in time”], as you seem to imply from your
previous discussions of the subject, then everybody must find it
appropriate to use them. So, heck, why make a federal case out of
it? They’re powerful transitional phrases that some people find
very effective in hammering in their points as they punch in their
closing statement. In fact, even presidential aspirant Hilary
Clinton uses “at the end of the day” quite often in her campaign
speeches.
If it fits the occasion and
your conscience agrees with it, and you’re not breaking any law in
the process, then I say “wear it,” “show it,” “say it,”
“do it,” or “use it”—whatever the case may be. And it’s
probably not healthy for your children, especially the 14-year-old
one, to let them grow up getting so used to being too critical of
trivial matters, especially those that they don’t have any control
over. Teaching them the virtue of tolerance can help make them
better prepared to deal with the hard realities of life once you
turn them loose in the real world.
My reply:
You’re absolutely right about
my sons’ consternation about the bad body English and overuse of
clichés by some student debaters on ANC’s “Square Off.” Like
me, they expect something better from young Filipino speakers who,
having been chosen to debate on TV because of their facility with
the English language, are being presented as role models for other
young people all over the land. My two sons probably couldn’t care
less if those debaters were doing karate chops or overusing clichés
to death in some obscure campus auditorium or street corner, but on
nationwide network TV? We were not only gritting their teeth but
indignant as well. Tolerance is great but it must have its limits.
Also, a Filipino expatriate
working with the US Department of Energy but who identifies himself
simply as “King” sent me this e-mail:
As an avid fan of your column, I
have a question regarding the hyphenation of the term
“state-of-the-art.” Can you enlighten me on this subject? I am
stumped and wondering what the rules are in hyphenating such terms.
My reply:
The phrase “state of the art”
is either a noun or an adjective. It shouldn’t be hyphenated when
used as a noun, as in the following sentence: “When it comes to
technology, the state of the art is backward in that particular
country.” But it should be hyphenated when used as an adjective
before a noun or noun phrase, as in the following sentence: “They
use state-of-the-art technology in manufacturing.” It should also
be hyphenated when used as an adjective in the predicate of a
sentence: “Their manufacturing technology is state-of-the-art.”
We must make sure, though,
that the phrase isn’t hyphenated in sentences like the following:
“Backward is the state of the art of technology in that
country.” “She would grimace when describing the state of the
art of technology in that country.” It doesn’t need the hyphens
because in both cases, it’s working as a noun and not as an
adjective.
By the way, something
that’s “state-of-the-art” isn’t necessarily the most
advanced or latest procedure or technology. When we describe
something as “state-of-the-art,” it simply means that it’s on
a par with the level of development prevailing at a particular time,
usually as a result of modern methods. “State-of-the-art”
isn’t the same as “cutting-edge” or “revolutionary.”
|
