|
How good is the English grammar in the mass media today? Is it
getting better or going from bad to worse?
Well, I think we should withhold judgment until
we’ve taken a close look at the grammar curiosities and crudities
below. I came across them during the past few weeks in the TV
network-Internet news feeds, in press releases of politicians, and
in the daily newspapers:
“Cebu is a known bailiwick of President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, and the inmates’ latest stunt wonders no one.”
(TV network-Internet news feed)
“[The senator] issued the statement in
response to the removal of the Philippines by the New York-based
Freedom House from its list of world democracies due to political
killings.” (Press release from a senator’s office)
“A report from Iglesia ni Cristo-run radio
dzEC said Tuesday that the victim had already submitted an affidavit
to the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas detailing how the
doctors and nurses ridiculed him in connection to his surgery.”
(TV network-Internet news feed)
“The television report said the owner of the
truck, Del Monte Movers, is now attending the needs of the
victims.” (TV network-Internet news feed)
“News photos showed the derailed train laying
at the bottom of a ditch, with rescuers removing passengers from a
carriage that had fallen onto its side.” (Foreign wire service
news story)
“As a young short story fellow at the UP
National Writers Workshop in Baguio a decade ago, the workshop
banner carried our batch’s official theme: Who do you write
for?” (Newspaper columnist)
Now, I want you to take a few moments to test
your own English grammar proficiency. Identify the grammar errors in
the sentences above and fix them, then compare your fixes with the
ones that I’ll be doing as we go along. Rate your grammar as
“needing major improvement” if you couldn’t figure out
what’s wrong with the sentences. However, if you found all of the
errors and your fix for each of them matches mine, rate yourself
“excellent.”
Let’s begin with the very curious first
sentence: “Cebu is a known bailiwick of President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo, and the inmates’ latest stunt wonders no one.”
What in heaven’s name is the verb
“wonders” doing in that sentence? It is being made to do an
action—“to be curious” or “to be in doubt about
something”—that can’t legitimately be done by the subject
noun, “stunt.” A “stunt,” a difficult feat requiring great
skill or daring, is incapable of doubting or of being curious; only
thinking humans can do that. “Wonders” is thus an outrageously
wrong verb choice.
In such situations, though, a “stunt” can do
this perfectly valid action: “to take somebody by surprise.” For
this, however, the appropriate verb is none other than the
transitive verb “surprise” itself. See what happens when we
replace “wonders” with “surprises”: “Cebu is a known
bailiwick of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and the inmates’
latest stunt surprises no one.”
But back to the verb “wonders.” Is there any
way we can validly use it in that sentence? Yes, but only if we can
provide a subject that can do the verb’s action in the
intransitive sense: “to be in a state of wonder” or “to feel
surprise.” This sentence does precisely that: “Cebu is a known
bailiwick of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, so no one wonders
about the inmates’ latest stunt.” This time, the noun “one”
legitimately performs the verb’s action. Being intransitive,
though, “wonders” can’t have an object or a receiver of its
action. What follows it is, in fact, not an object but a
prepositional phrase modifying the verb.
Of course, “wonder” can also work nicely as
a noun in such situations, as in this sentence: “Cebu is a known
bailiwick of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and the inmates’
latest stunt isn’t a wonder to anyone.” This was probably what
the writer meant to say.
j8carillo@yahoo.com
|
