Balanced Construction

After reading this article Wayward letters on a popular English daily recently, I have written an e-mail to its editor about a sentence in such article being unsound grammatically.

The sentence in question reads, “Cordial relations between nations may be compromised, or worse,” and should have been written as “Cordial relations between nations may be compromised, or worsened.”

The writer has replied through the editor as follows:-

The reader has a point in wanting to see the said sentence having a balanced construction --- that the past participle "compromised" be balanced by the past participle "worsened". However, I see here the word "compromised" as a state or condition, balanced by the word "worse" indicating another state or condition --- one that is worse than compromised. Come to think of it, it would be awkward to say that a controversial blogger could be jailed or worsened.

He has raised a talking point which, together with my reply, could be printed under "Open Channel" --- so as to invite readers' comments.

I always read such articles from the online version of the newspaper and have not seen further comments therein from any other reader.

To me, the argument on blogger appears wayward as my contention is on relations; so I need to conclude here with one of Groucho Marx quotes/sayings, "I cannot say that I do not disagree with you."

Wrong tense and wrong word used

In June 1998, the government had hired a team of experts from all over the world to be gathered here for a research project to compliment the history studies that we undertook in our secondary school.

The above is a sentence extracted from an article circulated through email.

Note that "had hired" is in the past perfect or pluperfect tense which should not be used here as there is only one action done [vide my earlier posting on Monday, February 8, 2010 concerning The Past Perfect (Pluperfect) Tense] while "compliment" has the meaning of "to praise or congratulate" that obviously is not the intended meaning which needs to be expressed instead by the word "complement" having the meaning of "to complete".

Hence, the sentence should correctly be "In June 1998, the government hired a team of experts from all over the world to be gathered here for a research project to complement the history studies that we undertook in our secondary school."

'A couple' can take a singular or plural verb

Appearing in an online newspaper report is the sentence, "A couple who was reconciling their marriage was found dead in a hotel room."

'Couple' here is referring to two people, and like many other collective nouns, it may take either a singular or a plural verb though most commonly, it is construed as a plural.

The sentence in italics is taking it as a singular which is, however, not in harmony with the word 'reconciling' and the plural pronoun 'their'.

To be grammatically correct, the sentence needs to be recast as "A couple who were reconciling their marriage were found dead in a hotel room."

Simple sentences may cause problems

I first heard the explosion from my room at the hotel.

The above is the first sentence/paragraph in a news item of an online version of a national English daily.

The sentence is just a simple sentence, but it may not convey the meaning intended by the writer.

Owing to a misplaced modifier, the sentence is saying the writer first heard the explosion and the explosion was from the writer's room at the hotel.

After reading the whole story, any reader will know that the writer's intention should be "From my room at the hotel, I first heard the explosion."

Plural Nouns must be matched with Plural Verbs

Even if the company does not conduct any business or any transactions, its directors still have certain statutory duties to fulfil which includes filing the annual returns, and keeping proper accounts of the company.

The above sentence is taken from an article in the online version of a national English daily.

The sentence is ungrammatical in that it says "duties includes" matching a singular verb with a plural noun.

The sentence should have been - Even if the company does not conduct any business or any transactions, its directors still have certain statutory duties to fulfil which include filing the annual returns, and keeping proper accounts of the company.

Avoiding troublesome construction

A family of three was injured when their car collided with another car.

The above is a sentence quite commonly seen in newspapers.

'Family' can be regarded as singular when referred to as a group/unit. It can also be a plural noun when it is referring to members of the family.

The sentence in italics has a construction that treats 'family' as singular [as evidenced by the use of a singular (passive) verb 'was injured'] but as plural later with the use of a plural possessive adjective 'their'.

To avoid such irregularity, the sentence should have been A family of three were injured when their car collided with another car.

Options to correct inconsistencies

The Peacebuilding Support Office was established to assist the Peacebuilding Commission, administer the Peacebuilding Fund, and serve the Secretary-General in coordinating UN agencies in their peacebuilding efforts.

The above is a sentence taken from an article of an online newspaper.

Inconsistent verbs (singular and plural) are used with the same subject. For rectification, the sentence can be recast as "The Peacebuilding Support Office was established to assist the Peacebuilding Commission, administers the Peacebuilding Fund, and serves the Secretary-General in coordinating UN agencies in their peacebuilding efforts."

'The Peacebuilding Support Office' is obviously an organisation/a collection of individuals and can be followed by a plural verb/s. The complete predicate of the first part of the sentence can be converted into a participial phrase and the sentence will become grammatical: The Peacebuilding Support Office established to assist the Peacebuilding Commission, administer the Peacebuilding Fund, and serve the Secretary-General in coordinating UN agencies in their peacebuilding efforts.

Which is the better option then? The better choice will be the one that will not create further inconsistencies with other parts of the article.

Sentence with meaning to be guessed by Readers

Some two weeks ago, I was driving along Jalan Maharajalela when two men dressed in yellow t-shirts with the logo of an oil company on a motorcycle shouted at me to stop while pointing to my front left tyre.

The above sentence is taken from a reader's letter published by a national English daily.

The logo of an oil company is on t-shirts or on the motorcycle?

If it is the former (and it appears so), the sentence should be clearer when recast as "Some two weeks ago, I was driving along Jalan Maharajalela when two men on a motorcycle and dressed in yellow t-shirts with the logo of an oil company shouted at me to stop while pointing to my front left tyre. "

Sentences conveying the wrong sense

A powerful 6.4-magnitude earthquake rocked southern Taiwan on Thursday morning causing buildings to sway hundreds of kilometres to the north.

Buildings swayed as far north as the capital Taipei where the temblor has caused power outages.

The above are two sentences taken from two different reports of a recent earthquake in Taiwan by a same news agency as reported in an English daily.

Both the phrases (intended as adjective phrases) hundreds of kilometres to the north in the first sentence and as far north as the capital Taipei in the second appear to have been used as adverb phrases to modify the action verb sway. Any careful reader will know that this cannot be the case.

The two sentences should have been "A powerful 6.4-magnitude earthquake rocked southern Taiwan on Thursday morning causing buildings hundreds of kilometres to the north to sway." and "Buildings as far north as the capital Taipei where the temblor has caused power outages swayed." respectively.

Redundant words in sentences

Below are sentences taken from two model answers to an English test paper published by an English daily.

All in all, this novel has provided useful lessons for the benefit of readers.

One will see that if the words in bold are taken away, the meaning to the sentence will remain the same - All in all, this novel has provided useful lessons for readers.

From another model answer:

Bravery is shown when Robinson Crusoe fights and gets rid of the cannibals that comes to the island. He is indeed brave when he fought the cannibals to ensure his own safety.

One will realise that the singular verb 'comes' should be replaced by its plural equivalent and that there will be no change in meaning if the two sentences are combined into one with the words in bold left out: Bravery is shown when Robinson Crusoe fights and gets rid of the cannibals that come to the island to ensure his own safety.

Misplaced Modifier and Wrong Tense

Below is the first paragraph extracted from a full-page advertisement in an English daily.

15th Edition Le Tour de Langkawi 2010, Asia's premier cycling event, is back. With a new look inspiring change and a better future, Ministry of Youth and Sports promises Le Tour de Langkawi 2010 is going to be the best ever event been held.

Is the part highlighted in bold referring to/modifying the Ministry or the event? One will realise that the answer is the latter for all intents and purposes. The been is the past participle of 'be', the use of which must be accompanied by the auxillary verb 'have/having'. As such, the use of the present particle 'being' is more appropriate there.

Consequently to be grammatically correct, the sentence in question should be "15th Edition Le Tour de Langkawi 2010, Asia's premier cycling event, is back. With a new look inspiring change and a better future, Le Tour de Langkawi 2010 is promised by Ministry of Youth and Sports to be the best ever event being held." The dropping of 'going' (which is considered redundant) is to provide smooth reading to the sentence, the meaning of which remains the same despite such drop.

Ambiguity arises from the use of a possessive pronoun

Below is the first paragraph of a news item in an English daily.

A 3-year-old boy suffered burns on his left shoulder and right thigh when a neighbour allegedly threw hot water on him for playing behind his house in Taman Pasir Besar here.

The sentence is laden with ambiguity because of the use of the possessive pronoun (highlighted in bold) in the sentence. Is it referring to the boy or the neighbour (who is not known to be male or female up to this point)?

After reading the news fully, one is able to know that the neighbour is a man but it can only be logically inferred or assumed that the possessive pronoun in question is referring to the man.

The ambiguity could have been prevented if such first paragraph was written as " A 3-year-old boy suffered burns on his left shoulder and right thigh when a neighbour allegedly threw hot water on him for playing behind the neighbour's house in Taman Pasir Besar here."

Article with a grammatical error

Recently as I was reading an English daily, I came across an article (written by a doctor) which provided a smooth reading until I reached its penultimate paragraph.

Just one sentence was contained in that paragraph which read, "Perhaps the government's efforts to organise new gatherings is one such novel way of sustaining traditional practices."

The subject of the sentence is efforts which is a plural noun and which is erroneously matched with a singular verb is.

Hence, there is a need to amend the subject into a singular one to make the sentence grammatical: "Perhaps the government's effort to organise new gatherings is one such novel way of sustaining traditional practices."

Mind your own language

The above is the title/heading of an article written by a retired English teacher and published by The Star's Mind Our English column on February 5, 2010.

The writer is suggesting that someone in The Star look (should be 'looks') for flaws in the publication itself.

After reading the article, I have been thinking based on my personal experiences and come to the conclusion that such a suggestion will fall on deaf ears. I have on numerous occasions written in to point out grammatical mistakes in the publication. Some are published, some have answers directly sent to me and some are ignored.

The column is the result of a campaign launched in 2001 to promote the correct use of English; but one will see that quite a lot of articles nowadays published therein appear to teach/train its readers to be experts in the English language especially in etymology and pronunciation. How many of these articles are actually appreciated by readers?

Perhaps, the publication has thought that the column's original objective has been achieved; but judging from the aforesaid article, one will be able to perceive that this is far from it as can also be seen from another article Of goofs and gaffes.

The Past Perfect (Pluperfect) Tense

The above tense is invariably advised by any grammar guide to be used only to indicate the existence of some state/being or the happening/supposed completion/completion of some event/action earlier than or before another (all these being in the past).

However, I have observed that such tense (highlighted by me in bold) being inappropriately used in two sentences of two separate news items of an English daily today.

Road users have to turn away as constant pounding of the waves along the beach had caused a stretch of the costal road at Kampong Pantai Tok Jembai, Kuala Terengganu, to cave in.

Here, the past perfect (pluperfect) tense is used to describe one action only, and hence, the present perfect tense (has caused) is more appropriate as it depicts the present state which is turning away road users.

Almost nine in 10 American teenage girls say that they feel pressured by the fashion and media industries to be skinny and that an unrealistic, unattainable image of beauty had been created.

Here again, such tense (which is in the passive voice) is showing the creation of one action or thing (image) which is still prevailing in the feeling of nine in 10 American teenage girls - necessitating the use of the present perfect tense (has been created) instead.

Kengt, Penang, 03FEB10

Subject/verb agreement

While reading today's newspaper, I encounter the following sentence in the subheading of a news item:-

A cure for serious ailments with added benefits of smoother, flawless skin, slimmer figure and increased libido are just some false claims associated with traditional medicines.

The subject of the sentence is the part before the verb of incomplete predication 'are'. In fact, the subject is 'cure', the rest being its enlargement.

One will see that a singular noun 'cure' is being matched with a plural verb 'are' here. A correction is, therefore, necessary.

The 'are' can be replaced by its singular equivalent 'is', but the sentence will be awkward as this singular verb is having its complement represented by a plural noun 'claims'.

The logical way will be to change its subject into a plural one and the sentence will sound all right:

Cures for serious ailments with added benefits of smoother, flawless skin, slimmer figure and increased libido are just some false claims associated with traditional medicines.

Participles gone wrong

For a transitive verb, the past participle, with the relevant auxiliary verbs, yields the different verb forms in the passive voice (e.g. am/are/is seen, for the present continuous; was/were seen, for the past continuous; and shall be/will be seen, for the future continuous).

The above is extracted from the article Participles gone wrong (MOE January 1, 2010).

The examples of the different verb forms in the passive voice quoted therein should be the present simple, past simple and future simple and their "continuous" counterparts should be am being/are being/is being seen, was being/were being seen and shall be being/will be being seen respectively. All these can be confirmed in any English grammar website.

I have not received the required response to my above comments (after emailing them on January 2, 2010) from the editor in charge or the writer of the article.

Little clue

In line with my previous posting on October 19, 2009 (‘A few’ or ‘few’), I find the following headline in another national English daily (January 9, 2010) worth mentioning.

Hurt runs deep with little clue on missing girl.

From the news proper, readers would be able to perceive that the above adjective 'little' would mean 'hardly any'.

More about modifiers

Below are my comments (on an article of a newspaper) published by the newspaper together with the answers from the writer.


I REFER to the article Modifiers awry (MOE, Dec 18) and, in particular, to the statement that she found a seashell beautiful would be unacceptable. This was accompanied by an illustration with the caption: When ten years old, her mother had her ears pierced.

I would like to bring MOE readers’ attention to an extract from The Internet Grammar of English.

(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/index/index.htm):-

Inherent and Non-inherent Adjectives

Most attributive adjectives denote some attribute of the noun which they modify.

For instance, the phrase a red car may be said to denote a car which is red.

In fact most adjective-noun sequences such as this can be loosely reformulated in a similar way:

an old man ~ a man who is old

difficult questions ~ questions which are difficult

round glasses ~ glasses which are round

This applies equally to postpositive adjectives:

something understood ~ something which is understood

the people responsible ~ the people who are responsible

Now my question is ­– Why can’t beautiful in the sentence she found a seashell beautiful (especially if the noun is preceded by the definite article) be treated as being used postpositively to mean she found a seashell which was beautiful?

As for the picture (which could have been produced 30 or 40 years ago), why can’t the girl be some girl’s mother and consequently, can there be anything wrong with the sentence, “When ten years old, her mother had her ears pierced?” – Kengt, Penang

Kengt is quite right in his comments on my article. I have been rather careless in my example, viz. “She found a seashell beautiful”, which could mean “She found a seashell which was beautiful” but which, however, is a long-winded way to say “She found a beautiful seashell (with the usual adjective-noun order). Alternatively, the given example could mean “She found a seashell to be beautiful”, implying that she was seeing a seashell for the first time and that she found it to be a beautiful object – in which case the sentence would have been better constructed as in the alternative version. Perhaps I should have given a better example to illustrate my point, thus: “A seashell beautiful was found in her room”, with the adjective and the noun in reverse order – which is not generally acceptable except in poetry and in certain idiomatic expressions (which I indicated in my article).

Now to the topic of postpositive adjectives raised by Kengt. Yes, an old man = a man who is old, difficult questions = questions which are difficult, and round glasses = glasses which are round – but convert them into phrases with postpositive adjectives, rather than the equivalent adjective clause, and try fitting any of such phrases into an acceptable sentence. Convert, for example, difficult questions into questions difficult; and then consider whether the following sentences are equivalent or acceptable: Mutu attempted the difficult questions first = Mutu attempted first the questions which were difficult = Mutu attempted the questions difficult first.

As to the illustration, yes, there is nothing grammatically wrong with the caption which reads: “When ten years old, her mother had her ears pierced”, but the caption may be interpreted as either the mother or the daughter having had her ears pierced. There would, however, be no ambiguity if the sentence was read in context. Taken out of context (as in the illustration), the sentence was ambiguous, so that an “error alert” (or correction) was inserted in order to avoid any ambiguity. – Dr Lim Chin Lam, Penang

Even Editorial is not Error-Free Grammatically

Having been given this generous leeway, it is hoped that PTAs will take heed of the options suggested by Alimuddin.

The above is taken from a newspaper editorial (January 3).

We can see that 'Having been given this generous leeway' is modifying the 'it'. What is this 'it' then? In fact, the said modifier is modifying PTAs. That is to say PTAs are having the generous leeway.

Hence, the sentence is question should have been 'Having been given this generous leeway, PTAs, it is hoped, will take heed of the options suggested by Alimuddin' to be grammatically correct.