Appropriate adjective and adverb

All applications are subject to the bank’s final decision, at its absolute discretion. The bank shall be entitled to reject any such application(s) at any time and from time to time without reason(s) assigning therefore and without liability to the Applicants.

The above two adjoining sentences have been picked up from a bank’s website. Anyone carefully reading them will find that the participle “assigning” and the adverb “therefore” do not appear to have been appropriately used in the second sentence. The former should have been “assigned” and the latter, “therefor”.

Hence, the second sentence should read, “The bank shall be entitled to reject any such application(s) at any time and from time to time without reason(s) assigned therefor and without liability to the Applicants.”

Subject /verb disagreement

When one constructs any sentence with its subject placed far away from its verb, one must be careful to ensure that the subject and the verb must agree.

Just check the following sentence and see if anything is wrong with the sentence taken from a column in a popular national English daily.

Blaming your parents and showing them your foul moods and tantrums just shows your immaturity and imbecility.

'Blaming' and 'showing' are two verbal nouns (gerunds) which are joined by 'and'.

Since the rules of grammar require that subjects joined by 'and' be matched with plural verbs, the sentence in question should have been "Blaming your parents and showing them your foul moods and tantrums just show your immaturity and imbecility."

Awkward sentences?

A businessman, his wife and two children had come onboard at 1.20pm yesterday and were congratulated by the captain.

While fares are no doubt cheaper, it is actually subsided by the number of people who bought tickets way in advance because they are cheap.


The above sentences appear in two separate news reports of a popular national English daily.

In the first sentence, an act (come) is said to have been completed at a given time (1.20pm yesterday) in the past and that has necessitated the use of a simple past tense instead of a past perfect tense. Consequently, the sentence should have been "A businessman, his wife and two children came onboard at 1.20pm yesterday and were congratulated by the captain."

In the second sentence, the word 'subsided' should apparently be 'subsidized' and the 'it' should be 'they' to be consistent. The whole sentence, therefore, should have been "While fares are no doubt cheaper, they are actually subsidized by the number of people who bought tickets way in advance because they are cheap."

A conjunction is required to join two sentences (or clauses) together

In the movie, the wizard reacts to the scarecrow's desire for a brain by explaining that the brain is actually a very mediocre commodity every living creature has one.

The above sentence is taken from an article published by a popular national English daily.

I call it a sentence because it begins with a capital letter and ends with a full stop. However, if one carefully examines it, one will discover that it actually contains two sentences (or two noun clauses) that need to be joined together by means of a conjunction.

Hence, the sentence in question should have been "In the movie, the wizard reacts to the scarecrow's desire for a brain by explaining that the brain is actually a very mediocre commodity and every living creature has one. "

“Been” for “being”

The sentence below is taken from a letter written by apparently a medical doctor and published by a popular English daily.

It is the experience of many private physicians that often such patients are afraid to return the excess or unused medicine for fear of been penalised.

Obviously “for fear of been penalised” should have been “for fear of being penalised”.

Such anomaly seems to occur quite frequently apart from this and those other cases mentioned in my earlier posting herein on February 4, 2008.

Noun/pronoun disagreement and ambiguity

Malaysian durians are expected to sell like hot cakes compared with the ones from Thailand due to its tasty flesh.

The above sentence is taken from a news item in a popular national English daily.

The possessive pronoun 'its' refers to the durians and can stand for Malaysian or Thailand ones though syntax favours the former. Here lies the ambiguity apart from the incongruent matching of a plural noun with a singular pronoun.

Besides, the above use of 'due to' (regarded as an adjective phrase) is stated to be incorrect in the older editions of Oxford Concise Dictionary.

The sentence in question can be recast into a more appropriate one as "Malaysian durians are expected to sell like hot cakes compared with those from Thailand owing to the former's tasty flesh.

The ever-confusing "Who/Whom"

So you say to people who you think you may have injured, 'I'm sorry,' and then you say to yourself, 'I'm sorry.'

The above sentence is taken from an e-mail which I have received recently.

Here, the 'who' appears to be inappropriate. It should represent the people you may have injured and 'injured' is a transitive verb that takes an object.

As the relative pronoun 'who' (in the subjective case) should be in the objective case, the sentence should have been: So you say to people whom you think you may have injured, 'I'm sorry,' and then you say to yourself, 'I'm sorry.'

The clause 'you think' is a parenthetical clause/parenthesis which can be set off by commas and it has no grammatical relations in the sentence.

Noun/Verb Disagreement

With the growth of online shopping over the past few years, the demand of online payment methods have visibly grew.

I have found the above sentence in an English daily.

The subject of the sentence is 'demand' which requires to be accompanied by a singular verb, but it has been matched by a plural verb which is in the present perfect tense. The 'grew' should be in the past participle.

Hence, the sentence in question should have been in either of the following versions:-

"With the growth of online shopping over the past few years, the demand of online payment methods has visibly grown." or "With the growth of online shopping over the past few years, online payment methods have visibly grown."

Correct use of phrases

Entering Form Four, if one chose to study in the Science stream, it was as good as studying in an English school because General Mathematics, Additional Mathematics, General Science, Pure Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology were taught in English.

"Entering Form Four" in the above sentence (which is taken from an article of a popular national English daily) can be a noun phrase or an adjective phrase.

If it is a noun phrase, the phrase has rendered the following preparatory pronoun 'it' redundant; but if it is an adjective phrase, this participial phrase appears to qualify the said pronoun 'it' making its description out of place.

To be grammatically sound, the sentence needs to be reworded as "If one entering Form Four chose to study in the Science stream, it was as good as studying in an English school because General Mathematics, Additional Mathematics, General Science, Pure Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology were taught in English."

Of course, it can also be "If one chose to study in the Science stream when entering Form Four, it was as good as studying in an English school because General Mathematics, Additional Mathematics, General Science, Pure Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology were taught in English."

For participial phrases, please see my earlier posting of December 21, 2009.

Adverb to modify adjective

Personal Internet Banking will be temporary unavailable on
10 April, 2011 from 5:00am - 7:00am.

I have come across the above notice from a bank's website.

We need to use an 'adverb' to modify an 'adjective' to make the latter's description clearer.

The aforesaid notice should have been worded as "Personal Internet Banking will be temporarily unavailable on 10 April, 2011 from 5:00am - 7:00am.

The noun 'bacteria' is plural

Friendly bacteria in the gut helps confer many health benefits.

The above sentence appears in an article of a popular English daily.

It looks like a heading created by a sub-editor/editor of the newspaper.

In the write-up, the word 'bacteria' is used many times - sometimes accompanied by a singular verb and sometimes a plural one.

A reference to an online dictionary reveals that the said word is a plural noun and its singular is 'bacterium'.

Hence, the sentence in the first paragraph above should have been "Friendly bacteria in the gut help confer many health benefits"; and of course, all singular finite verbs used in the article should be replaced by plural ones.

The confusing "Who/Whom"

We are working to determine who it belongs to.

The above sentence is taken from a news item in a popular English daily.

The 'who' in the sentence does not appear to be grammatically correct and this will become more noticeable if the sentence is rewritten as "We are working to determine it belongs to who."

Obviously, 'who' (which is in the subjective case) cannot be used there. We need a 'whom' (which is in the objective case) to be the object of the preposition 'to' and hence, the sentence should have been "We are working to determine whom it belongs to."

The use of 'who/whom' has confused many writers including experienced ones.

For a simple guide on how to use 'who/whom', please see my earlier postings of February 5, 2011 and September 28, 2009.

Use of Present Perfect Tense against its Rule

In my last posting of March 25, 2011, a common mistake was mentioned therein.

Another frequent error committed by writers appears in the following sentence found in a news item dated March 28, 2011 of the same popular English daily.

THE last European principal of the prestigious Penang Free School here, J.M.B, Hughes has passed away at his home in United Kingdom on March 16, five days after his beloved wife Jean passed away on March 11.

The present perfect can give a starting time or an amount of time only if we use the words 'since' and 'for'.

Hence, the sentence in question should have been written as "THE last European principal of the prestigious Penang Free School here, J.M.B, Hughes passed away at his home in United Kingdom on March 16, five days after his beloved wife Jean passed away on March 11."

Inconsistencies in Sentence

THE world has been gripped by the unfolding crisis in the northeast of Japan where an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe has killed lives, damaged property and now threaten to sour sentiment and confidence in the world's third-largest economy.


The above sentence is the first paragraph of an article in a popular English daily.

Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe appear to have been treated by the writer as one event/occurrence/disaster which has killed lives, damaged property. The writer has followed with the use of a plural verb 'threaten'. How inconsistent is the treatment of the subject/s of these verbs?

To be grammatically sound, such sentence should have been "THE world has been gripped by the unfolding crisis in the northeast of Japan where an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe have killed lives, damaged property and now threaten to sour sentiment and confidence in the world's third-largest economy."


This a very common pitfall for writers who write long sentences unless they exercise extreme care.

Who/Whom

Schenecker's mother had called police from Texas because she was unable to reach the 50-year-old woman, whom she said was depressed and had been complaining about her children.

For God’s sake, let Bi-Anne decide who she wants to be with.

The above two sentences are taken from newspapers in a tragic news item about a mother killing her teen boy and daughter for the first sentence and in a hot issue attracting different views from readers about a custody battle of a girl in a divorce case for the second one.

The ‘whom’ used in the first sentence should have been ‘who’ as this ‘who’ is the subject in the state of being depressed and doer of the action of complaining mentioned later in the sentence while "she said" is merely a parenthetical clause having no grammatical function.

‘Whom’ (in the objective case) can be used if the sentence is reworded as “Schenecker's mother had called police from Texas because she was unable to reach the 50-year-old woman, whom she described to be depressed and to have been complaining about her children.”

However, in the second sentence, the ‘who’ should be replaced by ‘whom’ being the objective noun governed by the preposition ‘with’.

For the correct use of such relative pronouns, please refer to the simple guide contained in my earlier posting of September 28, 2009, When to use who, whom.

Informal use of 'plus'

Enjoy 20% savings on buffet lunch or dinner plus get a complimentary plate of Yee Sang worth RM40 with our Credit Card.

I have seen the above advertising message in a newspaper, and I have brought it up here because I have noticed a non-standard usage of the ‘plus’.

‘Plus’ is normally used as a noun or a preposition or an adjective. In the above case, it is used as a conjunction which is regarded as informal.

The sentence can be improved with just a slight change as “Enjoy 20% savings on buffet lunch or dinner plus a complimentary plate of Yee Sang worth RM40 with our Credit Card” (that is deleting the word ‘get’ and then ‘plus’ will become a preposition) or “Enjoy 20% savings on buffet lunch or dinner and get a complimentary plate of Yee Sang worth RM40 with our Credit Card” (that is replacing ‘plus’ with ‘and’ which is a proper conjunction).

Ambiguity/Correct position of the Modifier

While I was reading news on the online version of a popular national English daily the other day, my attention was caught specially by the following headline of a news item:-

Tens of prisoners shot in Tunisia jail escape

Such heading immediately led me to think, "There are tens of prisoners shot in Tunisia jail but they escape."

After I had gone through the news in full, I realized that was not the intended meaning. The gist is in the word 'escape' which was treated as a verb in my earlier interpretation.

The writer has used it as a noun in the intended meaning. Of course, the ambiguity can be done away with if the modifier is placed in front: In Tunisia jail escape tens of prisoners shot.

This is the main reason that to avoid ambiguity, modifiers must be placed in their correct positions in any phrases/clauses/sentences.

The Past Perfect Tense is used instead of the correct Present Perfect Tense

The past perfect (pluperfect) tense can be seen to be used to describe the earlier action or occurrence in a sentence where two actions or occurrences in the past are stated.

This is not so in the case of the following sentence found in the section highlighting the various sections that are contained in a particular issue of a popular national English daily.

We should all learn from the past, and 2010 had offered us a few lessons where health is concerned.

However, in the particular section itself the correct version appears therein.

We should all learn from the past, and 2010 has offered us a few lessons where health is concerned.

The mistake in the earlier version could be just a typesetting error or a mistake subsequently corrected by the editor.