Last week’s piece on “The 10 Most Irritating Pinoy Expressions in English” unleashed a torrent of responses, many of them contributions to a further listing of words and phrases that sound like fingernails on a blackboard. I’d clearly forgotten many more of these expressions, so let me take note of the choicest ones on my readers’ lists, as well as add a couple more of my own.
1. Actually, basically, honestly, as a matter of fact. Favorite opening lines, no matter what follows. I suspect that “actually” is the Pinoy’s translation of another phrase revered in showbiz, “sa totoo lang,” mouthing which is supposed to instantly enhance the truthfulness of one’s statement. “Basically” sounds more educated than “uhmmm” and “duhhh,” so it fills those gaps just nicely, like so much starch in a sausage. And don’t you just love it when someone says, “As a matter of fact…” followed by an opinion?
2. Stuffs, equipments, jewelries, evidences, baggages, luggages. Who said we didn’t know our grammar? Add “s” to form the plural, right?
3. As in, as if. These, to some Pinoys, are complete — albeit elliptical — sentences, as in “As in!” or “As if!” For the full explanation, grab someone below 25 off the street and torture him or her for the answer. That person will probably be dead before you’re satisfied.
4. “I want to be clarified.” Unless you happen to be a vat of syrup, fruit juice, butter, or petroleum, clarifying you will be difficult, even lethal. Some matters may need to be clarified, but not people, as dense or as confused as they may be.
5. “Like what you said….” What’s with the what? Like last week’s “wherein,” “what” has insinuated itself into our English in this very strange way: “As what the Golden Rule says, do unto others….” or “Independents can sometimes win, like what the last elections proved.” What? Not!
Not all Filipinisms are or should be annoying — although “annoying” depends on who’s getting annoyed. I don’t see myself ever using such words as “presidentiable” or “Imeldific,” but I can’t take them away from Filipinos for whom they’ve acquired a very clear and precise meaning. (My abhorrence for “multiawarded” stems from the crudeness of its construction, but I’m resigned to hearing it until I croak.)
We have as much a right to contribute to the ever-growing vocabulary and usage of English as other people who use the language. If we have to bend over backwards to understand what the British mean by “dressed to the nines” or what young Americans do when they “diss” someone, then it can’t be too much to expect them to figure out what we mean by “for a while” (which some of my readers roundly scored, but which I’ve come to appreciate for its certain charm).
Of course, things get tricky when we invent words, fully expecting others to understand and to accept them the way we do. Reader Peter Stitt suggested that “fiscalize” is Pinoy news-speak, and I had to Google the word to see that he was right (or nearly so — it’s used in an even larger sense by the Portuguese, who, asserts one article, have fiscals for everything, from college exams to food and drink and taxes).
If we banned the word “votation” — the ultimate solution to every argument in this country, next to knives and guns — no one would ever get elected, and nothing would ever get done (considering where “votation” has taken us, maybe that’s not too bad). And how can anyone tell the Aggrupation of Advocates for Environmental Protection (AGAP) or the Pagadian-based Baganian Aggrupation for Development (BAD) that they have no right to exist, because... there’s no such word? (Their defense will be to fall back on the precedent of the Concerned Citizens Aggrupation, which won many votes in Zamboanga in the early 1980s.)
As I’ve said in this corner many times before, the important thing is for those who use English to deal with the outside world to be aware of the difference between our English and theirs. Otherwise, whatever works, works. (And sometimes, English among the non-English can be marvelously mangled and crystal clear all at once, as when we were haggling with a seller of T-shirts in Shanghai last month and were told by the fat lady, “This one, that one, same-same!”)
How boring life would be if we all spoke like a BBC announcer (or, as they would say over there, “presenter”) or wrote like Henry James; tuxedos are silly when we should be wearing jeans. But to those for whom language is as important as clothing on the job, appropriateness is everything, and we should know when to put on that “grammar Nazi” helmet and when to let our hair down (or whatever’s left of it).
My friend and fellow English major Marlu Balmaceda wrote in to submit her pet peeve, which is the way “enjoin” is used by most people these days, as a synonym for “encourage” — “I enjoin you to support this project, etc.” Ernie Hizon of Unilab also disliked the word, reading it as so much corporate gobbledygook. Marlu’s objection came from the fact that “enjoin” originally meant the opposite: to prohibit (“I enjoin you from returning to these shores”).
“Enjoin” happens to be one of those words whose meanings have doubled or even reversed over time, so that today, curiously enough, it can mean both things, depending on the particular usage, although its older sense is largely forgotten. “Cleave,” “awful” and “fulsome” are three other such words. To cleave is to split something apart, but it also means to hold fast to something (“the ax cleaved the dry wood” but also “the child cleaved to its mother”); “awful” used to mean “awe-inspiring” in the reign of Henry VIII, but now means something considerably different; and “fulsome” doesn’t just mean “a lot,” but also — and more correctly, today — “excessive.”
Reader Jun Mongcopa enlightened (clarified?) me about the origins of the phrase “at this point in time, which he traces back to the early ’70s, when “every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane of an American speaker/lecturer visiting our country started using the phrase. There was an article in Time magazine about it and it would seem that the phrase was coined by a Harvard professor. Locally, by the mid-’70s, the phrase was picked up and popularized by the Asian Institute of Management. Every Juan, Tomas, and Maria who ever set foot upon the hallowed grounds of AIM, be it by attending lectures, seminars or taking up an MBA, had to use the phrase when asked to speak. It became the badge of distinction; when you used the phrase it meant you had some intellectual enlightenment from AIM, which was a really big deal at that time, AIM being touted as the Harvard of the Philippines and equally expensive as hell to enroll in.”
Durnit, I knew I missed something by not going to Harvard or AIM! Many thanks, Jun, and to all the others who sent in their contributions. I have a feeling we’re not done yet. I’ll get back to this topic one of these days —oh, I almost forgot another of your/our favorite expressions, the perfect way to end a Pinoy conversation: “Promise!”
* * *
 PENMAN By Butch Dalisay Philippine Star Updated January 05, 2009 12:00 AM |
Last November, the folks at Oxford University came out with a list of “top 10 irritating expressions” in the English language, by which I suppose they meant the English language as it’s employed in their corner of the English-speaking world, and not necessarily in what used to be the backwaters of the Bard’s dominion, in places like India and the Philippines. “Irritating” is, of course, a matter of cultural and personal predisposition. One man’s joke — such as the “Barack the Magic Negro” song that top Republicans passed among themselves — could be another man’s slur, and what annoys an American—such as a Pinoy texting in the middle of conversation — might be perfectly normal to the other fellow.
So the Oxford list might cause some of us to just go “Eh?”, but it’s always interesting to see what ticks off other people. Now let’s see which among the following words or phrases feels like a bug in your ear:
1. At the end of the day
2. Fairly unique
3. I personally
4. At this moment in time
5. With all due respect
6. Absolutely
7. It’s a nightmare
8. Shouldn’t of
9. 24/7
10. It’s not rocket science
Well, come now, that wasn’t too bad, was it? We hear these expressions hereabouts now and then, but not that often, so they don’t grate on us as they might with the English. For example, we hardly ever say, “It’s not rocket science,” because, well, we don’t have rocket science in this country. Indeed we have our own, uhm, fairly unique ways of putting things and of getting annoyed by them.
I’ve compiled my own list of irritating expressions in English as we Filipinos use the language among ourselves, with others, over the airwaves, in the office, in conferences, and in the papers. I’m sure you can add to this list — do send me your pet peeves — and this comes with the caveat that the annoyance may be entirely mine. If they don’t bother you, then don’t lose any sleep over them; Lord knows we suffer enough aggravations in this life and in this country without having to be upset by wrong or awkward prepositions.
(Speaking of which, a reader wrote in recently to say how he or she — there was no name in the email address — failed to appreciate whatever I was doing in my column-piece on getting a La-Z-Boy, because I had committed the grievous error of saying “in the mall” instead of “at the mall” in my first sentence. I said I agreed that “at the mall” was probably the preferred and “correct” form, but I also asked him/her to Google the whole phrase “in the mall” to see how it’s entered common usage. Language — unfortunately or otherwise — isn’t graven in stone like math, perhaps to the distress of ruler-toting schoolmarms; one billion people saying “1+1=3” isn’t going to make it so. But if enough people—including influential writers and editors in places like Newsweek and The New York Times — say “different than” instead of “different from,” which I’m sticking with only because it’s what I’ve been used to, then the language will change; it already has. This might as well be the place for me to remind readers that while I do teach English and while I deeply value and enjoy language as a writer, I don’t think of myself as a stickler for rules, as some would like me to be. I cringe at bad language and poor grammar, but there are far worse things in life to fret over, and some of the worst damage to English is being perpetrated by some fools in Congress who insist on an English-only policy when they can barely speak or write it. I once had to sit through a hearing where a congressman held forth on “the youngs, the youngs of this country!”)
But here’s my list of the 10 most irritating Pinoy expressions in English — irritating not necessarily because they’re wrong (although some are), but because they’re everywhere you look and listen.
1. “In fairness.” The most popular phrase in Pinoy showbiz, where fairness is apparently in great demand. Every time I hear this, my mind goes, “In fairness to whom or to what?”, but you never get to hear the other end of the phrase, so much so that you begin to suspect that the speaker really means “In fairness to me!”
2. “As far as.” I don’t mean “as far as the eye can see,” but “As far as accommodations, everything is already taken care of” (or, more likely in these parts, “taken cared of”) or “As far as Manny Pacquiao, either Hatton or Mayweather will be okay for his next fight.” As in the above, I keep looking for the missing “is (or are) concerned” after “as far as” — but it looks like that’s as far as most people will go.
3. “At this point in time,” the Pinoy version of “At this moment in time.” I can recall precisely when I began hearing this wondrously redundant expression over the airwaves — during the coverage of the 1986 EDSA revolt and its aftermath, from which point (in time?) it became a staple of reporters and broadcasters. Why not just say, “at this point” or “at this time” or the even more economical “today” or “now”?
4. “Remains to be.” Not in the sense of “It remains to be seen if Filipinos will finally vote for the right person,” but rather “The deposit remains to be unclaimed” or “This painter remains to be unappreciated by the critics.” “To be”? Not to be!
5. “Wherein.” I don’t know how this word crept into the vocabulary and overran the place, rather like the carnivore snail someone imported that ate up all the other garden creatures both good and bad, but you hear it everywhere, taking over where (or wherein?) the good old “where” (or, sometimes, the more precise “whereby”) should suffice. Hear this: “The house wherein the hero was born will be turned into a museum.” Want to have some fun? Google these two words together: “wherein” and “Philippines.” You’ll find choice examples like “He entered the University of the Philippines wherein he studied Medicine.”
6. “Demand for.” I’ve already written about this before, but obviously no one in government and corporate officialdom reads me, so we still have signs screaming “Demand for your receipt!”
7. “Literally.” Don’t people know that “literally” means, well, “literally”? I’ve heard people say “I’m so hungry I could literally eat a horse!” Really? I tried horsemeat once, in little nibbles—no, it didn’t taste like chicken — so I guess I could say “I literally ate horse,” but literally eating a horse will require hunger the size of Africa.
8. “Whatever.” You ask someone a perfectly good question you’ve taken minutes to compose, and that person shrugs her shoulders or rolls his eyes and says “Whateverrrr….” Don’t you just want to strangle that person on the spot?
9. “Wholistic/holistic.” First of all, just how do you spell this thing? Does it come with a W or not? The medical dictionary defines “holism” (no W) as “the conception of a man as a functioning whole. But then you have websites devoted to “The Wholistic Pet” and “Wholistic Health Solutions” (which, incidentally, sells the Home Colon Cleaning Kit). This word (with or without the W — whatever) seems to be one of those warm and fuzzy buzzwords that came in with New Age music, organic tomatoes, and NGOs. (I’ll talk about “stakeholders” some other day.)
10. “Multiawarded.” It’s No. 10 on this list, but it tops my list of Ugliest Frankenwords in the Universe. Of course, it’s popular because it does the job of saying “He (or she) has won not just one but many prizes!” Anyone should be happy to be multiawarded, and I should be honored that this word’s been often applied to me in introductions and such — but it isn’t false modesty at work when you see me wincing at the word. “Prizewinning” will do. Or, better yet, “many-splendored.” But that would no longer be me.
* * *
WHEN Congress resumes on Jan. 19, the House of Representatives is expected to be engulfed in a war of words—or languages—over the passage of House Bill 5619, the proposed Act Strengthening and Enhancing the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction. Authored by Cebu Rep. Eduardo Gullas, the bill seeks to junk the bilingual policy adopted by the old education department in 1974, during the Marcos era. The policy sought to make the “nation competent in the use of English and Filipino.” Gullas’ measure seeks “the reinstatement of English as medium of instruction” in Philippine basic education.
It is easy to sympathize with Gullas; apparently, there are many who are ruing the Filipinos’ loss of English proficiency and they blame this on the bilingual policy. But it is one thing to lament the loss of our English proficiency, and another to dictate that it be made the medium of instruction in our schools.
To be sure, the state should be in the business of looking for the best way to effectively transmit knowledge in its education system. But studies across the board show that the mother tongue is the best conveyor of instruction.
To some extent, the Gullas bill recognizes the above. It gives schools the option to use English, Filipino or the regional language as the teaching language from pre-school up to Grade 3. But from the intermediate grades up to high school, English will be the teaching language, except in Filipino as a course.
Just the same, the bill’s “English myopia” is hegemonic, and overlooks scientific evidence showing the mother tongue to be the best medium of instruction. For example, a study showed that non-native American children who were schooled for six years in their first language, before they were taught completely in English, scored in their Science and Mathematics—as well as English—tests higher than the average native English pupil. In contrast, non-native English students who began education completely in English learned the least English and scored lowest in their academic subjects.
All these findings should show that no science or reason propels the campaign for the reinstitution of English as instruction language in our schools—except for that uniquely Filipino science-—hiya or loss of face, the reverse of which is another uniquely Filipino science—yabang or conceit. Perhaps confronted by Melanie Marquez and other Philippine beauty queens and pretenders who, during question-and-answer portions, add to the rich vocabulary of English by their unwitting and very hilarious answers; and perhaps feeling guilty and embarrassed because their children speak their yaya’s “Barok” English, some lawmakers now like to efface the atrocious English around them, including their own, by mandating that everyone speak the King’s English. But this gesture is at best aristocratic pretension.
At the least, Gullas et al. are driven by other considerations in seeking to restore English, but these considerations hardly have anything to do with hastening learning or the absorption of lessons by our students. They may have more to do with their distaste of the Tagalog-based Filipino and their resistance to Manila imperialism. (Filipino promoters may protest that Filipino is democratic and is drawn from all the major regional languages, not just Tagalog, but they should recognize that the suspicion against it by the provinces remains widespread. In any case, even Filipino promoters quarrel among themselves on which word or coinage to incorporate in the new vocabulary, and their Babel-like quarrel may take another eon to resolve.)
Gullas et al. also want English proficiency because of the global scheme of things, such as the decided advantage of Filipino manpower abroad due to their English know-how and the relative prestige accorded to nations that speak English. But since Filipinos get the lower end of skills in global manpower, what level of English proficiency should they really have? To be sure, many Filipina maids abroad can speak English even better than their masters.
In the end, even if Filipinos had indeed reached the nadir of English proficiency, it has nothing to do with the bilingual policy or the rise of the regional languages. It has more to do with the poor system of instruction: defective textbooks, poor language instructionals, poor (or total lack of) facilities, incompetent teachers and education planners, corruption and mismanagement. We may have English as the sole medium of instruction at all levels of education, but the Filipinos will continue to speak and write the most dreadful English as long as the system of instruction keeps submitting a hideous report card.
Copyright 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
