Sunday, January 29, 2006

English Vocabulary in the Philippines—A Private Peeve

Iknow, on an intellectual level, that English, like any language anywhere in the world, will evolve somehow depending on the local situation. Elizabethan English is different from modern English in that regard. It is with that acceptance that I hope that Tagalog can also evolve someday into something more useful and convenient for communication and instruction.

Still, I find that there are certain idiosyncrasies in the Pinoy dialect of English that I find very annoying. It is not to say that I don't approve of local modifications, because I do. Locally coined words (the word "Tambayan" for instance) enrich the vocabulary. But there are times when words are added to the vocabulary based on mistakes. Some of these mistakes are unintentional, but in others they are not only intentional but deliberate. Over the years I have come across a lot of these, but I will only mention two right now.


Iam quite sure the local meaning for the word "salvage" did not exist until at the very earliest the 70's. I am sure because I still remember when the word "salvage" was still used in its original meaning of either "to save" or "to redeem" when I was in early grade school. I still remember when teachers and visiting nuns would talk about salvaging an unruly student. Things, of course, changed because of People's Journal.

Well, People's Journal didn't use the word "salvage" to mean brutally murdered initially. But during the early to mid 80's brutal murders happened frequently enough that it made the news. These bodies were often disposed of in garbage dumps or in the river Pasig. So, whenever these bodies were recovered, the headlines will, of course, say "Dead man/woman/etc. was salvaged last night from Pasig/Smoky Mountain/etc."—"salvaged" here meaning that it was fished out and recovered by authorities. People say the same things when they "salvage" useable junk.

Now, it seems natural that Pinoys would make the association between the word "salvage" with "brutal murder". . . it is natural (even considering the fact that English teachers nationwide should have nipped this one at the bud). What annoys me most is that, by and large, Pinoys have forgotten how and why this happened and insists on silly explanations.

A few years back a major daily attempted to explain why we have a different meaning for "salvage." I read it with eagerness. At last, I said to myself, somebody can set it straight. Instead, I had several different implausible theories, the most plausible of which is that "salvage" is just our corruption of the word "savage." I can still remember the approximate wording of the explanation: "In America, when somebody wants to murder someone, they usually say 'Savage him!' and Pinoys [supposedly] merely added the 'l'." There are a number of problems with this explanation, the most obvious of which is that I have never heard of any American expression like that. Savage him indeed; "savage" means something else entirely in the USA, if I am not mistaken.

In the meantime, Pinoys continue to use the word with the local meaning. And we sound idiotic as a result. Nowhere else in the world does the phrase "salvage victim" mean victim of brutal murder. Even though Pinoys have since been briefed on its true meaning, we still use it. So what? some ask. How would we feel if some other culture used the word "iniibig kita" to mean "I want to rape you"? Normal word coinage (even gay lingo) does not bother me because I see that as legitimate word evolution. If we all gave private local meanings to foreign words, why even learn the words in the first place?


This other instance is a constant, almost weekly annoyance. For years, the proper term for somebody celebrating one's birthday was birthday celebrant, and it still is. However, in the last decade, Pinoys have decided that the proper term now is birthday celebrator, and every time I hear it mentioned, I gnash my teeth.

Of course, the word "celebrator" does exist in the English Language. It means "one who celebrates" so it should make sense that that is the right term, but it isn't. The celebrant is the person who is the reason for the celebration, and the celebrators are those who celebrate with that person. For instance, in a birthday party, there is the celebrant (celebrants in the case of multiple births or those with the same birthday) and the rest of those who actually sing "Happy Birthday to You" (and take the pictures, eat the food, the cake and the ice cream) are the celebrators—the people who celebrate with the celebrant.

Let me use another example which Pinoys, thankfully, never made any mistake on. In any school contest, those actually competing in the contest are called participants. Of course, those students who are not competing but should still "participate" in the school activity by watching the school contest are called participators. See? Makes sense here in this sense, why not in the sense of "celebration."

Yet almost nobody I met who has heard this explanation would rather still call the celebrant a celebrator instead. One person once remarked to me "Well, the TV personalities use it. So do reporters. So, it must be the right usage." This annoys me the most.


This is just two of many instances. But what connects all these instances is one very Pinoy trait which fuels all of this: the anong-paki-'mo attitude. I know that there are lots of exceptions in our country, but the usual impression I get when Pinoys justify errors, mistakes, cheating and any other objectionable or annoying stuff, they would also snap something like "mind your own business." Because of that, too many Pinoys would rather be mediocre than take the steps to "salvage" themselves in the eyes of many.

3 comments:

  1. Hey Jo!

    Took a look at your blog and noticed this little rant.

    You have to realize that language as you said is dynamic and that the way a particular culture uses a term doesn't necessary mean the users are inferior or stupid. Each culture has a different experience with language. In our case English is a colinial language that is adapted into the local dialect. If "salvage" is used as a term cfor brutallly murder" that's how it's used.

    The same way American use "sensei" to mean "martial arts teacher." It doesn't matter whether the martial art is Chinese, Korean or Filipino. Now martial arts enthusisasts amd experts know the difference between "sensei" and "sifu" or "guro" but the common American doesn't. That doesn't make them inferior. Ignorant maybe, but they really couldn't care less. Americans who are familiar with Japanese culture use "ninja" whether it's in the sigular or plural form. The layperson says "ninjas." It annoys me but that's the way it is in the mainstream lexicon.

    Filipinos use "samurai" to mean the sword. Wrong as heck but I've come to accept that even if I tell poeople that it's the wrong usage. Even Ronnie Ricketts, who must know the correct usage used "samurai" in the Pinoy sense. If they released a film internationally, then they'd better get it right.

    "Salvage" and the other terms you mentioned are part of the mainstream Filipino lexicon and as you termed it the Filipino English dialect. And that is precisely what it is: a dialect of English. And indeed, who cares what everyone else thinks? It's the dialect. That's how WE use it in OUR country. To heck with what our former colonial masters think. English is a global language. Even the Brits are annoyed at the way Americans have bastardized it but what can they do?

    An American professor friend of mne used "CR" in the States and had to explian that he had spent so much time in the Philippines when the other American professor didn't know what he meant.He had to adjust even in the use of English. Whenever he's here, he knows what "salvage" means.

    That's how "salvage" is used in the Philippines,like it or not. It doesn't make us mediocre. ALL colonized cultures have a creole form of language.

    Now if you are talking about STANDARD USAGE then it's a different story. If one is in the international scene, one must use standard Englsish and not use terms as they are used in the local context. But this applies to everyone. A New Yorker shouldn't use terms (like "schlep") that are not used in standard English. That person has to adjust the same way a Filipino has to adjust and not use "salvage" in the local sense.

    This is where your post is very useful to inform people but don't be quick to rant against Filipinos. Everyone does it. For the longest time, the Brits looked down on Aussie English. One must be open-minded enough to see that English is used differently all over the world. If our people are mediocre then so are the Aussies, Americans, Singaporaens and everyone else who doesn't use English "properly."

    Americans use "boondocks" to mean "rural area" which is of course wrong. But that's how they use it. I can tell them that it actually means "mountain" (and I have by the way in my Language and Culture class in the US). Now they know, but that won't stop them from using the "boonies" to mean rural area. But if they ever go to the Philippines and try to communicate with Filipinos then they better learn.

    The same is true with us. Use English in a particular context but learn how to adjust. I use salvage in the Pinoy way when I'm talking to friends and even colleagues but not to foreigners. At least not after I explain to them what the term means in Philippine context. Then THEY can adjust.

    Regarding the other terms such as "celebrant" and the others, I get annoyed too but that's how they're used. I tell my students the proper STANDARD USAGE so that whenever standard English is needed (like in a job interview and even the actual job itsef) then they should use the PROPER standard English usage.

    Right now, Americans are using adverbs less and less. "He did the job beautiful" or somethng like that. Does that make you cringe? Or "If I WAS a superhero, where would I hide?" That's how actors and media poeople use it so that must be right. Here again, your points are important but this applies to everyone. If there are people with the "walang paki" attitude it's the Americans. Are they mediocre?

    I can't expect New Yorkers to change their usage when I'm in New York but I would expect them to speak in standard English if we were in a setting other than New York. And even if they did use New York English I wouldn't think any less of them.

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hiya, sir! I'm glad you stopped by. I'm glad you read this post and you do raise some issues that bear some consideration. You are right, it was a rant and, before this post, it was a private peeve.

    I'm glad you noticed that I did say that I realize that language is dynamic and that it will evolve. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that if one particular culture has it's own version of a language it is a symptom of inferiority. I admit that. I have always believed that Tagalog and the other Philippine languages should evolve beyond what it was and is now.

    However, I plead that these two cases I mentioned are, at least, exceptions. I see these as instances of deliberate dumbing down. You know that I know about the concepts of denotation and connotation; granted that there are numerous instances of "legitimate" evolutions. But not in these cases. Let me qualify that.

    You mentioned instances when Americans would take some foreign word and bend it, yet in none of those instances was the essential meaning of the word actually changed. What changes is the technicalities of usage. They annoy me too, but they are forgivable and allow for potentially useful evolutions. Stand-by to tambay, for instance. Even "samurai" is not essentially different; the Greek hoplite, for instance, were so-called because of their weaponry as well. Yes, it's incorrect, and it annoys me, too. It's actually a katana, but the confusion is still understandable (especially since the samurai themselves considered their swords as their souls). I don't see these as instances of deliberate dumbing down.

    Even the eventual disappearance of inflection is logically forgivable, since a lot of other languages will denote which is a noun or adverb based on word position. But even this isn't a deliberate "dumbing down." Of course, this annoys me also. Word substitutions, I believe, doesn't also necessarily imply inferiority or mediocrity. Brits call elevators lifts, we call the men's room a comfort room; still, there is no change in the essential meaning but does give as an insight on the cultural taxonomy of vocabulary.

    But, compare that how Filipinos use the word "salvage"—totally opposite it's original meaning with no real reasoning behind the change except that people just latched on to the word just because it was used in the murder context. Unlike the other examples you gave, misunderstanding of which arose from initial exposure, the word "salvage" was initially used correctly and was just forced through its denotation because people were stubborn. What if "fished out" was used and eventually meant "brutal murder"? I mean, it would be the rough equivalent of "boondocks" meaning heavily populated valley with instances of architecture just because "Bumaba sa bundok" was deliberately misunderstood to mean "He went to the 'bundok'." Take note that even we Pinoys would use the term "taga-bundok" as synonymous with uncivilized or provincial.

    "Celebrant" was used correctly for years. It didn't need to change. I mean, I can accept theories of vowel or consonant shifts, but only if it was observable in the entire language, not just one word. Why aren't we calling debutantes debutators, or participants participators? I see this as another instance of laziness.

    If I seem quick to rant against Pinoys it is because I myself am one. If I were American, I would rant against gangsta rap and point to numerous instances of the "Redneck effect" showing that deterioration of language is a symptom of a cultural slide to mediocrity. I'm not talking about the legitimate evolution of language here; even the Aussies have "standardized" their language and the areas with the most illiteracy have the most deviations from this standard. But as I'm not one of them, so I don't have to talk about them. I didn't mean to imply that only Pinoys have the distinction of self-enforced mediocrity. Of course it applies to everyone, but it would be enormous cheek if I started ranting about them, right? Besides, my potshot at Pinoy mediocrity isn't about showing that we become mediocre because we create our own denotations. I was pointing to it as a symptom of the greater disease of the "pwede na 'yan" attitude. Of course, we aren't the only that are like that.

    Besides, the "everybody does it" just don't justify the deliberate, albeit subconscious mutilation of language. It's a circular argument: since language is bound to change anyway we should allow thoughtless change of language? Because a word's meaning is based on how it is used, then whatever ways they are used are all valid? Not so. If we all started attaching our own personal meanings to words, why should we expect to even reach a consensus on understanding?

    And insisting on the right usage is not a form of colonial mentality. It is, rather, only being polite and sensible. Didn't we both make fun of that Kingdom Come line "Ayan na ang siva ulo! Papatayin niya ulo!"? It was obvious that they didn't do their homework well enough. And we didn't colonize them, did we? Of course, the mistake was harmless, as nobody is perpetrating it as a valid Tagalog dialect. So, why should we justify mutilating a foreign language just to prove how "free" we are by "making tangkilik" to our "sariling atin"?

    In the end, what can I do about it? Pinoys will do what they want whether I like it or not. I mean, because we let Pinoys think that just taking to the streets means freedom, look at what rut we dug ourselves into? (But that's another rant for another day.)

    Bottom line: Yes, I agree that nobody is above reproach and that Pinoys are not the only ones who would rather justify their mediocrity than try to correct what they can; but to reason that since everyone is doing it and since it is "inevitable" we should excuse it? I don't think so.

    You also take care, Kuya.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just read this comment by C.S. Lewis: "We had better not follow Humpty Dumpty in making words mean whatever we please." (The Four Loves) This seems to be in reference to Lewis Carroll's version of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:


    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

    'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice 'what that means?'

    'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

    'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

    'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

    'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

    'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: 'for to get their wages, you know.'



    It is all nonsense, of course, to deliberately change a word's meaning because one feels like it. Why shouldn't we use the word "impenetrability" to mean "I've had enough of this subject"? I quite agree with C.S. Lewis. I still think "salvage" meaning "brutal murder" is idiotic.

    ReplyDelete