Various Problems

I devoted several posts to proper usage of the word "the" because this word appears to pose an unusually tricky problem for a great many non-native speakers. There are, of course, a great many other sorts of common problems, but they are more difficult to classify. As a result, what I plan to do from now on is simply look for errors wherever I can find them, point them out, and correct them. I am also counting on readers to send in examples they find in their own readings, or portions of their own work, that they would like me to review. Some have already done so, and I'm hoping others will as well.

Here are some problems I've found lately, all from highly regarded academic or scientific journals, with different sorts of errors that require attention:

"The traditionalist view is that the hunter-gatherer society has maintained its cultural originality by keeping no contact with neighboring other peoples."

The first part of the sentence contains a familiar error, involving improper use of the word "the." It should be clear by now that the "the" before "hunter-gatherer" should be omitted, but the error is compounded by the fact that the phrase "hunter-gatherer society" is ambiguous. Better would be "The traditionalist view is that hunter-gatherer societies have maintained their cultural originality . . ." The second part of the sentence contains a different sort of problem, involving word order: "keeping no contact" is technically correct but awkward, and "neighboring other peoples" is incorrect. Better, and simpler, would be "avoiding contact with neighboring peoples." The sentence as a whole should read: "The traditionalist view is that hunter-gatherer societies have maintained their cultural originality by avoiding contact with neighboring peoples."

"These population groups complement those included within HapMap studies as well as the HGDP [Human Genome Diversity Panel] in showing relationships between EAS groups and demonstrating that autosomal genotypes can be used to ascertain membership to various EAS groups."

This sentence is unproblematic until we reach the last phrase: "membership to various EAS groups." And here I must point out that there is a tendency I've noticed regarding usage of the word "to" that is not by any means limited to non-native speakers. This word is being used more and more as a sort of general purpose preposition, substituting for other prepositions that are more appropriate and also more logical. This seems to be particularly common in writings by British authors over the last few years, and I'm wondering why that is.

The word "to" implies movement. When we go "to" something we go toward it. "I am going to the store" means that I will be heading in the direction of the store with the intention of entering it. Consequently, a phrase like "membership to various groups" makes no sense, since membership does not involve motion and one cannot be a member "to" anything. The correct word to use in this case would be "in," so the phrase should read "membership in various EAS groups."

The problem crops up again in another sentence I found: "The shared lineage provides direct genetic evidence to the
long suggested ancient link between India and Australia." In this case "to" is being used loosely and illogically as a substitute for yet another preposition, "of." There is no such thing as "evidence to," because, once again, "to" implies movement in a particular direction and evidence doesn't usually move. The sentence should read:  "The shared lineage provides direct genetic evidence of the long suggested ancient link between India and Australia."

I've seen other examples where "to" is used as a substitute for still other prepositions, such as, for example, "from," which is totally illogical yet not uncommon these days, for reasons I find difficult to understand. Some people would say that English is changing and that this usage is correct because it's becoming so common. I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. The problem is not that this usage is simply unconventional, which would not necessarily be a bad thing, but that it goes contrary to logic, and if accepted will encourage illogical thinking in future generations. I hope everyone reading here will take this to heart and not be tempted into such a destructive usage of what should be a very easily understood word.


"The application of holistic analytic approach in anthropological research, as »modelbound « or »model-free« approach, can be
very helpful in providing some important information about the continuity of interaction between population genetic characteristics
(its gene pool) and a wide spectrum of environmental selective impacts."

I see several problems in the above sentence, which is in fact very difficult to understand as written. The following is an improvement, but possibly not what the author intended: "The application of a holistic analytic approach in anthropological research, as either  »modelbound « or »model-free«, can be very helpful in providing important information about the continuity of interaction between population genetic characteristics (such as the gene pool) and a wide spectrum of environmentally selective impacts." The phrase "interaction between population genetic characteristics" remains unclear to me, however. And there are other things in this sentence that seem much too vague. If I were the editor I would have asked the author to explain exactly what he (or she) meant in simpler terms.

"In this study, the wide spectrum of traits was examined in an isolated population with presumably reduced genetic
and environmental variance and using two different approaches." The sentence should be rewritten as follows:
"In this study, a wide spectrum of traits was examined in an isolated population with presumably reduced genetic
and environmental variance, using two different approaches."

That's all for now. More next time.

Examples

Sometimes it's easiest to learn simply from examples:

The following sentences are correct:

Philosophy is my favorite subject.

The philosophy of Kant interests me the most.

A philosophy that embraces the realities of human life is preferable to one that doesn't.

He went to the library to observe the librarians.

He went to the library to observe librarians.

He went to the library to observe some librarians.

He went to the library to observe a librarian.

The library contains both librarians and books.

Libraries contain both librarians and books.

The libraries of New York are now online.

Operation Desert Fox was a success.

The Desert Fox operation was a success.



The following sentences are incorrect:

The philosophy is my favorite subject.

 Philosophy of Kant interests me the most.

Philosophy that embraces the realities of human life is preferable to one that doesn't.

He went to the library to observe librarian.

He went to library to observe librarians.
 
Library contains both librarians and books.

The Operation Desert Fox was a success.

Desert Fox operation was a success.

The Desert Fox operation was success.


If you can think of some other useful examples, correct or incorrect, please send them in.

And remember, you are invited to use the "Comments" window to send me passages from your own writings, if you would like me to go over them for possible errors.