In public governance, the term “reinventing the government” had been a byword in the administrations of decades past. It had been used synonymously and interchangeably with other slogans and terms like “pole vaulting into the 21st century; kaya natin ito” which has for its purpose the re-directing or motivation of those in the bureaucracy and private sector towards productivity and globalization.
Taking the cue then from the Chief Executive, bureaucrats and technocrats alike have started the balls rolling in “reinventing” the bureaucracy for the government to face the challenges of the next millennium (including some “theorists” who end up merely impressing the Chief Executive or give the public the impression that they are “working”).
In a deeper analysis, many so-called “re-engineering” implemented by many government instrumentalities were in reality nothing more than but simple mergers, privatizations, reorganizations, creation and/or dissolution of offices disguised as such.
The conversational or everyday American English language use was not spared by the so-called innovators and self-anointed language gurus who in the first place are obviously ignorant of the rudiments of the English language.
Among these are the use of the terms “INVITE”, instead of invitation; “CELEBRATOR”, instead of the traditional celebrant; and the pronunciation of POEM as “Powm”'.
Quoted here are what newspaper columnists or authors say on the matter.
INVITE (as a noun) – “Although there is good cause to argue against the use of invite as a noun—mainly that we already have an invitation, a perfectly good word—the assumption that this is a recent development is simply wrong. The Oxford English Dictionaries cites examples of the invite as a noun from as long ago as the 17th and 18th centuries, and additional examples from the early 19th century onward are easily found.
‘The word might be marginally more common in the last few years because of the tendency toward brevity in social media and text messaging, but it is far from new. Of course, while invite as a noun is sanctioned by historical usage, some people still consider it informal or even incorrect, so the more formal-sounding invitation is the safer choice in any type of writing where you need to be taken seriously. The prejudice against invite might be based on mistaken assumptions, yet we can’t ignore it. Incidentally, invite as a noun is usually pronounced differently from the verb. The verb is in-VITE, while the noun has the accent on the first syllable—IN-vite."
On the use of “CELEBRATOR” in favor of celebrant, a Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist has this to say:
"No need to hold “celebrant” in a straightjacket The Philippines being a predominantly Roman Catholic country, there’s a tendency for the supposedly English-savvy among us to scoff at people who describe as a “celebrant” someone celebrating a birthday or some other auspicious occasion. “Oh, no, that isn’t right!” they would often cut off and gleefully heckle the speaker.
‘The right word is ‘celebrator’; ‘celebrant’ means a priest officiating the Holy Mass!” But are people who use “celebrator” in that context really wrong? Do they really deserve all that heckling? Although I don’t usually join the wicked ribbing that often follows, I myself used to think that people who call birthday celebrators “birthday celebrants” are—if not actually unsavvy in their English—at least ill-advised in doing so. Indeed, my Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines “celebrant” as “one who celebrates; specifically the priest officiating the Eucharist.”
‘Likewise, the Collins English Dictionary—Complete and Unabridged defines “celebrant” as “a person participating in a religious ceremony” and, in Christianity’s ecclesiastical terms, as “an officiating priest, esp at the Eucharist.” On the authority of these two dictionaries, I had never really bothered to check the validity of the conventional wisdom that anybody who’s not a priest or cleric should never be called a “celebrant” but only a “celebrator.” By “celebrator,” of course, practically everybody uses it to mean someone observing or taking part in a notable occasion with festivities. Recently, though, after witnessing yet another savage if good-natured ribbing of someone who used “celebrant” to describe a birthday celebrator, I decided that perhaps the issue was serious enough to look deeper into. I, therefore, resolved to check the usage with at least two other lexicographic authorities, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (AHD). The OED gives two definitions of “celebrant,” first as “a person who performs a rite, especially a priest at the Eucharist,” and, second, citing North American usage, as “a person who celebrates something.” For its part, the AHD primarily defines “celebrant” in essentially the same vein as the first OED definition, as (a) “A person who participates in a religious ceremony or rite”; (b) “A person who officiates at a religious or civil ceremony or rite, especially a wedding”; and (c) “In some Christian churches, the cleric officiating at the celebration of the Eucharist.” Like the OED, the AHD also makes a second definition of “celebrant” as “A participant in a celebration.” Then the AHD goes one step further and makes the following usage note for “celebrant”: “Although ‘celebrant’ is most often used to describe an official participant in a religious ceremony or rite, a majority of the [AHD] Usage Panel accepted the use of ‘celebrant’ to mean ‘a participant in a celebration’ in an earlier survey. Still, while ‘New Year’s Eve celebrants’ may be an acceptable usage, ‘celebrator’ is an uncontroversial alternative in this more general sense.”
‘This being the case, I think people who use “celebrants” to describe people celebrating birthdays and other special occasions aren’t really wrong, and they certainly don’t deserve to be cut down and needled when using that word. And there’s no need for anyone to get upset either when called a “celebrant”—whether as principal or guest—during such occasions. I dare say that “celebrant” is as good a word as “celebrator” in such contexts, and except perhaps in the company of hidebound Christian fanatics, we need not hold the word “celebrant” in a straight -jacket to describe only the Christian clergy doing their rituals. In short, we can freely use “celebrators” to describe people celebrating or attending a birthday party or any other happy occasion, and I think the English-savvy among us need to get used to the idea that the usage of “celebrants” is actually par for the course and doesn’t deserve all that bashing as if it were bad English. (Joe Carillo, July 3, 2010).
Personally, I cannot subscribe to the use of the term "celebrator" to the exclusion of "celebrant" and confine its use to refer to one who celebrates a joyous occasion or a priest in the Holy Mass. While it may be grammatically correct, still, I find the word "celebrator" as awkward and wanting in euphony.
On the other hand, isn't the Holy Mass also a joyous celebration, that we might as well call the priest a "celebrator"?
Let us now proceed to another irritant - the way some "all-knowing guys insist on how to PRONOUNCE THE WORD P-O-E-M? Was it really po-em? or just simply powm?
In the Cambridge Dictionary, poem is listed as a noun [C] to be pronounced as /ˈpoʊ·əm.
Poem is a two-syllable word, so "po-em" is correct, but being such a short word, the syllable typically run together to sound more like "powm". The latter is but secondary to a Regional accent.
To illustrate, in the Bicol dialect in the Albay Province in the Philippines, the word "MAG KAON" (a verb meaning to eat) is pronounced as it is written in the 1st and 2nd districts of the province. But in the 3rd district it is pronounced as "MAG KAWN" or "MAG KUN" as you go up further in the district.
One should not be confused then of how a word is to be pronounced correctly by mere hearing it being said by a particular person. Language and grammar have also its own rules.
If we accept that poem should be pronounced as "powm", then I would equally insist that someone who writes poetry is a POWT.
The neo-language faddists (who seem to cover up for their poor performance in the language) claim that the use and pronunciation of the said words have evolved or are simply just become as they claim it is now. I wonder under what law that it was decreed that people should say “THIS IS THE INVITE”, or that we use the term CELEBRATOR instead of celebrant, and pronounce PO-EM as “POWM.
There are some, alas including those in the academe who insists that MIDWIFERY, as an academic course, is now pronounced as MIDWEEFIRY just because of the "i" that is supposed to be pronounced as a "y". If they are correct, then the department should be renamed as College of Midweefiry, or Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity as some people think it means) Zones to be called as WEE FEE Zones.
There are instances when an "i" should sound like a "y", or vice versa.
Worse, they claim that the language has simply “evolved” and that it simply had just become acceptable.
I wonder if this “evolution” of language finds relevance in Charles Darwin’s Theory that “as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).”
So language also mutates for survival’s sake?
I do not believe in the notion that language also "mutates for survival's sake. New phrases or terms are just added or foreign words assimilated in the American English language, like "boondocks" to mean mountains from the Filipino word "bundok". Or phrases such as "full nest syndrome", (a noun) referring to "the stress suffered by middle-aged people who share their homes with grown-up children who cannot afford to move out and infirm, aged parents who they care for."
Even acronyms, like RADAR (Radio Assisted Detection and Ranging) or LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation)have evolved simply as a single or slang word.
What these pseudo language innovators gurus do is nothing but lowers, the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing which is shocking to people of higher social status or greater responsibility.
