|
Abdi Sultani
OUR KIND OF ENGLISH
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
At the risk of sounding monotonous, we shall say it again: shoddiness that characterises Bongo English cannot be about our linguistic limitedness; rather, it’s about lack of care on the part of scribblers and their gatekeepers – subeditors and proofreaders.
A colleague, HM, says we might be challenged alright, but not to the extent that we don’t know the fact that “women” is plural for “woman”! And, as any new learner of English would tell you, it’s totally impermissible to precede a singular noun with article “a”. Yes; but then, a weekly that hits the streets on Thursdays, in its January 19 – 25 edition, had a columnist’s piece thus headlined: “What a man can do, A WOMEN can do better”.
As if to demonstrate that she and her gatekeeper (s) know what they were talking about, the outrage reappears somewhere in Para 2: “For example in the family, both wife and husband might be working to strengthen their family income but after work when they go back home it is only A WOMEN who switches to another different type of work…” And then, what is to “strengthen family income”? Somebody suggested to this columnist that the scribbler must have had in mind the Kiswahili expression “kuimarisha kipato cha familia”. Makes sense, eh?
Well, maybe; but when it comes to English per se, we don’t talk about income in terms of “strength”, do we? The answer is no; but of course, it’s okay when we say “strong economies”, in reference to countries like United States, Japan and Germany.
And then, saying “another different…” is engaging in tautology, for the adjective/pronoun, “another”, unless otherwise clarified, should be referring to a different thing. On the same page, there was a photograph featuring a motorcyclist and a police officer, in which the former is gesturing in a way indicating he’s speaking to the latter. Says the caption writer: “A motorcyclist defending himself before police officers soon after [being] intercepted by the law enforcers for RECKLESS driving WITHOUT a valid license”.
Note that the word in the brackets is ours, for the caption writer had either forgotten or considered it unnecessary – we can’t tell.
Our concern, however, is the suggestion that the motorcyclist could have escaped the wrath of the law enforcers, even if he were reckless, if he held a valid licence! However, we’re certain the man was stopped simply because the police saw him as driving in a reckless way, and it was only after this that the officer discovered that he ALSO didn’t carry a valid licence.
And then, there’s an ethical/legal issue here because the caption writer is conclusive about the motorcyclist’s alleged misconduct.
Scribblers on the crime beat should never play the judge – we’re expected to treat any conduct that is perceived illegal as MERE allegation until the court determines otherwise. That’s elementary, dear scribbling colleagues!
Which is to say, the caption should read thus:
“A motorcyclist defends himself before a policeman [there’s only on officer in the photo] soon after being intercepted for alleged RECKLESS driving and failure to produce a valid licence”. Our obsession with “prefixing” the departed with the adjective “the late” or “the deceased” often leads us into uttering absurd statements unwittingly.
Let’s just take a look at a caption for a photograph appearing on page 5 of Wednesday, January 25 edition of the tabloid closely linked to this columnist:
“Family members of the Arumeru East MP, the late Jeremiah Sumari, participate in burial prayer service during his burial at Akeri Village on Monday.”
Arumeru East MP was not “the late Sumari” because departed persons can’t be any constituency’s legislators. Reminds us of the “the deceased was killed” absurdity – which suggests the person got killed after he was already dead.
We suggest that the caption writer should have informed his readers thus: “Family members of the late (or departed) Arumeru East MP Jeremiah Sumari participate…”
How about “…burial prayer service during his burial at...”? Rather nonsensical, of course, for we could simply have “burial service at…” You could also talk of “funeral service” or, yes, simply “funeral”.
Ah, this treacherous language called English!
* Feel free to send us your observations on any peculiar language use and (especially) that feature in the Bongo English press, including The Citizen on Sunday.
|
