YOUTHS are male youngsters, YOUTH are males and females

I feel obliged to repeat myself, harping over what I have said before in this space. The reason is, I religiously harbour the hope that through this column, colleagues whose goofs I feature (and others) learn something. My resilience is based on the silent whisper that keeps saying to me: tell it to them, again and again, until everybody gets it right!

Look at the word “youth” as opposed to “youths”. I have reminded my fellow scribblers a zillion times, that you may only use this noun in plural when referring to young MALES. Yet, the misuse of “youths” remains even within the pages of the tabloid whose scribblers enjoy free access to this tabloid!

Check this headline of an opinion piece on Page 8 of the said tabloid (Sat, Aug 8). It reads: ‘YOUTHS and the trouble of better theories than practice’.

It is heartening that throughout the article, the scribbler uses (correctly) the word YOUTH to refer to young people as a whole—males and females. In Para 5, for instance, he (God bless him) writes: “There are YOUTH who ARE not at all aware of the International Youth Day.”

However, his gatekeeper underscores what is incorrect in the blurb (like he did with the headline): “YOUTHS all over the word are mobilised to take part in the global dream...”

Let us look at what the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary says: “…3. Youth countable, (usually disapproving)—a young man. Example: The fight was started by a GANG of youths. 4. Youth/also the youth (plural)—young people considered as a group, e.g. the nation’s youth/the youth of today.” Need I say more?

Let us move to Bongo’s senior-most broadsheet of Sat, Aug 14, and look at, firstly, a Page 1 story entitled, ‘Samia approves 300bn/- for capital city construction’. Therein, our scribbling colleague, purporting to quote a government supremo, writes:

“The construction of the headquarters is still underway…the work should continue at THE high speed,” he said adding [sic!] THE 113bn/- [sic] will be spent IN the construction of MINISTRIES at the Government City of Mtumba area.”

There are numerous gems here, but what takes the cake, I aver, is the one on “construction of ministries”. Furthermore, we do not spend money IN doing something; we spend it ON doing something! I highlight the definite article ‘THE’ because in the affected contexts, it should only be used before a noun that has already been mentioned earlier, which isn’t the case in our colleague’s story! Here is a rewrite:

“The construction of the headquarters is still underway…the work should continue at A (not the) high speed,’ he said, adding THAT 113bn/- will be spent ON the construction of MINISTRY PREMISES (not just ministries).”

As he nears the end of his story, the scribbler writes: “Speaking when laying A foundation stone for the project, the late Dr Magufuli said the government had invested massively in infrastructures…”

A project, a building or any other structure, can only have ONE foundation, it is specific. Which is why one errs when one precedes “foundation” with indefinite article “a’. It means, the scribbler should have written: “Speaking when laying THE foundation stone…”

Finally, on Page 20, the main story has this headline: ‘Chama joins Kisinda at Berkane’.

Clatous Chama is a Zambian midfielder who has left Bongo’s leading soccer outfit, Simba SC, after serving it for three years. He has joined Morocco’s RSB Berkane for an undisclosed “hefty” fee.

The scribbler, purporting to quote a Simba official who explained the implications of Chama’s move, writes:

“To us, we have got more money than THE AMOUNT WE BOUGHT HIM, and this will be channeled to strengthen further the existing squad…”

Some words are definitely missing between WE and BOUGHT…The section of the sentence that I have capitalised should better read thus: “…THE AMOUNT with which WE BOUGHT HIM…”

Ah, this treacherous language called English!