Attack didn’t involve weapons;it involved the ‘use of weapons’
This was captured at a barbershop in Dar es Salaam, where a man can receive services including...“blitching”? Nope! A man will, if he so wishes, request to receive a BLEACH (not a “BLITCH”). Trust signwriters!.
No lecturing today. It means we’ll move straight to our key task of delivering linguistic gemstones picked up over the week. So here we go…
In the Saturday, May 16 edition of Bongo’s senior-most broadsheet, there’s a story from the Isles whose headline reads, ‘Lawmakers demand tougher action against criminal gangs,’ with the intro written thus:
“Members of the House of Representatives have raised CONCERN over increasing criminal incidents across the islands, warning that rising cases of assaults, theft and attacks INVOLVING traditional weapons are creating fear…”
Hello! The attacks are not involving traditional weapons, whatever these are; the attacks are involving THE USE of traditional weapons.
Our scribbling colleague continues in Para 2: “The CONCERNS were LED by Chumbani Representative, Mr MM, together with other back benchers…”
We have two issues here: one, in the intro we are told that the lawmakers have raised concern (or was it a concern?) and this has now metamorphosed to “concerns” (many). How?
And then, how does anybody “lead” a concern or even concerns? There’s no way one can do that, but one can be at the forefront—that is, lead—in a debate on certain concerns.
And now, a look at Bongo’s huge and colourful broadsheet of Friday, May 15, which is carrying a story on Page 3 entitled, ‘Tanzanian secondary schools ordered to stop charging fees.’
It begins thus: “The government has directed all educational institutions in the country to immediately stop the practice of preventing pupils from sitting for examinations because of unpaid tuition fees…
“Prime Minister Dr Mwigulu Nchemba MADE the directive yesterday in Parliament during the Prime Minister’s Questions session…”
Hang on! Big men do not “make” directives; they ISSUE directives. It is also fine if you say: “Give directives…”
On Page 5, there’s a story entitled, ‘CSOs demand full funding for child protection, safety,’ and therein, the scribbler writes in his intro: “ACROSS section of Civil Society Organisations (sic!) in the country HAVE urged the government to allocate at least three percent of local government revenues specifically for child protection…”
Across section? Nope! It is “a cross section” (three words). There is also a grammatical goof here, for the story is about ‘a cross section’ (one) of civil society organisations, and yet our colleague uses a plural verb as if he’s reporting about cross sections of CSOs.
Please note that it doesn’t make sense uppercasing first letters of CSOs when you write that in full. Scribblers also err in the same way when writing “NGO” in full, instead of simply jotting “non-governmental organisation.”
Page 6 has a story with the headline, ‘Government inaugurates crackdown on illegal mining in Katavi Region.’ For this one, the intro reads:
“The government has launched a crackdown on illegal mining activities in the Katavi Region and across the country, revoking IDLE mineral exploration licences that were deemed IDLE… or in breach of regulations.”
The use of the word “idle” twice exposes the scribbler’s intellectual laziness.
Why not write, simply: “…revoking mineral exploration licences that were deemed IDLE…or in breach of regulations.”
In Para 3, our colleague writes: “The actions FOLLOWS A serious environmental CONCERNS…” Grammatical prerequisites have been blatantly disregarded.
We aver the scribbler meant to write: “The actions FOLLOW a serious environmental CONCERN…”
Finally, we look at a story appearing on Page 4 of the broadsheet, entitled, ‘Mchengerwa warns practitioners against brand-name prescriptions.’
Says the scribbler in his intro: “The government has issued a STERN warning to medical practitioners who prescribe medicines using brand names instead of generic names…”
Hello, look! When a government issues a warning, it is “stern” by its very nature, so scribblers, being disinterested conveyors of only facts and truth, need not use this adjective.
