The company was ‘issued a licence’? Nope, it was issued WITH a licence

I am looking at the back page of Bongo’s senior-most broadsheet of Saturday, June 04, on which the second lead story is entitled, ‘Yanga pick new boss in July polls’, and for the intro, the scribbler writes:

“Young Africans have picked July 10th as A DAY for the club’s general ELECTIONS to elect the president, the vice president and five members who, together, will form the club’s Executive Committee.”

Hello; July 10 won’t be simply “a” day, because the indefinite article presupposes it will be just a day like any other. However, July 10 will actually be THE day for the club’s general ELECTION (not elections).

In Para 3, the scribbler reports further: “...Election Committee chairman Malangwe Mchungahela said election forms will BEGIN to be disbursed from today UP TO July 9th.”

To use “begin” and “from today” is engaging in tautology. You add insult to injury when you proceed to say “up to”. Why, it gives a nonsensical suggestion that the act of “beginning” will be there even as the calendar reads July 9!

Let me offer a rewrite: “...Election Committee chairman Malangwe Mchungahela said election forms will be disbursed from today UP TO July 9th.” Or, “...will be disbursed BETWEEN today AND July 9th.”

And now, a few gems from Bongo’s huge and colourful broadsheet of Saturday, June 4. On Page 4 of this one, there is a story headlined, ‘NEMC coming up with strategy to enhance water sources protection’, and therein, the scribbler reports on what was apparently said by a key environmentalist:

“He said that despite presence of the laws that governs (sic!) the management of ‘WETLANDS such as RIVERS, OCEANS, LAKES and swamps, there has been ongoing destruction caused by encroachment...”

What is “wetland”? It is, says my wordbook, land consisting of marshes or swamps. Which is to say, our scribbling colleague errs when he suggests to his readers that rivers, oceans and lakes are wetlands! If you drop the expression “such as”, and replace it with “and”, the message will sound okay. Here we go: “...laws that GOVERN (not governs) the management of wetlands, rivers, oceans and lakes...”

Still in the same broadsheet. There is a story on Page 7 with the headline, ‘Tobacco farmers to get new buyer’. In this one, our colleague purports to report on what a minister said in response to a question raised by an MP regarding what a buying company was doing to meet the needs of this country’s tobacco farmers:

“The deputy minister said the company has been ISSUED LICENCE (sic!) of operation and is expected to buy 10,000 tonnes in the coming season.”

Hang on, siree! You don’t issue somebody a licence; you issue them WITH a licence.”

Ah, this treacherous language called English!

Postscript

An esteemed reader of ours, Everard O’Donnell, emailed an educative letter to me, being a response to an assertion I made in the June 3 edition of this column entitled, ‘Beneficial owners of registered but dormant companies face Brela’s axe’. In my article, I argued that the adjective “beneficial” was misused and suggested BEFITTING or APPROPRIATE. I am humbly reproducing, in part, Everard’s letter:

“Dear Abdi,

With respect, I think you are partly wrong in your June 03 column. ‘Beneficial owner’ is a legal term of art meaning the person who enjoys the usufruct of property. It is contrasted with ‘Legal Owner’. It has replaced the older term ‘equitable owner’.

Of course, terms of art are often generated by the semi-literate. In this case the term has been used for more than a century and is hallowed by constant use in over 80 legal jurisdictions. I believe that it was first used in 1877 in Williams’ Real Property Law. The term has become widespread as revenue law and company law have followed similar models.

Yours,

Everard O’Donnell,

Tanga.