Brown Mikhail
Member
- Jan 18, 2013
- 93
- 9
Being a professional communicator, a scribbler, more-so if you're in the print media, you must strive to use every word consciously, for a little misuse might reduce your otherwise well-intended message into a mishmash of meaninglessness.
Indeed, there are times we only succeed in making our readers laugh, while our objective was strictly to inform or educate them.
As we often say it in this space, a scribbler cannot be too careful with his work. Re-read your article - several times if time allows - before you hand it over. You risk your reputation if you put too much trust in the person who is supposed to sort out any mess!
Now let's have a look at gems we unearthed in the past week or so. In a press release that was published on page 5 of the Sunday tabloid which is a sister to Bongo's huge and colourful broadsheet, the management says, and we quote in part:
"(The company) strictly adheres to the laws, regulations of the country pertaining to employment of FOREIGN expatriates…"
This is a tautological joke, of course because, as everyone knows, an expatriate is a foreigner by his very nature. Why, says our dictionary, "expatriate" means someone who does not live in their own country. If you get a job in a country that is not yours, you're referred to as an expatriate worker. We could also refer to you as, simply, a FOREIGN WORKER. Or, if you're in the highly skilled category of employees, you'd be referred to as FOREIGN EXPERT.
And then on Saturday, February 8, there is, on page 3 of the tabloid that's close to this columnist, a caption carrying this information: "Tarime and Rorya Police Zone Commander … shows reporters items impounded in the house of a suspected robber Marwa Keryoba. They INCLUDED, AMONG OTHERS, a machine gun allegedly used by the Tarime serial killer…"
This is another case of tautology: included, among others. The reason is, when you say "include", whatever you proceed to mention cannot stand alone, it is simply one (or whatever the number) among others about which you chose to keep silent about. It means the sentence should just read: "They INCLUDED a machine gun allegedly used by the Tarime serial killer…" or "There was, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, a machine gun allegedly used by the Tarime serial killer…"
We've in the past cautioned fellow scribblers on the danger of using the use of the adjective "other", which should be applied to mean something in addition to another of the same category. If you say: "Abdi boarded the lorry WITH OTHER ANIMALS, it would mean that Abdi is also an animal! Now UNLESS you honestly consider Abdi an animal (you're entitled to your perceptions), the sentence should be: "Abdi boarded the lorry WITH ANIMALS."
Now, in a story appearing in the February 9 edition of Bongo's senior-most Sunday broadsheet, entitled, "Natural gas to save Sh1.6trn for Treasury trillion annually", the scribbler says in his intro: "Tanzania is expected to save 1.6trn/- every year when natural gas from Mtwara is fully utilised by various sectors including INDUSTRIES and OTHER DOMESTIC PURPOSES."
You see, there is a mix up here! When our colleague says, "industries and OTHER domestic purposes", he is, in effect, telling his readers an industry is a domestic matter, when, we are sure, he knows it is not! We're certain he had set out to say: "…various sectors including INDUSTRIES and (for) DOMESTIC PURPOSES."
And finally, some gems from yet another tabloid that has close association with this columnist, courtesy of a Monday, February story that appeared on page 5, entitled "Ex-Agriculture minister dies".
Says the scribbler towards the end of his story on the death of veteran politician, PQ: "His YOUNG brother, JQ, told this paper that he QUITED active politics in THE YEAR 2000 after …."
YOUNG brother? Nope! We know JQ – the guy is around 70 and nobody can be said to be young at that age. JQ, let's be clear about it, is a YOUNGER brother of the late PQ.
Our colleague is apparently of the view that "quited" is the past tense of quit. Wrong. It's "QUIT". Of course, there's nothing grammatically wrong in saying "Year 2000, year 2010, year 1954" - it's simply unnecessary, when the context of your sentence makes is clear you're talking about a year.
Ah, this treacherous language called English!
Source: The Citizen
Indeed, there are times we only succeed in making our readers laugh, while our objective was strictly to inform or educate them.
As we often say it in this space, a scribbler cannot be too careful with his work. Re-read your article - several times if time allows - before you hand it over. You risk your reputation if you put too much trust in the person who is supposed to sort out any mess!
Now let's have a look at gems we unearthed in the past week or so. In a press release that was published on page 5 of the Sunday tabloid which is a sister to Bongo's huge and colourful broadsheet, the management says, and we quote in part:
"(The company) strictly adheres to the laws, regulations of the country pertaining to employment of FOREIGN expatriates…"
This is a tautological joke, of course because, as everyone knows, an expatriate is a foreigner by his very nature. Why, says our dictionary, "expatriate" means someone who does not live in their own country. If you get a job in a country that is not yours, you're referred to as an expatriate worker. We could also refer to you as, simply, a FOREIGN WORKER. Or, if you're in the highly skilled category of employees, you'd be referred to as FOREIGN EXPERT.
And then on Saturday, February 8, there is, on page 3 of the tabloid that's close to this columnist, a caption carrying this information: "Tarime and Rorya Police Zone Commander … shows reporters items impounded in the house of a suspected robber Marwa Keryoba. They INCLUDED, AMONG OTHERS, a machine gun allegedly used by the Tarime serial killer…"
This is another case of tautology: included, among others. The reason is, when you say "include", whatever you proceed to mention cannot stand alone, it is simply one (or whatever the number) among others about which you chose to keep silent about. It means the sentence should just read: "They INCLUDED a machine gun allegedly used by the Tarime serial killer…" or "There was, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, a machine gun allegedly used by the Tarime serial killer…"
We've in the past cautioned fellow scribblers on the danger of using the use of the adjective "other", which should be applied to mean something in addition to another of the same category. If you say: "Abdi boarded the lorry WITH OTHER ANIMALS, it would mean that Abdi is also an animal! Now UNLESS you honestly consider Abdi an animal (you're entitled to your perceptions), the sentence should be: "Abdi boarded the lorry WITH ANIMALS."
Now, in a story appearing in the February 9 edition of Bongo's senior-most Sunday broadsheet, entitled, "Natural gas to save Sh1.6trn for Treasury trillion annually", the scribbler says in his intro: "Tanzania is expected to save 1.6trn/- every year when natural gas from Mtwara is fully utilised by various sectors including INDUSTRIES and OTHER DOMESTIC PURPOSES."
You see, there is a mix up here! When our colleague says, "industries and OTHER domestic purposes", he is, in effect, telling his readers an industry is a domestic matter, when, we are sure, he knows it is not! We're certain he had set out to say: "…various sectors including INDUSTRIES and (for) DOMESTIC PURPOSES."
And finally, some gems from yet another tabloid that has close association with this columnist, courtesy of a Monday, February story that appeared on page 5, entitled "Ex-Agriculture minister dies".
Says the scribbler towards the end of his story on the death of veteran politician, PQ: "His YOUNG brother, JQ, told this paper that he QUITED active politics in THE YEAR 2000 after …."
YOUNG brother? Nope! We know JQ – the guy is around 70 and nobody can be said to be young at that age. JQ, let's be clear about it, is a YOUNGER brother of the late PQ.
Our colleague is apparently of the view that "quited" is the past tense of quit. Wrong. It's "QUIT". Of course, there's nothing grammatically wrong in saying "Year 2000, year 2010, year 1954" - it's simply unnecessary, when the context of your sentence makes is clear you're talking about a year.
Ah, this treacherous language called English!
Source: The Citizen
