The ManicaPost
If you check this space every week . . . well, nearly every week, you will learn one or two common errors in English. May be you have been or are still trapped in this or that error.
Study it carefully and then practice correct use of the language. This series will help students to score higher in their examinations and adult everyday users of English to avoid moments of embarrassment or self-ridicule.
This week I want to look at three stubborn errors demonically refusing to escape people’s memories.
We do not clap people . . . we slap them . . . kwaaaaa! in the face and they see a few stars in broad daylight. That is not clapping. It is slapping. What is clapping? Clapping is a sign of gratitude . . . thankfulness, illustrated by putting your hands together. In our African culture we also clap hands to salute our royal highnesses like the chief.
Recently I heard a well known man of God (that’s what they call themselves) saying to men in his church assembly, “Your steel muscles and huge palms are not meant to clap your wife,” the rest was perfect guidance of a man called a husband to desist from barbaric treatment of his wife. Perfect message!
But the several hundreds of school-going youths in the congregation go back home thinking an open hand is used to clap someone. And that is what they will say at school and write in their examinations. And the word ‘clap’ is wrongly used here.
The man of God wanted to say, “. . . not meant to slap your wife . . . ” Perfect lesson and perfect language, except the ‘‘clap’’ part! In church . . . in front of hundreds or thousands of people, the energy of the message remains high, no doubt about that; God is not worried about our fluency or articulation, but certainly the clout, the pull, the authority, the weight, the sway, the wallop of the speaker is weakened.
This type of common error is called Malapropism. The speaker or writer is confused because two words or more sound the same and he or she does not know which one to use in what context.
Like most common errors, such language slip-ups or blunders certainly compromise or reduce the standing…the dignity of the speaker. You do not want that to happen if you are speaking to people whose listening and respect you are commanding or want to command.
Accept does not mean the same as except. An auditor is not the same as an editor. An autograph is not the same as an autobiography. Cannonballs are not the same as cannibals.
‘‘Ensure’’ does not mean ‘‘assure’’, as much as insurance does not mean assurance. Tamper refers to one thing, and temper to another. All these are typical examples of Malapropism.
Unnecessary emphasis:
I saw the radio preacher with my own eyes. I heard him with my own ears. He was totally right about the issue of marriages without foundation.
All the speaker wants to say is, “I saw the radio preacher. I heard him. He was right about the issues of marriages without foundation.”
“With my own eyes” is unnecessary emphasis. What else would the speaker want to see with? It is obviously eyes, is it not? The same with “heard with my own ears.” What else would the speaker want to use to hear someone or something? The emphasis is foolish . . . is it not? ‘‘Ridiculous’’ may be, if ‘‘foolish’’ is too strong. But in English the two words are synonyms, are they not?
Then think about this: Does something need to be totally right? What is the difference between something right and something totally right? You see how ‘‘totally’’ does not emphasise anything at all? If something or somebody is right . . . that’s it! They do not need to be totally right?
Consider the following examples:
That behaviour is totally unacceptable at this school.
The answer you gave was totally wrong.
The food hand-outs are totally finished for now. You can wait for the second consignment.
The mistake you have done is totally irreversible.
What the headmaster said was totally untrue and totally unnecessary.
Her husband is totally irresponsible. No wonder she is seeking a divorce.
Remove ‘‘totally’’ in each of the above statements. Does the sense change? Certainly not! Why does it not change? Because the use of ‘‘totally’’ is not necessary. People who are in the habit of using it . . . addicted to it, if you like, think it enhances the meaning of the sentence. It does not. The above sentences mean exactly what they mean without the pleonastic addition of ‘‘totally.’’ This type of common error is called PLEONASM.
The same with someone doing his or her level best:
Example:
I failed the test but I had tried my level best. Is it better for the speaker to say “level best” than simply “. . . but I tried my best?” What is the difference between her ‘‘best’’ and her ‘‘level best’’? Nothing really! People think or believe they are saying more when they say “level best.”
They are not. There is no point better than ‘‘the best’’ . . . and ‘‘level best’’ is no better. This is what we call Pleonasm in English. Simple! Useless repetition intended to emphasise, but emphasising nothing! I do not hesitate to call this ‘‘foolish emphasis’’, or ‘‘beautiful nonsense’’ when I want to make sure my English learners quickly desist from use of the error in their English. No offense meant!
Have you heard people say, “We are going into the last and final hour . . . ” Especially radio or television presenters! Redundancy! Pleonasm! Foo . . . I almost used ‘‘foolish’’ again! (‘‘Unwise’’ repetition is more polite I think.)
However, ‘‘foolish’’ and ‘‘unwise’’ are synonyms in English Language any way, are they not, if you know your English? But the point I am making is; Look out for these errors! They take away polish or gleam from your communication knack. You want to maintain your communicative propensity, do you not?
Thank you for another week. Keep watching this space and you will forever be glad you did! Until next week, enjoy and learn!
