Correct usage is so critical to effective communicative use of the English language that there are still lots of observed misusages to highlight – many of them so simple that you could keep ignoring them forever, at the risk of joining the multitude to propagate errors. A frequent casualty is the common misuse of in fact.
In fact
Often, you encounter misusages such as:
Infact, inefficiency is the key characteristic of some of these institutions.
A word like infact does not exist. What obtains is in fact, a phrase made up of two separate words used to emphasize veracity. The phrase is another way of saying “in truth or in all honesty”. So, the now rather pervasive use of the alien word infact is incorrect usage and should therefore be avoided. To be very clear, we restate the sentence, using in fact, which is the correct way to express the idea:
In fact, inefficiency is the key characteristic of some of these institutions.
Infrastructure
In the statement below, the word infrastructure has not been incorrectly used.
- L. Akintola (SLA) was a great man; some of the massive infrastructures we ascribe to Chief Obafemi Awolowo today have the unsung imprints of SLA as premier of Western Region.
Please note that the noun ‘infrastructure is not normally pluralized. It is a collective noun meaning “the basic physical or organizational structures and facilities (buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or organization.” Thus, you can talk of road infrastructure, power infrastructure and the like.’ And when you need to refer to infrastructure in a plural sense, you may safely use lots of infrastructure, types of infrastructure or items of infrastructure. Let us just remove the s used wrongly to pluralize infrastructure in the statement at issue. We could also recast, thus:
S.L. Akintola (SLA) was a great man; some of the massive infrastructure projects we ascribe to Chief Obafemi Awolowo today have the unsung imprints of SLA as premier of Western Region.
Involve
The delicate point to note here is that “involved as an adjective should never come before the noun, just like conducive (OALD). Though not popularly known, it is indeed egregious misusage to talk of involved persons or parties as in the sentence below:
There are, however, studies that confirm that conflicts tend to occur even when the involved parties have highly compatible goals.
As an adjective, involved means “taking part in something” (ibid.), hence it is often used after a noun, and not before a noun, as such usage can be very awkward and primitive. Tweak the sentence in consideration as follows and see which is more euphonious and makes greater sense:
There are, however, studies that confirm that conflicts tend to occur even when the parties involved have highly compatible goals.
We have simply transposed the two words parties and involved, repositioning the adjective involved after the noun parties, as mandated by the rules. If you ask me, the sentence is thus reading and sounding better
It is about time/it is high time/it is time we
Many a time, it gets really tricky using these English expressions correctly. We just must master the respective usages – if only to be counted among tutored as opposed to instinctive writers. Consider the following statements:
(a)…It is about time the CSA see this challenge.
(b)…It is high time that the superintendent, as the head of the County Development Steering Committee, takes measures to curtail absenteeism.
(c)..It is his view that it is time we soberly reflect and take those affirmative actions.
Accepted conventional usage suggests that the verbs see (in a), takes (in b) and reflect and make (in c) should have been expressed in the past tense. According to “Pop” Errors, our writers’ companion, the reason is that these expressions are used “to convey that something now happening or about to happen should have happened” (OALD/AmazonKindle). The book provides the following corrections:
(a)..It is about time the CSA saw this challenge.
(b)…It is high time that the superintendent, as the head of the County Development Steering Committee, took measures to curtail absenteeism.
(c)…It is his view that it is time we soberly reflected and took those affirmative actions.
“Pop” Errors suggests further: “In tricky usages like the foregoing, however, we can simplify matters by reconstructing to tactfully skirt around the in-built grammatical booby traps, thus:
(a)…It is about time for the CSA to see this challenge.
(b)…It is high time for the superintendent, as the head of the County Development Steering Committee, to take measures to curtail absenteeism.
(c)…It is his view that it is time for us to soberly reflect and take those affirmative actions. “
In the simplified versions, note the adoption of the infinitive forms of the verbs involved.
Lament
If you could recall our treatment of certain verbs described as transitive verbs which take their objects directly, you would easily see what is wrong with the use of lament in the sentence below:
It was like the poem In Memoriam by Leopold Senghor in which he lamented about the dead who have always refused to die.
Like all transitive verbs, the verb lament takes its object directly and therefore does not require the preposition about. According to “Pop” Errors, “You do not lament about; you lament something or lament that something has happened or that somebody has done something. Lament is a transitive verb which takes a direct object, and to lament is “to feel or express great sadness or disappointment about something.” We should just therefore say:
It was like the poem In Memoriam by Leopold Senghor in which he lamented the dead who have always refused to die.
Leave a Reply