Responding to the last edition of this column, Mr. Emmanuel Eche-Ofun John started a very stimulating conversation with an interesting comment. He says: “I’m enjoying your column so much, sir. Keep it up. In the last edition about the use of ‘media,’ methinks if one is using it as plural, the example you gave should be: ‘from the way the media HAVE reported THEIR activities, you would think THEY are the only purveyors of terrorism in the land, not ITS activities.” We need to restate the correction he is addressing in full, so as to see clearly the object of his interest. In the edition titled Sundry Misusages XXII: Maybe/May be. . . plus more,” one of the corrections goes thus:
From the way the media have reported its activities, you would think they are the only purveyors of terrorism in the land.
Mr. Emmanuel’s interest in the sentence above is the antecedent its vis-à-vis the subsequent anaphoric reference they. His point is that its, being a singular possessive pronoun, the pronoun its is a more appropriate reference later in the sentence to the element concerned. To make our conversation clearer, let us substitute its with IPOB’s. So, as Mr. Emmanuel suggests, the more appropriate anaphoric reference to IPOB should be it, not they, IPOB being a singular noun. And here is our comment to the concerned reader:
“Many thanks, John. Yes, you’re right. You must be the orthodox type! But because the language is ever so dynamic, we now accept expressions like: Everybody is concerned about THEIR personal interests.”
This means, just as the reader’s suggestion is acceptable, we were also right to have used THEY in anaphoric reference because of what is “trending.”
Now then, over to the issues of the day, in continuation of common misusages:
Meter/Metre
You’d better believe it; many do not recognize any difference between the words meter and metre. Little wonder, some writers recklessly “misuse these two words, often confusing one with the other and incorrectly interchanging them” (“Pop” Errors). The book exemplifies thus:
He has turned a whole community into a habitat of light, in Ibeju-Lekki where the government is paying the light bill until they get their metres.
You must wonder if the writer of this sentence is using meters to refer to the popular electrical device used for measuring the units of electricity consumed. And momentarily, as the aficionado of correct usage we know you now are, you are halted in your reading stride, checking and divining whether you have lost it to senility or the writer has just been extremely careless. Remember the advice: keep your reader reading, not halting – for effective communication.
According to “Pop” Errors, “Meters is the correct usage in this statement – not metres. A meter is “a device that amount of something that is used” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, in this case what is being measured is electricity. On the other hand, metre is “a unit of measurement equal to 100 centimetres” (ibid.). Let us, therefore, note, once and for all, that “A meter is an equipment or instrument, and it measures the amount of something used, while a metre is a unit of length or distance measured. Thus a taxi meter measures the distance travelled in kilometers” (ibid.). And next time, let us be more careful in handling look-alikes and sound-alikes such as the two terms in consideration here. We should also proofread our texts painstakingly, as this may have caused the error apart from sheer unfamiliarity with the highly-nuanced difference between meter and metre.To make ourselves clear, we correct the error in the specimen sentence as follows:
He has turned a whole community into a habitat of light, in Ibeju-Lekki where the government is paying the light bill until they get their meters.
Militia/Militiamen
It gets comical, many a time, when some writers misuse these terms. They are either confusing the terms or using them for what they do not mean. In such instances, you come off with the impression that they do not know what they write! Take a close look at the statement below and glean what we mean:
The FRCI reinforcement team on their way to the village was ambushed in the outskirts of the village, leaving two soldiers and one militia dead.
The writer of this sentence obviously does not see the difference in the meanings of militia and militiaman or militiamen, hence the misuse of militia instead of militiaman. It is confusing and uncommunicative to talk of the death of one militia. But you can talk of one militiaman or two militiamen. You can also talk of one militia group, but not one militia, particularly in reference to a member of the group. Thus, one militiaman is the correct and meaningful usage in the sentence. ‘Militia, as mostly used, particularly in conflict situations, stands for “a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army,” for example, the militias in northern Mali, the Niger Delta and South Sudan. Members of a militia are referred to as militiamen, not militia.’ This means, “it is wrong to refer to any single member of such a group as a militia.” Below is therefore the correct usage required in the sentence:
The FRCI reinforcement team on their way to the village was ambushed in the outskirts of the village, leaving two soldiers and one militiaman dead.
Leave a Reply