Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say (XI)

By Segun Omolayo

You are welcome back as we re-boot the series “Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say.” The plague of people writing what they do not mean and not meaning what they write  still rages. We will therefore continue in earnest to highlight and discuss examples of how many writers have exhibited this careless habit, many a time rather comically. Here is one:

• The commissioner assured that the government was doing much to ameliorate the suffering of the people.

This is from someone’s report of a public event, the sort where government officials declare policies and reveal plans and activities aimed at providing services to the people. So, if you have read similar constructions from sundry reporters, you can rest assure that it is common journalistic fare. You must also have heard many of such in official speeches. The problem in the construction at issue is the idea of ameliorating suffering. What on earth could ameliorate the suffering of a people mean, if to ameliorate is to improve? Could the commissioner in question have intended to better the suffering of the people, that is, make their suffering better? That would have been preposterous. Truth be told, it is simply senseless to say you want to ameliorate the suffering of people. What is expected, usual and sensible is to alleviate the suffering of people. To alleviate is “to make something bad such as pain or problems less severe” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). The dictionary illustrates thus: “The drugs did nothing to alleviate her pain/suffering.”

So, the use of ameliorate, instead of alleviate in the sentence in consideration is absolutely inappropriate. What is more, it is meaningless. The sensible and meaningful way to report the commissioner’s presumed good intention is:

• The commissioner assured that the government was doing much to alleviate the suffering of the people.

And here comes another awkward mistaking of one word or idea for another, this time arising from a wrong inflection of the word concerned:

• Work on the bridge has progressed to the installment of the centre pier.

The word or idea installment has no role in the sentence, as it has not conveyed the writer’s message meaningfully. And clearly, he could not have meant what he writes there. The correct inflection which he has wrongly replaced with installment is installation. “Pop” Errors reminds us “that choosing the wrong inflections of words is as damning as using wrong words, and both types of malapropism distort meaning with similar effects.” To make ourselves clearer, we ask you to kindly note “that installation is about fixing equipment in position so that it can be used” (cited ibid.), while installment is “one of a number of payments . . . .” (ibid.). Thus, what the writer means is:

• Work on the bridge has progressed to the installation of the centre pier.

We hinted several editions ago that correct register is one of the issues in malapropian gaffes. Compliance with applicable registers will enhance the gravitas and authority of your writing, in contrast to the uninformed construction below:

• The programme featured a repeated broadcast of the discussion of “Freedom of Assembly” on radio.

Ordinarily, the above sentence might look spotless. Not truly spotless, however, because of the wrong use of the expression repeated broadcast, which is incorrect register and an amusing abuse of a broadcasting terminology. When a broadcast is repeated in broadcasting, the accepted lingo is repeat broadcast, not repeated broadcast. “No matter how ungrammatical that may sound, it is simply a matter of correct broadcasting register” (“Pop” Errors). Thus, we do away with the malapropism repeated broadcast in the sentence and use the accepted term in that profession as in the following re-work:

• The programme featured a repeat broadcast of the discussion of “Freedom of Assembly” on radio.

The phenomenon of not saying what you mean can get more serious when you jettison simple, direct expressions for unwanted circumlocutions and bombasts in conveying an otherwise straightforward message. These are the problems in the construction below:

• Unexpected rescheduling of meetings has negatively influenced the smooth implementation of the hearing sessions and determined a limited and intermittent participation by ministries.

Our guess is that the writer is only trying to tell us how unexpected reschedulings have hampered ministries’ participation and thereby the smooth running of hearings. He has, unfortunately, not succeeded in conveying this message clearly because of his choice of words and expressions. Instead, he keeps the reader guessing what he means by negatively influenced and the word determined. Yet the good writer does not keep his reader guessing or halting; his business is to keep him reading and sharing ideas and understanding. To achieve this, the author of that sentence could have used simple, direct and more appropriate terms like impeded, hindered, thwarted or hampered instead of the circumlocutory expression negatively influenced. Worse still, the word determined is, in that context, sheer bombast. “Pop” Errors suggests that the bombast “should be defused by using another word that conveys the exact meaning intended. Caused is such a word.” For clarity and meaning, we re-work the convoluted sentence thus:

• Unexpected re-scheduling of meetings has hindered the smooth running of the hearing sessions and caused a limited and intermittent participation by ministries.

Isn’t the reconstruction simpler, more direct, clearer and more meaningful? Yes, it is. Remember, communication is all about meaning.