By Segun Omolayo
It should be clear now that what the abusers do mostly to idioms is that they distort them – transposing some elements, removing words or letters, and adding unwanted elements. Essentially, they tend to re-write them.
Thereby, they complicate the form, usage and meaning of such idioms. And because of the power of the written word, such flagrant abusers and vectors of distorted knowledge keep proliferating.
Wherever the quality of education has crashed, this phenomenon may be part of the genesis and the unrelenting force of its entrenchment. If you have taken time to observe how suddenly certain expressions emerge and gain instant traction, courtesy of sundry potent vectors, you would understand what we mean.
A columnist writes something with compelling authority. A teacher imparts with the force of the gospel. A neighbourhood champion informs at residents’ meeting with the infallibility of an all-knowing mastermind.
Yet, all of such may be wrong impartations – mere reverberations of the trending errors. This is how distorted idioms like “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” became permanent stamps of the Nigerian province of English, for example! Hoping to help check the phenomenon of false impartations concerning idioms in particular as well as learning and writing habits generally, we continue with our conversations on idioms.
Let or hindrance
For the lack of the necessary mastery, care and sensitivity to the special character of idioms, some tend to invent their own idioms, as in:
If such can be frequently and sincerely carried out without let and hindrance, it would put the country on the path of accountability and development.
If we must use idioms, we must use them accurately. That is the point being re-sounded here in the discussion of the mess-up of the idiom let or hindrance. “Let or hindrance is the standard idiom. To do something without let or hindrance is to do that thing “without being prevented” or “freely” (“Pop” Errors).
So as not to join the multitude peddling distortions and false knowledge, let us note that there is a huge difference between let or hindrance and let and hindrance. The former is the authentic idiom, while the latter is an unacceptable alien idiom. So, here is the way the statement should run:
If such can be frequently and sincerely carried out without let or hindrance, it would put the country on the path of accountability and development.
You would do well to note what makes the wrong application wrong is the seemingly innocuous replacement of the word or with the word and. The one with the word or retains the authentic essence of the idiom, while the invented one with the word and ostracizes it from the English lexicon.
Throw a spanner in the works
With reckless levity, many a writer simply deploys this idiom as it pleases their fancy, re-inventing whichever elements suit them for the moment.
Yet, as already emphasized copiously in past editions of this column, the slightest tweak in an idiom is sure to confuse, mislead, mis-inform and complicate communication. All this is in addition to damaging the special property of the language. Undermining the spirit and soul of the language is like inventing an English of your own. That leaves us wondering whether onto yourself you can constitute a whole province of English. That reminds this columnist of a couple who once spoke a language which no one else understood or shared. They are long dead. And the language died with them.
So, let us keep English alive by being faithful to its special properties and not confounding them beyond easy comprehension. Simply avoid the habit of wanton distortion as in the following sentence:
Britain will not want to mess up its security and intelligence service by putting spanner in the works …
Putting spanner in the works, as used above, is a corrupt adaptation of the authentic British idiom throw a spanner in the works. The adaptation is therefore unacceptable. To throw a spanner in the works is “to cause a delay or problem with something that somebody is planning or doing.” Its American equivalent is throw a (monkey) wrench in the works, with the same meaning. For clarity, we adopt the British original in the correction below:
Britain will not want to mess up its security and intelligence service by throwing a spanner in the works.
Do something at your own peril
How certain idioms get terribly garbled can be quite puzzling. Perhaps many just create and play by their own rules. After all, many will tell you readily that everybody has his own style of writing.
Yes, there are styles and styles. But you must wonder whether serious violations of the rules will qualify to be called style.
You would also want to remind such persons that the individual person’s style is nothing more than his own unique way of correctly applying the rules. Any other attitude is heresy. So, no personal style will justify the egregious garbling of the idiom in the sentence below:
Along the entire road, you will find small kiosks including those selling cooked corn; stop at these spots to your own peril.
“The full idiom is: “do something at your (own) peril used to warn somebody that if they do something, it may be dangerous or cause them problems” (“Pop” Errors). Correctly put, therefore, you stop at those spots at your own peril, NOT to your own peril. In other words, you stop at your own risk.
