‘Unidentified Gunmen’ Wrong

Ebere Wabara

THE Guardian of July 16 nurtured lexical falsehoods: “…were in Wase on Friday (a comma) last week (another comma) for the restoration of peace and normalcy in (to) the council.”

“That last week (week’s) attack on Wase….’

“…three persons were reported killed in Kanana village in Langtan South by unidentified gunmen in their resumed hostilities.” Jettison ‘unidentified’ from the extract—these callous blokes are never identified or known. Spare readers the trite embellishments that are fast becoming components of Nigerian lexicon. (Vide the next sentence)

“It was learnt that unknown gunmen on Friday night….” Beyond the ‘unknown gunmen’ thrash, a reputable newspaper should obligatorily inform readers of what ‘it learnt’—not hazy and indolent reportage. 

“The sleeping and isolated Maza Ward in Jos North Local Council was also attacked….” Plateau crises: sleepy—not sleeping—ward!

Reporters should avoid these juvenile expressions: ‘It was gathered’/’It was further learnt’/’Sources informed our publication that….’ The foregoing and more demonstrate reportorial slothfulness! Go straight to the point.

“Reports say that the gunmen….” Why not ‘Accounts have it that the gunmen…?’ It sounds odd for a publication that is reporting an event to be saying ‘reports say….’!

Still on The Guardian: “BA plane develops fault, grounded at airport” Where else would it have been grounded? At Rutam House of The Guardian? To ground an aircraft is to stop it or the pilot from flying: All aircraft were grounded yesterday until the inclement weather cleared.

“…they condemned the airline officials for keeping them in the dark as to the real cause for (of) the delay.”

Not yet over with The Guardian of July 16 which contained four solecisms: “…the judiciary to whom (which) they look (look up to) for succour or redress has also turned to a haven of sorts for the looters.”

“Corrupt public officers (officials) do not worry about their arraignment in court anymore.” Except in rare extra-judicial circumstances, the only place for arraignment is court. Once someone is arraigned, it means that they were taken to a court. So, ‘arraignment in court’ is ‘under-bridge’/’bend-down’ English literature!

The last entry from The Guardian under review: “The party chairman and his entourage arrived at Obasanjo’s Hill Top, (sic) Abeokuta residence at noon and held a three-and-half hours (hours’) closed-door meeting with Obasanjo.” The meeting was held behind closed doors—there is nothing like ‘closed-door meeting’!  And this: the party’s chairman.

Point of grammar: If the noun that follows a percentage of is plural, use a plural verb after it: Only a small percentage of people are interested in politics in Nigeria.

Last week’s unpardonable oversight: “This is why in the developed world, (sic) creation of jobs is used as indices (an index) of measuring the health of the economy.” (Daily Trust, April 11) Singular: index; plural: indexes or indices. Thanks to the eagle-eyed readers who noted this. I saw it shortly after I had hurriedly sent in my column, almost late. Apologies all the same!

Yet another slip-up: “…the level of unemployment generated on a monthly is key in information for the government.” (Source: as above) A rewrite: …the level of unemployment generated on a monthly basis or monthly is key for the government.

Feedback

“DEAR Mr. Wabara, your observation about the expression ‘all nooks and crannies’ in your column last week is inaccurate. The expression is perfectly correct. Note that although idioms, such as ‘every nook and cranny’ are fixed expressions, they are nevertheless not only malleable in certain contexts, they also have non-idiomatic equivalents. The expression in question—all nooks and crannies—is not idiomatic at all. It is an acceptable, Learner’s Dictionary 8th Edition Page 994. Kind regards.” (Dr. Garvey Ufot/07061248849)

MY response: I did not say that ‘all nooks and crannies’ is an idiom. ‘Every nook and cranny’ is the idiom used informally in reference to ‘every part of a place.’ The fact is that idioms and some entries are fixed/stock expressions that cannot—no matter the circumstance, privilege or poetic licence/liberty/freedom—be adapted, re-phrased, amplified, embellished, vitiated or tampered with in anyway if it is formal/standard/official writing no matter the context. ‘A beehive of activity’ cannot become ‘a beehive of activities’; ‘under the weather’ (when someone is ill) will never change to ‘in the weather’; ‘meeting behind closed doors’ cannot be transformed or altered entirely except ‘closed-door meeting’ which is a standard expression—the list is endless. So, ‘every nook and cranny’ remains right as opposed to ‘all nooks and crannies’! The plural nature of ‘all nooks and crannies’ cannot make it synonymous with ‘every nook and cranny’. Let me mention here that the painstaking work I do in this column is research-based, which does not, however, mean that I am infallible. Nobody is. I cherish superior arguments and contributions based on foolproof knowledge—not half-baked ones that will draw me back, unnecessarily, please. The 2010 Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 8th Edition you referred to (page 1001, not 994) is old! The example it gave which obviously misled you is a different, non-idiomatic context: ‘dark woods full of secret nooks and crannies’! I use the 2022 edition of Longman Advanced Dictionary of Contemporary English (New Edition), among others. There is nothing like equivalence in idiomatic applications—idioms are independent and stand alone! Dispassionate and cerebral critiques are welcome—not jaundiced hypercriticisms! 

I thank Dr. Ufot, for his scholastic intervention as I look forward to more.