SAMPLE 1: “He said the laws establishing the institution requires an election among the consultants in the institution where three nominees are sent to the governor who was at liberty to chose from the list, but added that the expiration of the tenure of CMD’s elections are held but the list of nominees were jettisoned due to political considerations, which often lead to the appointment of outsiders.”(Multibillion Naira DELSUTH Goes into Decay, The Nation, September 25, 2016)
The piece is an exercise in grammatical confusion: contradictory choices in matters of tense and concord.
First, note the final s in the verb requires which occurs in the context: “the laws establishing the institution requires.” That verb (requires) is meant to be in agreement with the noun laws. Given the fact that the latter (laws) is in its plural form, the form requires (with its final s) is anomalous, ungrammatical. Note: the law requires; but the laws require.
Perhaps the worst grammatical choice is found in the form chose which occurs in the following context: “was at liberty to chose from the list.” Please note the particle to immediately preceding the form chose. The grammatical form here is no different from the following: to went; to brought; to wanted; to took; etc. It is the basic form of the verb or the infinitive form that should follow the word to: to go; to bring; to want; to take; etc. Those are the acceptable forms in the language. At any rate, the appropriate form for the expression under consideration is: to choose.
Still on concord, we note the relationship between the noun list and the verb-form were both of which occur in the following context: “the list of nominees were jettisoned.” Guided by logic, we could easily see that the grammatical agreement should be between the noun list and the verb slot now occupied by the form were. Furthermore, it should be obvious that the noun list is a singular item and the verb were a plural form. This is a clear case of breach of concord, a case of grammatical contradiction or inconsistency.
What could have accounted for this lapse? I do believe that the reporter has mistaken the noun nominees, very close to the verb slot, for the one that should guide the choice of the verb-form. Since that contiguous noun is plural, the reporter erroneously opts for the plural form of the verb. At any rate, the plural verb-form should be replaced by the singular form, is.
Finally, we note the inconsistency in the tense of the verb-forms in the sentence. The verb-forms are: requires, are, was, chose, are, were. I advise that all the verb-forms should be changed to their present forms.
Sample 2: “Some believe that was the beginning of the problems in the national side, as some ‘powerful’ players felt he took the glory of scoring the historical goal alone and decided to use several tactics, one of which reportedly included denying Yekini of crucial passes while free on goal afterwards.”(Yekini: A Legend Unheralded at Home, The Punch, May 15, 2016)
I draw readers’ attention to the expression, “denying…of” which occurs in the following context: “which reportedly included denying Yekini of crucial passes.” Let us note in particular the particle of that the writer allows to collocate with the gerund denying. As we have noted repeatedly, the verb deny (or its gerund or present participle form, denying) does not take the particle of. With the choice of the particle (of) in relation to the verb deny, the writer obviously confuses the usage of deny with that of deprive. Actually, confusion often arises in the usage of many verbs, including forestall.
Here are examples of the usage of the verb forestall: 1) The police presence is to forestall any possibility of the wild boys harassing the girls. 2) To forestall the famous scorer penetrating the front easily, two strong defence players should be arranged to tackle him. 3) To forestall an epidemic, we decided to disinfect the house. 4) To forestall a breakdown of law and order, two teams of policemen were put on patrol. 5) To forestall the Governor refusing the application, two delegates were sent ahead to plead with him. 6) The government constituted a panel that would have a dialogue with the representatives of the labour union to forestall a nationwide protest. 7) He put another lawyer on standby to forestall a situation in which no lawyer would be there to represent him. 8) To forestall a fire disaster all bowls containing petrol should be removed far from the house.
The illustrative sentences demonstrate that the verb forestall does not take any particle at all.
The following sentences illustrate the usage of the verb prevent: 1) Children were prevented from going out after 7pm every day. 2) Journalists were prevented from taking pictures of the gory sight. 3) Through pressure and blackmail, the president was preventedfrom taking decisions that could jeopardize the electoral process. 4) In Yoruba land, women are prevented from witnessing certain ritual practices. 5) The firefighters prevented the fire from spreading to the adjoining fuel station. 6) It was the presence of the chairman that prevented the complaints from degenerating into public riots.
In each of those sentences, the verb prevents collocates with the particle from.
Like forestall, the verb deny does not take any particle. Some Nigerian users of English have developed the habit of attaching the particle of to the verb, not realizing that it does not take any particle at all. Now read the following sentences: 1) Unfortunately, many departments were denied accreditation by the National Universities Commission (NUC). 2) People with suspicious appearance were denied access to the hall. 3) Freedom of Information Bill is to guarantee that members of the public are not denied vital information. 4) Having been denied his own share of the profit, he headed for court. 5) No bank has the right to deny anybody access to his money. 6) The lawyer complained that the suspect was sentenced unfairly because he was denied legal representation.
In none of those sentences is the word deny allowed to be followed by the particle of or by any particle for that matter.
Now compare those sentences with the following in which the verb deprive is used: 1) People who are deprived of their rights are free to go to court. 2) It is wrong to deprive children of their meals as a form of punishment. 3) No child should be deprived of education simply because his/her parents are financially handicapped. 4) Children that are deprived of motherly care will grow up to become maladjusted adults. 5) The governor has promised that rural areas would no longer be deprived of the amenities available in the cities. 6) The lady is seeking divorce on the grounds that she has been deprived of love.
In each of those sentences, the verb deprive has been allowed to collocate with the particle of.
At any rate, the particle of should be deleted in the context under consideration.
and then