Sample 1: “The demolition which entered its second week was put on halt after the death of pastor Heinkpoyanwa last Saturday. To this end, the entire Makoko community have not seized to mourn this unfortunate incident … On the day of this ugly incident, his first wife who was briefed of what happened immediately drowned with her child. She is presently recuperating at an undisclosed hospital… when Justina Hunkpoyanwa, 25 heard the news of the death of her father, she collapsed but later regain consciousness… the late Baale had many children, he was only the breadwinner of the entire Hunkpoyanwa family… The second wife… also expressed deep sorrow to the unfortunate incident.”(Family of Slain Makoko Chief lament Ordeal, The Vanguard, July 8,2012 ).
The first expression that catches our attention is “the demolition…was put on halt,” particularly the aspect put on halt. All the three words here (put on halt) are familiar words of English, but the collocation rings slightly unfamiliar. Of course in idiomatic expressions, collocation is “everything”. More specifically, the word halt does not belong to that collocative environment. In point of fact, it has been allowed to usurp the slot that belongs to hold.
Readers who have more than a passing familiarity with English idioms know that the “standard” idiom is put on hold. The execution of a plan, the decision to carry out a project, etc, may be put on hold, by which is meant that it is suspended.
To return to the context of the news story, the demolition was not put on halt; no, it was put on hold. As we have pointed out repeatedly, the integrity and identity of an idiom depend on the sacrosanct nature not only of its syntax (the sequence in which the contributing lexical items occur) but also the unsubstitutable character of those words. Yes, the demolition can be halted or it can be brought to a halt; but it can also be put on hold.
Next, we are interested in the import of the word drowned. But to understand and appreciate the nature of the error, we need to quote two full sentences from the excerpt: “On the day of this ugly incident, his first wife who was briefed….immediately drowned with her child. She is presently recuperating at an undisclosed hospital”. When you say that someone drowned, what do you mean? You mean that he has gone under water and died. It is inconceivable to say that a person drowned and was revived or rescued. However, it is possible to say that lifeguards promptly saved the drowning swimmers.
Now compare the past tense or past participle drowned with the present participle drowning. When you say that someone drowned or was drowned or has drowned, you mean he is dead. Period. But when you say he is drowning, he is in danger of losing his life by drowning if he does not get help.
In the light of this explanation, the second sentence negates the information we have in the first. Here is the second sentence again: “She is presently recuperating at an undisclosed hospital” To be recuperating means that the woman did not die. But she drowned! This is a classic example of people’s English being insufficient to express what they mean.
The problem here is similar to that associated with the usage of the adjective fatal. When many Nigerians use that word, they mean something like the vehicle was severely damaged or the people were badly injured. Some Nigerians would say, “The accident was fatal, but God being merciful, everybody survived”, “Driving in his new car, my uncle had a fatal accident, and he is being treated at the General Hospital, Minna” “A ‘molue’ bus had a fatal accident, and although many passengers were badly injured, nobody died.” These are self-contradictory sentences. In a fatal accident, at least one person must have died. The person whose brother was involved in a fatal accident is expected to know and tell us that his brother died. At any rate, nobody should use the adjective fatal if he does not know or mean that the accident claimed at least one life.
Now we pay attention to the form regain which occurs in the structure, “When Justina Hunkpoyanwa, 25 heard the news of the death of her father, she collapsed but later regain consciousness”. We know of course that the except, being a news report, is expected to be presented in reported speech. By reported speech is meant that the verbs are in their past forms: This is evident in the sentence, under scrutiny. The two other verbs, unlike regain, are in their past forms. The verbs are: heard and collapsed. If the two other verbs are in their past forms, why has the reporter presented the verb regain in its infinitive/basic form? Carelessness I would say! At any rate, the verb regain should be converted to its past form—”regained. That is the only way the sentence can conform to the principle of sequence of tense.
Next, we focus attention on the word only which occurs in the structure, “Apart from the fact that the late Baale had many children, he was only the breadwinner of the entire Hunkpoyanwa’s family.” The only problem with this word is its location within the structure. In its present position in “he was only the breadwinner,” it yields the meaning of something like, “he was nothing more than the breadwinner” or “he was merely the breadwinner.” But the whole context signifies something more grave than that. It suggests that the position of the late Baale was pivotal in the life of the family. The whole family depended on him for survival.
But when we relocate the word only the meaning suggested by the context emerges: “He was the only breadwinners of the entire Hunkpoyanwa’s family”
Now we examine the appropriateness or otherwise of the particle to in the context, “The second wife … also expressed deep sorrow to the unfortunate incident”. We do not need to waste our precious time on this. The particle is certainly not appropriate. The appropriate word is the particle on: “The second wife…also expressed sorrow on the unfortunate incident.”
Finally, we evaluate the choice of the word seize which occurs in the following context. “To this end, the entire Makoko community have not seized to mourn this unfortunate incident.” My understanding of this sentence is that the community has been mourning the unfortunate incidents for days on end. They have continued to mourn without stopping.
But is that the meaning of the word seize? Does the word seize mean to stop?
It should be obvious that the writer, cheated by a pronunciation weakness, has confused seize with cease. This is a common error among Nigerian users of English. The next task before us is to demonstrate the difference between seize and cease on the one hand and the difference between both and size on the other.
Seize:
When you seize a thing, you take it by force or by law.
The following sentences illustrate how the verb is used:
The army first seized power in Nigeria in 1966
The police have seized the contraband.
They seized the thief by the hand.
The noun form of seize is seizure, e.g., the seizure of power by the army.
Cease:
To cease is to stop or come to an end or go out of existence
Read the following sentences:
The law has ceased to exist.
The College has ceased offering courses in management
He ceased coming to school last week.
The word can also be used as a noun as shown in the sentences that follow:
He has been working without cease.
John has been writing without cease.
Another noun form of the words is cessation:
Death is cessation of life.
He appealed for cessation of war.
Size:
The noun size has to do with dimension or measurement:
That shirt is not my size.
The blouse is a size or two too large.
That building is about the size of ours.
I’m trying to size him up.
Sentences (1) – (3) talk about measurement or dimension. In sentence (4), the word size is used as a verb. In that sense, it is a colloquial expression meaning to form a judgment or opinion about.
Please read my own sentences again and form sentences of your own using the words size. Note the spelling and meanings.
READ ALSO: In Public, Where, Were
and then