Time lag, possessive, staff

SAMPLE 1: “According to global aviation requirements, the FAA is expected to officially make its findings public 60 days after the conclusion of any technical safety audit. The time lap is required for affected countries to rectify deficiencies found on its civil aviation regulatory standards, practices and procedure.”(Nigeria to Submit Findings to FAA over Category One Re-validation, The Nation, Sunday, November 10, 2017)

Before focusing on our main concern, let’s note the word lap which occurs in the following context: “the time lap is required.” “The time lap” is obviously a reference to the expression, “60 days after the conclusion of any technical safety audit.” That being the case, as it obviously is, the word lap is misnomer, obviously a product or victim of mistaken identity. The appropriate word is lag and not lap. A person’s lap is the upper part of his or her thigh. When we are thinking or talking of timeframe or stretch of time allowable, we opt for time lag. Let me admit, however, the possibility of what seems to be the reporter’s choice as a typo. Again note: time lag and not time lap.

Now to the main issue: Please note the possessive adjective its which occurs in the following context: “affected countries to rectify deficiencies found on its civil aviation regulatory standards…” This possessive form is morphologically and grammatically related to the pronoun it. And it is an obvious grammatical fact that that pronoun (it) is singular. If it is singular, as it is unquestionably, then its possessive form (its) should be singular. Next, we want to identify the noun whose singular status could have influenced the choice of the singular possessive form. The only noun supported by logic and grammar as the antecedent of the possessive element is countries, a noun that is undoubtedly plural. There is a contradiction here, a contradiction that can be rectified either by changing the possessive to its plural form (their) or restructuring the sentence in such a way that the antecedent is construed as a singular entity: “each of the affected countries to rectify deficiencies found on its civil aviation regulatory standards…” or: “each/every affected country to rectify deficiencies found on its civil aviation regulatory standards…”

Sample 2: “Meanwhile, three persons (names withheld) arrested at World Bank Housing Estate for pulling down a ladder an EEDC staff was working with and unleashing their dogs that attacked and injured a staff while carrying out his lawful duties, are being tried at the Chief Magistrate Court 1 Owerri.”(4 Convicted for Tampering with Electricity Installations, The Sun, Sunday, March 26, 2017)

I draw readers’ attention to the reporter’s use of the word staff occurring in two contexts as follows: “an EEDC staff” and “injured a staff.” Each of the two contexts shows that the word is used to refer to a single person. Here lies the problem. Although it can be used with either a singular or plural verb, it should never be used to refer to a single person. This point has been made repeatedly in this place. We would feel free, today, to rehash the discussion that has previously featured in this place in the conviction that repetition is beneficial to retention.

Please read the following sentences: 1) The staff is the single most important force in any establishment. 2) The staff were drawn from various companies in the metropolis. 3) Our staff is an even mix of both male and female workers. 4) All staff are expected to submit their files before the end of the day. 5) All members of staff are trained from time to time. 6) The company has a highly skilled staff. 7) The staff strength has increased by ten. 8) Half of the staff were laid off.

Can the noun be pluralized by the addition of s? Yes and no. Yes, if we are thinking of staffs of different establishments, but no if we are thinking of the staff of a single establishment.  The following sentences, for example, are deficient: 1) The school’s *staffs are committed to their duties.  2) The company’s *staffs are loyal to the chairman. 3) All the *staffs in this unit are to come for the one-week workshop. 4) The chairman would like to address all *staffs of the company tomorrow. 5) The workshop is meant for all the *staffs of this school. 6) The *staffs in our Department have not received their salaries.

It is grammatically improper to have the word staff in a form carrying a final s as it does in each of those sentences.

However, when the reference is to the workers in several establishments, then it is proper to add –s to staff. Now consider the following sentences: 1) There is a forum where all the staffs of the various companies in the conglomerate meet. 2) Should the staffs of the companies belonging to the government and those belonging to private entrepreneurs be placed under the same salary scheme? 3) Representatives of staffs from private and public companies are meeting next month. 4) This consulting firm trains staffs of both government and private companies. 5) The staffs of the companies in the rubber industry will be interacting very soon.

The word staffs in each of those sentences refers to bodies or groups of workers in two or more establishments.

The word can also be used in the verb form. Let’s consider the following sentences: 1) The Department is staffed by highly intelligent and experienced people. 2) It is a well-staffed school, with about seven mathematics teachers and ten chemistry teachers. 3) The major problem of that firm is that of staffing. 4) The unit is staffed exclusively by medical doctors. 5) Of course the kitchen should be staffed by trained caterers. 6) Do you think hospitals are staffed by only doctors and nurses?