Sundry Misusages V: Behove . . . . plus more

Both: Often, some writers misuse this pre-determiner, determiner and pronoun with notorious abandon. In such instances, they lose sight of the meaning of the determiner both, namely: “the two or the one as well as the other” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). This is why we encounter statements like this:

All is not well with us – not with the stoning of the president’s convoy in Katsina, Bauchi and Taraba States

Both has been wrongly used in this sentence to refer to three states, whereas, by definition, it “is normally used to refer to two persons or things.” Thus, we simply do not require both to precede the three states Katsina, Bauchi and Taraba in the sentence.

Another variant of the misusage of both is when we use it as a pronoun and subject without realizing that it is a plural subject. Consider the following:

Both is synonymous because we cannot have one without the other.

Here, the verb is has been wrongly used with both, because the pronoun both has not been treated as a plural subject that it is. As a plural subject, both must always go with a verb that agrees with it in number and person. The appropriate verb, therefore, is the third person plural verb are, instead of is. Here is what we mean:

Both are synonymous because we cannot have one without the other.

Can/Able: We shared ideas before on matters concerning these words when we discussed redundancies. But it is worth revisiting under the rubric of misusages, because .writers tend to make the same mistakes in different ways. And the specimen error about to be considered here is distinctively different from the “can-able” errors discussed early in this column. Take a look:

NEMA says the number of Boko Haram-induced IDPs in Nigeria can be scientifically verifiable.

The distinction in this instance is the misuse of the modal verb can with a word containing able, namely: verifiable. When you use words like verifiable, possible, identifiable, combustible and the like, you create the same redundant effect as when you use it with the adjective able, because in all such instances, the use of can is “unpardonable tautology” (“Pop” Errors in English: Writers Beware). It is thus wrong usage to say “can be scientifically verifiable,” because verifiable means “can be verified.” So, “it is either you can verify or it is verifiable” (ibid.). For clarity, we spell these out as follows:

NEMA says the number of Boko Haram-induced IDPs in Nigeria can be scientifically verified

OR

NEMA says the number of Boko Haram-induced IDPs in Nigeria is scientifically verifiable.

Carry along: Should there be any controversy about the usage of this familiar phrasal verb? Controversy abounds because writers do not always apply it correctly. Remember, usage is about using words, phrases and ideas in accordance with assigned meanings. This suggests that no matter the meaning popularly ascribed to carry along, for example, writers should always uphold the meaning assigned by accepted convention and use it in that sense only. But wrongly, many have continued to use the expression carry along to mean “keep aware or keep abreast,” as in:

We must carry the people along for them to be aware of goings-on.

Our writers’ companion, “Pop” Errors in English: Writers Beware, says: ‘this is unacceptable, because to carry along is to “help (somebody) to continue or complete a task, race etc; give encouragement or support to” (Cowrie & Mackin, Oxford Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, 1998, op. cit: 50). The dictionary illustrates as follows: “The amateur team were carried along by the enthusiasm of their supporters and finally defeated a more highly-rated professional club.’ Shouldn’t we rest our case there?

Not yet! The book also suggests “a better way to convey the original message,” thus:

We must involve the people for them to be aware of goings-on.

Charge with: We highlight the misusage “charged of” in the sentence below to stress again the need for correct register at all times:

They have not been formally charged of a crime.

Correct usage is charge with, not charge of. To charge with is to formally or publicly accuse someone of doing something bad. Similar usages we should mind are: accuse of, not accuse for; acquit of, not acquit from; and convict of, not convict for. Hence, we re-cast the sentence in consideration thus:

They have not been formally charged with a crime.

Clergy/Cleric: We need to mind the difference between clergy and cleric, so as to always use them correctly. Frequently, you encounter writings that mix up these two nouns, using one wrongly to mean the other, as in:

Is it just happenstance that one of the aircraft involved belongs to a clergy?

In this question, the noun clergy is incorrect usage; cleric is the correct usage. According to our writers’ companion, ‘clergy refers to “the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian church” (Oxford Dictionary of English/AmazonKindle, op. cit.). Cleric, a related noun, is used to refer to “a priest or religious leader, especially a Christian or Muslim one” (ibid.). Note that clergyman is an acceptable alternative to cleric, but strictly in reference to “a priest or minister of a Christian church only” (ibid).’ The question should therefore read as follows:

Is it just happenstance that one of the aircraft involved belongs to a cleric?