By Farooq A. Kperogi, Ph.D. Twitter: @farooqkperogi Question: I am a Kenyan and a regular reader of your Facebook page as well as ...
By
Farooq A. Kperogi, Ph.D.
Twitter:@farooqkperogi
Question:
I am
a Kenyan and a regular reader of your Facebook page as well as your blogs. I'd
like you to answer my query in your Question and Answer Column and if you must
not, please answer me by email.
Reading
through Prof. Ngugi wa Thiong'o's short story, 'A Meeting in the Dark', I came
across the following sentence: 'Indeed they were all there- all except she whom
he wanted'.
I
thought that 'except' in this context is a preposition and therefore it should
be followed by the objective 'her' and not the subjective 'she'? That is to say
that, according to me, the pronoun should be the subject of the sentence and
not the other way round.
In
any case, is it not the object of the verb 'wanted'?
Answer:
You
are correct, in my opinion. "Except" is both a preposition and a
conjunction. It's a preposition if it's followed immediately by either a noun
or a pronoun, and it's a conjunction if it's followed by a clause or an
adverbial phrase. In the example you quoted, "except" is followed by
"she," which is a pronoun. That means "except" functions as
a preposition in the sentence.
Now,
in grammar, when a preposition precedes a pronoun, the pronoun is always in the
objective case, such as "her," "him," "them,"
"whom," "us," "me,"etc. Based on this, you're
right that the "she" in the sentence should have been
"her," more so that "whom" is correctly in the objective
case.
But
I can see why the sentence is little tricky. “They” is a subjective pronoun, with
which “she” shares positional similarities, that is, the sentence could as well
have read: “They were all there. Only she wasn’t there.” That would justify
leaving “she” in the subjective case in the sentence. I am not sure many
grammarians will quibble over the correctness of the placement of “she” in
Ngugi’s sentence.
I certainly
won't judge Prof. Ngugi wa Thiong'o. I think he has earned the right to break
the rules of English grammar any way he likes, more so that he makes no pretenses
about his antipathy toward the English language!
Question:
What
is the difference between “English literature” and “literature in English” and
between “English graduate” and “graduate of English”?
Answer:
In
everyday usage, there is no difference. But certain specialists like to insist
that “English literature” is literature originally written in English about
England and, by extension, all English-speaking countries, including
postcolonial English-speaking countries like Nigeria. “Literature in English,”
on the other hand, is literature about non-English-speaking countries,
originally written in languages other than English, but translated into
English.
As
you can see, this is a problematic distinction. Where does one place, for
instance, literature originally written in, say, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, etc.
about Britain, or in Yoruba (such as D.O. Fagunwa’s Ògbójú Ọdẹ nínú Igbó Irúnmalẹ̀, which Wole Soyinka translated as The Forest of A Thousand Daemons) about
Nigeria, or in Spanish about the US, or in French about Canada, or in Hindi
about India, etc. but later translated into English? Maybe it’s “literature in
English” since the language of such literature wasn’t originally written in
English. But it’s about places that are part of the “English-speaking” world.
That’s a definitional ambiguity.
Other
people narrowly define “English literature” as literature exclusively about
England, and “literature in English” as all other literature written in
English. I don’t agree with that distinction.
An “English
graduate” and a “graduate of English” mean the same thing. But some pedants
insist that since English isn’t just a language but also a demonym (to refer to
someone from England), an “English graduate” could be understood to mean a
graduate from England, who might not have even studied English—similar to saying
a “Scottish graduate,” “an Irish graduate,” “a Welsh graduate,” “a Hausa
graduate,” etc.
So
it is thought that saying “a graduate of English” rather than "an English graduate" eliminates ambiguity between the
language and the demonym. This sounds logical but, in reality, no one assumes
that “an English graduate” means anything other than someone who studied
English. If reference to England is desired, people just say “a graduate from
England.” Wherever “graduate” and “English” appear in the same sentence, people
automatically associate it with the study of the language.
Question:
Former
Edo State governor Adams Oshiomhole once got in trouble with Edo people for
characterizing the late Oba of Benin as “iconoclastic.” Why is “iconoclastic” a
bad word? Or is it?
Answer:
The
former governor’s critics were being a little too literal. It is true that the
original meaning of “iconoclasm” isn’t particularly flattering. It means the
destruction of icons (or images), often for religious reasons. For instance,
Islam forbids visual representations of the prophet of Islam, which causes some
Muslims to destroy all images that purport to represent him. Christianity also
had its own period of iconoclasm inspired by the biblical injunction against
worshiping "graven images."
So
an iconoclast is one who practices iconoclasm. I can see how Bini people might find that offensive.
Over
the years, however, iconoclasm’s meaning has mutated from the literal to the metaphoric
realm. It now means upending established traditions. Now, generally, it is used
with a tone of approval to mean shaking up old, decaying conventions in order
to inaugurate freshness and vitality. So an iconoclastic person is a radical
reformist, an agent of positive change. The word is almost never used in a negative
sense in modern usage.
I am
not sure I would describe any traditional ruler as being “iconoclastic,”
though. That’s way too generous. Oshiomhole’s problem wasn’t that he was insulting to the Oba. He was not. He was rather exaggeratedly kind to a symbol
of stagnant tradition and convention. In other words, he used the wrong word.
Question:
I
would like to know the actual "concord and verb agreement" that must
go with this sentence: “May God grant him paradise” Or should it be, “May God
grants him paradise.”
Answer:
It
should be, “May God grant him paradise.” Here is why. “May” is a modal verb,
and modal verbs (other examples are “must,” “will,” “would,” “shall,” “should,”
“may,” “might,” “can,” “could,” and “might”) don’t follow subject-verb
agreement rules.
Question:
In
our lesson plan at school, the school wrote "Key Vocabulary Words." I
am of the opinion that vocabulary simply means word. Isn’t “vocabulary word” a
tautology? This has really generated a lot of controversy in my school. What's
your view on this?
Answer:
It’s
entirely logical to characterize “vocabulary words” as tautological. But
remember that a usage isn’t wrong simply because it is tautological.
Tautologies were never considered bad in English until the 17th century when
grammarians began to frown at and demonize them. That’s why there are a lot of
tautologies in Shakespeare’s works. (Read my August 9, 2015 column titled “Shakespearean Expressions that Sound Illiterate by Today‘s Standards.”)
In
spite of all the efforts of 17th century English grammarians, there
are still many tautologies in English that are idiomatic and acceptable.
Examples are “close proximity,” “over and over again,” “reason why,” etc.
I
admit that “vocabulary word” does sound tautological, but it is usual and
standard, especially among native English speakers. I, too, don’t like the
sound of it and would never use it, but it is socially acceptable.
No comments
Share your thoughts and opinions here. I read and appreciate all comments posted here. But I implore you to be respectful and professional. Trolls will be removed and toxic comments will be deleted.