Our journalists are misusing these two words

  SHARE BOOKMARKPRINTEMAILRATING

By PHILIP OCHIENG
Posted  Friday, April 20  2012 at  19:01

Let me repeat it. Although language rules are frequently illogical, logic itself is a function of language. A communicator must thus studiously ensure that his statements are logical.

It disappoints me that – despite my frequent warning – our newspapers continue to use the adjective “former” with utter absence of logic.

The preposition “following” is another word which Kenya’s journalists murder with abandon. A typical instance occurred the other day when the Nation wrote of Kenya’s “…nationwide darkness following a blackout…” In this construction, the word “following” means that the “blackout” preceded the “darkness” and was what caused it.

Thus, both phenomenally and in time — as well as semantically — the blackout and the darkness (!) that covered urban Kenya early this week were two separate events.

But how can that be when we are told that, among other things, “darkness” is “absence of light” – and that this is also the definition of a “blackout”?

In wartime, the term blackout – a pervading continuum of darkness — usually refers to the putting out or concealment of all lights as a precaution against a night attack by the enemy.

That is why — at a time when Kenya is at war with Al-Shabaab — all eyes must turn towards the power parastatals and the controverted Energy minister whenever a protracted blackout occurs nationwide.

But to say that the blackout was what caused the darkness is like saying that heat was what caused your temperature, namely, puerile tautology.

Share This Story

3Share 

For heat and temperature are more or less the same thing, physically, and the one can cause the other just as little, chemically, as ice can cause water.

The newspapers abuse the preposition “following” in many other ways. It is not uncommon to read that somebody “died following an accident” (even where the death was immediate).

In the sports pages, you will find something like: “…AFC Leopards won following a 3-1 victory over Gor Mahia…”

Here the word “following” means that the win came only after the victory — in other words, that the “victory” preceded and was what caused the “win”.

Put another way, the victory and the win were two completely separate events, not only as phenomena but also temporally – and in semantic import.

The preposition “after” is often used interchangeably with the preposition “following”. But, if death was the immediate consequence of an accident, where is the logic in saying that the death came “following” or “after” the accident?

Why do our reporters find it so difficult to say that the man “died in the accident?”

Here please note the preposition “in”. It means that the accident and the death occurred more or less simultaneously.

To be sure, there was a causal relationship: Without the accident, there would have been no death. Nevertheless, the two events could not be separated phenomenally or in time.

In short, the prepositions “following” and “after” refer to events which are separate in space-time, even where the separation is implicit only.

They cannot be used to denote simultaneity or phenomenal identity.

kwamchetsi@formandcontent.co.ke