The ManicaPost
Morris Mtisi
I am not sure that I understand why some errors in English language refuse to go away.
Secondly, I do not know why with so much education and training, certain errors continue to embarrass otherwise decent speakers or writers and reputable scribes.
We can never say, “when doctors went back to their work places, their moral was very low.” No matter how serious the subject you are writing about is, the significance or gravitas of intent drowns with the bad English.
The word you want to use is “morale” (a noun). “Moral” is an adjective referring to “principles of right and wrong behaviour”. Yes, the word “moral” can be used as a noun. But it is used in the following way: “The moral of this story (meaning the lesson learnt) is ‘love is a complex regime which cannot be subjected to a formula’.” Once this lesson about the difference between “moral” and “morale” has been made so easy to understand, why do people wake up repeating the same error?
Another stubborn common error is the malapropismic (confusion caused by similar spelling, sometimes pronunciation, of two or more words) proximity of the word “temper” and “tamper”. The former refers to a person’s state of the mind regarding anger or calmness while the latter refers to altering, meddling or interfering with something without authority. Eg. 1. “Someone was tampering with my phone while I was outside. Who is it?”(Correct.) 2. Someone was tempering with my phone . . . (Incorrect). The word “tamper” is a verb (a doing / an action word). The word “temper” is a noun. Confusing these two words can be pretty embarrassing. Some people do not even know there are two words like these . . . spelt differently, one with an “e” after “t” and another with an “a” after “t”, and so they use the familiar one “temper” interchangeably to refer to a state of mind and to alter, meddle or interfere with something without permission.
Can we say, 1. “If I sent you some money, will you come to Mutare next week?” 2. “I will sent you a message by email before I come.” 3. “I will sent you the money you want next week.” Certainly not! The three statements are grammatically wrong of course. The word you want to use in all the statements is “send”. 1. “If I send you some money . . .” 2. “I will send you a message.” 3. I will send you some money . . .” “Sent” is the past tense of ‘send’ and using the past tense.
Study the following sentence: You and I and every child (knows /or know) the story. Which is correct? Of course the first option (knows) is wrong though it appears to be the correct one. Because there is the word “child” (singular) before “knows”, the statement appears correct. But remember we are not talking about a child here. We are talking about many people; namely you, I and every child. Many people pay attention to the last noun in a list and coin the verb tense on that basis. That is wrong. If the subject noun is a combined collective . . . a series of nouns, then the verb tense must be determined by a plural factor not singular factor. Teachers please, understand this grammatical rule first, and then carefully explain it to your students. Those who think they passed their English language at whatever level, there is no harm mastering this common error, and of course many more. It is better to be embarrassed now in learning the correct grammar than to feel bad and be too proud to learn, then make the error in public and sound very ignorant, foolish, or both.
Teacher(s)! Please compose several examples of sentences containing the above common errors and drill your children. Drill them until they are conditioned to constructing the correct structures. Until they know, they master, where the wheels come off in construction! If it is “wrong” to teach grammar, go ahead and teach it anyway, if that is the only way the acknowledged rule of grammar can be mastered. When your children write correct grammar in their compositions and other written work, the examiners will not know how you taught them to get it right.
I am aware in the old English teaching stereo-type it was “wrong” or a crime to teach grammar. I remember as a classroom practitioner at the prime of my teaching career, crossing lines with a few die-hard English language so-called experts (inspectors) and enjoying a few fights with them over this senseless directive: don’t teach grammar in isolation . . . teach it in context all the time! I always argued. “Why wait until children make the mistake or error? What is wrong with laying down the 10 commandments . . . the dos and donts of language? It is my submission even today that the reason most of our learners today still struggle to thread grammatically correct, let alone flavour some sentences, is because they do not have the rules of the game at their finger-tips.
However, be smart, be careful! While we are inviting Professor Mavima and his team to review the teaching concept and more, and waiting for policy intervention, go ahead and teach grammar under the desk. Zimbabwe basks in a new dispensation anchored on new initiatives and creativeness to do things better. We cannot continue to teach and learn using wrong ways to master correct skills. We know very well why English language continues to be a nightmare to our learners in schools.
We want to recommend seriousness of purpose in the teaching and learning of English language to Professor Mavima. Why are our Zimbabwean children continuing to find English language impossible? Is it the teacher or the learner, or both? What is the role of administrators and inspectors in all this? If intellectual and professional intervention is failing to find an answer, as does appear for more than 37 years, can we engage political intervention?
