By Farooq A. Kperogi, Ph.D. Twitter: @farooqkperogi Question: Is the phrase “the reason why” correct? Or should it just be “the rea...
By Farooq A. Kperogi, Ph.D.
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
Twitter: @farooqkperogi
Question:
Is the phrase “the reason why” correct? Or should it just be
“the reason”? Examples: Should I say “the reason why I left is…” or should it
be “the reason I left is …” Thanks!!
Answer:
Both phrases are correct. However, historically,
conservative semantic purists in Britain have dismissed "the reason
why" as tautologous and redundant since both “reason” and “why”
denote causation. That’s why they dismiss the expression as “causational
overkill.” However, “reason why” is considered perfectly correct in
contemporary British and American English. All modern dictionaries and usage
guides in both the UK and the US accept “the reason why” as a legitimate usage.
The objections of conservative grammarians to its usage have been, for all
practical purposes, blunted.
For instance, two leading British grammarians, Sidney
Greenbaum and Janet Whitcut, in their celebrated Longman Guide to English Usage, noted that “Only very conservative
writers object to ‘the reason why’.” In America, almost no grammarian objects
to “the reason why.” In fact, “The Reason Why” is the title of a 2010 album by
an American musical group called Little Big Town. And there is a classic
American military history book titled, TheReason Why: The Story of the Fatal Charge of the Light Brigade.
Nevertheless, somewhat similar causational phrases like “the
reason was because” and “the reason was due to” are met with strong objection
in most usage guides across the Atlantic (that is, in both the UK and North
America). So instead of writing “The reason he failed was because he was ill,”
it is advised that you write, “The reason he failed was that he was ill.”
I
must add, however, that this objection seems arbitrary and churlish to me.
“Reason why” and “reason was because” both exemplify causational overkill. Why
one is preferred to the other is beyond me. But as I've said in my previouswritings, grammar, especially English grammar, isn’t always governed by logic. It’s
sometimes just the product of the arbitrary “commandments” of snooty
prescriptivist grammarians or the tyranny of popular usage.
Question:
What is the difference between “alright” and “all right”? Or
are they different spellings of the same word?
Answer:
In both British English and American English “alright” is
considered an uneducated approximation of “all right.” For instance, The Associated Press Stylebook,
considered the “bible” of American journalism, forbids the use of “alright” in
news copy. Many prestigious British English usage guides also object to its use
in serious writing.
However, some grammarians
(who are, for now, in the minority) argue that “alright” is a legitimate word
that is not necessarily an illiterate approximation of “all right.” They
contend that it is in the category of words like “already,” “almost” and
“altogether.” Just as “already” (as in: “he is already here”) is different from
“all ready” (as in: “they are all ready to go”), “almost” (as in: “it is almost
interesting,” meaning it is nearly interesting) from “all most” (as in: “it is
all most interesting,” meaning all of it is interesting), and “altogether” (as in: “it is altogether
different,” where “altogether” means “completely”) from “all together” (as in:
“they sang all together,” meaning they sang all at the same time) the two
spellings “alright” and “all right” are needed to mark a distinction between “The
children are all (i.e., all of them are) right in their answers” and “The
answers are alright (i.e., they’re OK).”
This makes sense to
me. But since “alright” is met with disapproval by most grammarians in all the
dominant varieties of the English language, I’d advise that you should avoid it
at least in formal writing. I predict, however, that in the next few years
“alright” will enjoy the same respectability and acceptance as “almost,”
“altogether,” and “already.”
Question:
It truly throws me off when indigenous Africans declare that
they “hail from” Washington DC, for instance. “Born in,” “hail from”? I need
clarification.
Answer:
"Hail from" can denote one of the following: 1.
come from, 2. be native of, 3. be born in. That means you don’t necessarily
have to be born in a place to hail from the place, at least in America. Recent immigrants
“hail from” any part of America they are registered to vote. That means, in
essence, that it's perfectly legitimate for naturalized African immigrants in,
for instance, Washington D.C. to say they "hail from" that city whenever
they are in America or are involved in America-specific conversations. Of
course, it would be absurd for them to say they hail from Washington D.C.
when they are in Africa.
Question:
My question is on the omission of the definite article
before some singular common nouns and after 'as', e.g. 1. He is captain. 2. He
is king. 3. He is elected as chairman. Are those sentences correct? If yes, why
is it that the articles are omitted before the nouns: captain, king, and
chairman?
Answer:
Articles are tricky in the English language. That’s why I
can’t do justice to your question in this limited space. I will only say this for now: “captain” and “king” should be preceded by
either a definite article (i.e., “the”) or an indefinite article (i.e., “a” or “an”).
So “he is a captain” would mean he is one of several captains, while “he is the
captain” would mean he is the one and only person known by that title in a
specific area. Same rule applies to “king.” In the third example, the sentence
should be “he was elected chairman.” Chairman is not preceded by an article
here because the sense is non-specific. Also note that I omitted “as” in the
sentence. Other examples: “He was elected president.” “He was appointed
commissioner,” etc.
Question:
When I watch American soaps, they seem to not care about
tenses. Or maybe it’s something beyond me—I don’t know. For instance, a typical
dialogue goes like this:
“Daughter: 'dad, do you snore ‘cause I do.
Dad: 'yeah you GET that from me'.”
Should not the “get” be GOT? Could you clarify this for me,
please?
Answer:
Well, it's not true that Americans don't care about tenses.
They do. The example of the use of present tense in the dialogue you cited is
called the “historical present” in grammar. It's perfectly legitimate even in
British English. It functions to make a past event seem more vivid, or to
signal continuity between the past and the present. In conversational English,
it's particularly used with such “verbs of communication” as “get” (as in: “OK,
I get it: you’re a genius!”), “forget” (as in: “I forget his name”), “tell” (as
in: “your dad tells me you want to talk to me”). Other verbs of communication
that are expressed in the historical present in speech are “write” and “say.”
I agree with you,
though, that Americans tend to use the historical present more often than the
British do. The historical present is rarely used in Nigerian English, except
by our creative writers who deploy it in their fictional narratives. In the
hypothetical dialogue you cited, however, it would also be perfectly legitimate
to replace “get” with “got.” In fact, in formal contexts, “got” would be
especially appropriate.
Related Articles:
1. A Comparison of Nigerian, American and British English
2. Why is "Sentiment" Such a Bad Word in Nigeria?
3. Ambassador Aminchi's Impossible Grammatical Logic
4. 10 Most Annoying Nigerian Media English Expressions
5. Sambawa and "Peasant Attitude to Governance"
6. Adverbial and Adjectival Abuse in Nigerian English
7. In Defense of "Flashing" and Other Nigerianisms
8. Weird Words We're Wedded to in Nigerian English
9. American English or British English?
10. Hypercorrection in Nigerian English
11. Nigerianisms, Americanisms, Briticisms and Communication Breakdown
12. Top 10 Irritating Errors in American English
13. Nigerian Editors Killing Macebuh Twice with Bad Grammar
14. On "Metaphors" and "Puns" in Nigerian English
15. Common Errors of Pluralization in Nigerian English
16. Q & A About Common Grammatical Problems
17. Semantic Change and the Politics of English Pronunciation
2. Why is "Sentiment" Such a Bad Word in Nigeria?
3. Ambassador Aminchi's Impossible Grammatical Logic
4. 10 Most Annoying Nigerian Media English Expressions
5. Sambawa and "Peasant Attitude to Governance"
6. Adverbial and Adjectival Abuse in Nigerian English
7. In Defense of "Flashing" and Other Nigerianisms
8. Weird Words We're Wedded to in Nigerian English
9. American English or British English?
10. Hypercorrection in Nigerian English
11. Nigerianisms, Americanisms, Briticisms and Communication Breakdown
12. Top 10 Irritating Errors in American English
13. Nigerian Editors Killing Macebuh Twice with Bad Grammar
14. On "Metaphors" and "Puns" in Nigerian English
15. Common Errors of Pluralization in Nigerian English
16. Q & A About Common Grammatical Problems
17. Semantic Change and the Politics of English Pronunciation
nice one there Dr Farouq..
ReplyDeleteu're polishing our english language skills one article at a time.. God bless.