Addicts smoking 300 cigarettes per day; cases of RAINY clouds!

In a story placed on Page 3 of the tabloid associated with this columnist, entitled, ‘Inside Tanzania’s Sh4.7trn clean cooking oil,’ the scribbler writes: “Data produced in 2022 by the Energy Ministry shows that a person who is exposed to FIREWOOD smoke FOR AN HOUR has similar health risks as a person who SMOKES BETWEEN 200 and 300 CIGARETTES.”

Hello! The scribbler—according to the figures he has provided—is talking about a person who smokes between 10 packets and 15 packets of cigarettes PER HOUR—the same period someone spends in the kitchen cooking a meal using firewood!

Smoking 10-15 cigarettes per hour is might be possible—stupid and deadly as it’d be—but 200-300? Okay, maybe that’s what statistical analysis would show, but one-hour exposure to firewood smoke daily is common among our women and girls, some of whom live to be 80-plus, like my Aunt Safina Sultani, who’s  84 now—and counting!

And then, on Page 4 there’s this story, ‘Media stakeholders call for government to align law with EACJ ruling’ and there-in the scribbler purports to quote someone as saying: “…one cannot practise unless accredited, and Section 20 requires journalists TO BE ISSUED a press card…”

You’re issued a press card? No; you’re issued WITH a press card…

And then, the Friday, May 10 edition of Bongo’s huge and colourful broad ran a feature article whose headline read: ‘Drowning: A preventable tragedy that CLAIMS NUMEROUS annually.’

This headline begs the question: numerous what? Even before reading the text, our correct guess was that the headline writer meant to say “…claims numerous LIVES…”

In Para 4, our scribbling colleague writes: “Laki Ally Rajab, a resident of Uzimbanini Village…and three others cheated death after a locally made canoe THEY WERE TRAVELLING WITH hit a stone and capsized.”

There’re two matters here: One, grammatical and two, verbosity. Now when you’re using a vessel to undertake a journey, you’re travelling ON that vessel—like you travel on a boat, on a canoe or a ship.  You don’t travel “with” it!

And in order to eradicate verbosity, don’t tell us about “vessel on which they were travelling;” simply say THEIR vessel.

And, finally, some goodies from Bongo’s senior-most broadsheet of Saturday, May 11, whose Page 1 carries a headline that declares, ‘Samia wins MPs accolades.’

There’s a punctuation issue that renders the headline grammatically faulty. From what obtains in the story, President Samia has (in simple English), been praised by MPs—i.e. Members of Parliament. The praises came from the mouths of MPs—many. Which is to say, the praises were MPs’—they were theirs (possessive).  The apostrophe (‘) after the “s” is therefore not an option—it must be there! If only a single MP gave accolades to Dr Samia, then the headline would read, ‘Samia wins an MP’s accolades.’

In Para 2 of the big story, the scribbler writes: “During yesterday’s debate on the 2024/25 budget for the Ministry of Water, the law makers praised the successful implementation of various WAR blues across the across the country.”

Yes; that what went to press on Friday night—war blues, instead WATER blues! Those of us charged with cleaning up copies before the paper “goes to bed” need everybody’s prayers, wallah!

Page 5 of the broadsheet is carrying a picture spread and for one of the photos, the caption reads: “Phlebotomist from the National Blood Transfusion Service….’takes’ A BLOOD from Dar es Salaam resident Mr R S…”

A blood? Nope! We say, “blood,” because this fluid is not countable! And a medic DRAWS (not takes) blood from a donor/patient.

On Page 10, there’s a headline that reads: ‘This is how frogs detect a RAINY cloud from a distant location in the sky.’ A rainy cloud? Nope! We say: a RAIN cloud.

Ah, this treacherous language called English!