You do not put someone TO risk, rather, you put someone AT risk

It is sad we can’t find a rule to guide us on the use of prepositions! What English language maestros will tell you is this: you’ll be able to use the correct preposition if you uphold the culture of extensive reading and paying attention to those who are superb handlers of this treacherous medium of communication. As a professional scribbler in the English press, heeding this advice is not an option, sorry!

Having thus lectured (bah!) let me move on and share gems unearthed over the past week and so, here we go…

In the Saturday, April 30 edition of the tabloid closely associated with this columnist, there’s a story on Page 3 entitled, ‘Experts discuss health coverage for all’, in which the scribbler says in Para 2:

“…the government has made efforts to improve the health sector but still there are challenges facing it, putting TO risk the universal health target.” Putting to risk this or that? Nope! You put AT risk this or that.

In her last paragraph, the scribbler writes the following: “For his part, the president of Tanzania Health Summit said: We have discussed a number of issues but MOSTLY WAS human capital.”

Sounds awkward, nay, nonsensical; much as the reader might somewhat understand what the scribbler is trying to say, which is this: “We have discussed a number of issues but MOSTLY, WE DWELT ON human capital.”

On Page 20 of the same tabloid, the lead story had a headline that read, ‘Pressure mounts as Yanga face Simba in crucial game’, and therein, the sports scribbler writes:

“TFF information officer Clifford Ndimbo said the CLASH will be officiated by Ramadhan Kayoko from Dar es Salaam AND will be ASSISTED by Frank Kombo…”

The subject in this sentence is “clash”, not Ramadhan Kayoko as our scribbling colleague is “inadvertently” suggesting. Yeah, he’s suggesting that the clash will be “assisted” by Mr Kayoko besides being officiated by the same person! How do you assist a clash/match? Ridiculous, isn’t it?

l will redeem the sentence thus: “TFF information officer…said the CLASH will be officiated by Ramadhan Kayoko from Dar es Salaam WHO (not and) will be ASSISTED by Frank Kombo”

Story Number 2 on the page has this headline, ‘Lusajo targets international tourneys not golden boot’.

If you ask me, there should be a comma between “tourney” and “not” because in journalese, we use this punctuation mark to avoid the use of the conjunction “and”.

For his intro, the scribbler says:

“Namungo FC striker Reliant Lusajo has said he is not targeting the golden boot OTHER than helping his team to finish among the top four…”

The adjective “other” has been irresponsibly used here, rendering the sentence nonsensical. This goofing can be attributed to the scribbler’s futile attempt to lump together two ideas without the necessary linkage.

I will provide a rewrite: “Namungo FC striker Reliant Lusajo has said he is not targeting the golden boot AND INSTEAD, HE IS FOCUSING ON helping his team to finish among the top four…”

And now, let us share something from Bongo’s senior-most broadsheet (Saturday, April 30 edition), whose Page 4 has a story entitled, ‘Programme to equip 4,000 YOUTHS with job skills’.

That the word “youths”, after appearing on the headline, is further used at least three times in the text is an indicator that the subeditor and his reporter share ignorance on the use of youth/youths. Like when we read in the intro, “Over 4,000 Tanzanian youths are expected to benefit from free training under a programme…implemented by VETA.”

Let me say it for the zillionth time in this column: YOUTHS can only be used to mean “young men”. When young women are in the mix, like it will be the case in the said project to be handled by VETA, the word is YOUTH…yes; 4,000 youth (not youths).

Ah, this treacherous language called English!