Literary Discourse: Linguistic Pyrotechnics

Introduction

An article on GRAMMATICAL GENDER recently published in the Literary Discourse Column on ghanaweb.com has generated linguistic pyrotechnics among commentators.

Authored by Abubakar Mohammed Marzuq Azindoo, the article had attracted a number of plaudits from a number of commentators.

For reasons best known to himself, a commentator decided to exercise his intellectual right of divergent view. But his approach was seen by other commentators as an attempt to find faults with the article at all costs.

They, therefore, pelted him with an avalanche of critical responses. The most interesting among the responses were those of Dr. SAS, a US-based attorney at law.

The verbal fireworks are so educative that it is significant to share them with readers and learners on this platform.

Fireworks

Below are some of the fireworks presented unedited:

Author:

Alomo Jata

Date:

2015-05-20 00:16:40

Comment to:

Literary discourse: Grammatical gender

I really enjoy and learn a lot from your articles. I always look forward reading and learning something every week. Keep up the good

Author:

LEZO. EU.

Date:

2015-05-20 07:53:51

Comment to:

Literary discourse: Grammatical gender

Keep them coming. A good medium of revision. With regards to the French and the Arabic language, the Spanish also have the same thing which is normally identified by the last letter of the verb- either with "a" or "o". For example-. Chico-boy, chica-girl. Una Chica, A girl. Un chico A boy. Ministra-female. Ministro- male. Hermano-brother. Hermana-sister, and it goes on making it easily to understand the context. Keep them coming. Buenos dias.

Author:

Kwame

Date:

2015-05-20 09:01:31

Comment to:

Literary discourse: Grammatical gender

Good work, Boss.

Author:

MARCUS AMPADU

Date:

2015-05-20 12:13:35

Comment to:

Literary discourse: Grammatical gender

Thank you Mr. Azindoo for this much needed literary discourse. Far better than the political cacophonous shrill that serves no one.

Yes some of us did learn that masculine gender includes man, landlord, god, lion, horse, he, stag, rooster, etc.

And the feminine category includes woman, landlady, goddess, lioness, mare, she, doe, hen, etc.

When I was in school, years ago, I did learn that, much to my surprise, the masculine for

peacock was peahen.

Author:

Faruk

Date:

2015-05-20 07:29:44

Comment to:

Literary discourse: Grammatical gender

pls educate me on the difference btween(if I were and if I was) is a problem to me

Author:

Abubakar M. M. Azindoo

Date:

2015-05-20 10:10:39

Comment to:

If I was and if I were

In Traditional Grammar "if I were" belongs to Subjunctive Mood, which is used to express whishes, conditionalities, etc. "If I was" is a normal construction of grammatical normalcy in terms of concord and word order. But it is wrong in usage if the intended expression is meant for a wish, a condition, a desirability, etc. In such contexts, "if I were" is the best.

Author:

Blorfonyo

Date:

2015-05-20 12:31:12

Comment to:

Re: If I were/if I was

Azindoo, you are wrong!

If I "were" is sued to indicate something that is IMPOSSIBE; for instance "If were you; if I were a cow...."

If I "was" is just an indication of something that might have happened of something else had happened:

"I swear, if I was drunk, he would have got the better of me." (Being drunk is a possibility, you see.)

Author:

Abubakar Mohammed Marzuq Azindoo

Date:

2015-05-20 13:19:40

Comment to:

grammar

Thanks for your comment, Blorfonyo. But you and I are saying the same thing from different angles in respect of "if I were." Logically, expressing an impossibility is a wish (one cannot achieve). So, your choice of “impossibility” and my choice of “wish” are just a matter of semantics. Your view is welcome, but it does not make mine wrong. Perhaps you want to challenge my right of diction different from yours. That would amount to "Semantic Imperialism." Hahahahhaa!

With all due respect, even "if I

was" is accepted depending on a context, it cannot logically go with "I would have..."

Justification

The construction under review is a clear case of ERROR of mixing types of conditional sentences. The basic ones are present conditional [If I am drunk, he will get...]. Past conditional [if I was drunk, he would get...], and Participial Conditional [If I had been drunk, he would have got/gotten...].

In the light of the above explanation, your example showcases a mixture of Past Conditional and Participial Conditional, a construction which is undesirable.

Author:

Blorfonyo

Date:

2015-05-20 12:21:37

Comment to:

Literary discourse: Grammatical gender

The most glaring mistake Ghanaians and other non-native users of English make is how not to confuse him and her her. Yet this discussion of gender does not devote any time to it.

"Mr Amoah -- look at her daughter! I feel like kicking him about!" version of this statement was used as a joke in a certain school and was used to point out the importance of realising the difference between a male and female pronoun, and maintaining unity in the use of pronouns. Mr Grammarian, please try and be relevant to your audience and forget about copying and pasting lessons for them.

Author:

Abubakar Mohammed Marzuq Azindoo

Date:

2015-05-20 13:36:35

Comment to:

Blorfo

Thanks so much for arrogating to yourself the role of a judge on this site. By the way, grammatical gender is more than your narrow view of "the use of pronouns." Readers expected you to add something relevant to this discussion. But you have misused the opportunity by making unfounded allegations and looking for cheap recognition. You mentioned copying and pasting! You could sound intellectually convincing if you told readers the following: 1- the material copied and pasted. 2- the source of the material. 3- the irrelevance of the material.

Your failure to do so is an indication of your desperate wish to be heard without any substance. But that is a threat to the knowledge industry.

Author:

Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law

Date:

2015-05-20 15:25:30

Comment to:

grammar

There is no authoritative source anywhere that will conclude that "impossible wish" is any prerequisite for the use of the subjunctive "If I were...." Inherent in every wish is the probability of impossibility and implausibility. A person might never turn into a cow in the real and natural world, but also never become a millionaire in the real and natural world no matter his opportunities. "Impossible" is thus a relative semantic item, and not necessarily absolute as such. A human being can turn into a cow in his dream or in a cartoon movie or (in an agnostic and superstitious culture like ours) by some witchcraft or a spell! In that phantasmagoric milieu, how true is it to argue that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to turn into a cow? And what about the ancestors who thought it was impossible for the world to be spherical, or for human beings to fly? And how can you tell whether in the future, human beings cannot turn into cows, or even some of us are not already cows in the metaphorical sense? Are you not already a cow by your bloated size or shallow reasoning?

And that is why it is not logical for any grammatical construction to be based on the distinction you argue here, because speech depends on realities and fantasies and personifications and allegories and anthropomorphic imagery......

Thus I would write off your proposition here as a figment of your own imagination if only for lack of authoritative sources, or from the standpoint of simple commonsense, or superstition, or mythology.

But supposing by some stretch of the imagination that you were right, there is no material difference between what you say and what the good prof. says to constitute a grammatical distinction of any relevance.

In this sense, you are merely splitting hairs. Like a typical Ghanaian, you are busy looking for a fault in what Prof. Azindoo teaches here without adding anything to the "industry of knowledge".

Author:

Abubakar Mohammed Marzuq Azindoo

Date:

2015-05-20 15:59:07

Comment to:

Re: grammar

Dr. SAS, thanks for the elaboration and defense of the culture of intellectualism. You have always been a source of inspiration and guidance to many of us in the "industry of knowledge."

Author:

Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law

Date:

2015-05-20 16:54:28

Comment to:

Thanks Dr. SAS

Long before you appeared on these pages, many others appeared parading themselves as champions of grammar when they did not know what they were talking about.

But you are different: knowledgeable, competent, honest, intelligent yet humble. So we fiercely defend you because you have earned your status and place in our hearts and minds, and we want to encourage you to give us the best you have without being distracted by the folly of those who know next to nothing. And in this, we are the ones that must thank you for choosing to educate us.

Conclusion

To some readers, the divergent opinions expressed by the critical minds may, in terms of wording, sound too strong. But in reality, they are intellectual norms and healthy contributions to the growth of knowledge. Indeed, no matter how one views the fireworks, one thing is clear: they have enhanced the quality of the discourse on GRAMMATICAL GENDER.

By Abubakar Mohammed Marzuq Azindoo, Coordinator of Students and University Relations, University of Applied Management (UAM), Germany – Ghana Campus, McCarthy Hill, Accra and Tamale

Email: azindoo200@gmail.com Tell: 0244755402