Wild imagination, public attention

SAMPLE 1: “Al-Mustapha said if he had been guilty of all allegations against him his conscience would not allow him to speak about what happened in the public.”(Abiola’s Death, Last Moments Recorded on Video—Al-Mustapha, The Sunday Punch, June 4, 2017)

We are interested in the expression, “in the public” which occurs in the following context: “his conscience would not allow him to speak about what happened in the public.” We note in particular the definite article (the) immediately preceding the word public.

In a recent discussion (in January this year, I think) we had cause to point out the intrusiveness of the definite article in that expression. We noted the following different forms: 1) public 2) the public 3) in public, and 4) members of the public.

It becomes important for us to revise and in fact rehash that earlier discussion. We can infer from the writer’s choice of the expression that we can do things in the public; people can sell goods in the public; events can take place in the public; people can hold a conversation in the public, a family can be disgraced in the public, etc

Let us note immediately that this is an inappropriate expression, and the error is to be found in a single word — the intrusive definite article, the. Please note that events do not take place in the public; they take place in public. The presence or absence of a single word can compromise the integrity of what otherwise should be an idiomatic expression. In this particular case, the offending word is the definite article the which, as we have noted, is intrusive. Please read the following sentences: (1) Such declarations cannot be made in public. (2) Preaching inpublic is not allowed in some countries. (3) Going nude in public is not only morally offensive, it is totally illegal. (4) The man and the woman were arrested for having s3x in public. (5) Such matters are better not discussed in public. (6) If you have anything to sell, come and advertise it inpublic. 7) Family affairs should not be discussed in public. 8) Should a man scold his wife in public? 9) I got this information from a public service announcement on the radio. 10) Cigarettes are not to be smoked in public places. 11) A public declaration will soon be made by the relevant agency of government. 12) We cannot comment on a document that has not yet been made public.

Readers should please note the fact that the expression used in each of those six sentences is devoid of the intrusive the noted in the erroneous expression. The sentences illustrate the appropriate usage of the expression.

On the other hand, the expression, members of the public or simply the public refers to people generally, the ordinary or common people: (1) We should do nothing to offend the sensibilities of members of the public. (2) The mood of the public is extremely delicate now. (3) It is important to pay attention to the opinion of the public. (4) Our services are available to members of the public. (5) Members of the public should have an interest in the way they are governed. (6) Whether you are a politician or a public officer, you cannot insult the public and go away with it. 7) Members of the public are stake-holders in the affairs of the nation. 8) It is improper for the government to deceive members of the public on this scandal. 9) Whatever the public ought to know will soon be made public. 10) Members of the public should be interested in what happens to their leaders.

Sample 2: “When he was reeling out allegations against the Senate President Bukola Saraki over a multimillion naira armoured SUV imported without paying customs duties of N74m, he did not look intensely at the lines, he did not separate the hares from the hounds, he did not cast his eyes wild on the little details, and he was not guided by caution.” (Muhammed Ali Ndume: Mission to Golgotha, the Sunday Sun, April 2, 2017)

I draw readers’ attention to the adjective wild which occurs in the following context: “he did not cast his eyes wild on the little details.” Are we sure the adjective wild is the word intended or needed by the reporter in that context? The drift of the reporter’s discourse is about the need for caution which Muhammed Ali Ndume fails to exercise. Taken with the negation “did not,” the word wild fails to be consistent with the sense being presented by the reporter. The only word that makes sense in that context is wide, obviously confused with wild, a confusion traceable to a pronunciation weakness.

That you have read widely, travelled widely, acquired wide knowledge, consulted widely, etc should not mean that you will act wildly, like an animal in the wilds. One should not expect a widely read scholar who has travelled widely and has read many different widely read books to be behaving like wild goats, talking wildly, jumping wildly, and dancing wildly. A very long time ago, the animals known as  domestic animals today were wild animals living in the wilds. Even today, wild animals can travel widely even as they behave wildly, moving from one zoo to the other. A zoologist is expected to have a wide knowledge pertaining to wild and domestic animals. A person may have wide (large) eyeballs; but he may not necessarily look wild! Poets usually enjoy wild imagination, but may or may not look wild while under the influence of the muse.

What is the purpose of this rambling, disjointed discourse? We want to be able to differentiate between the words wide(ly) and wild(ly).

At any rate, the word wide should replace wild in the context under examination. However, should the reporter insist that the word wild is what he prefers in the context, we have lost nothing in the exercise of our freedom to differentiate between these two words.  I do believe in fact that we have gained something.

The post Wild imagination, public attention appeared first on Tribune.