
When I was nine, my mom died. I cried, mainly because my older siblings cried. Really, I didn’t grasp the import of dying. So, befuddled by myths that my Catholic upbringing fostered, I took refuge in hope that Mamma would reappear to me some day; I prayed hard, as only a gullible child can pray. But I never saw my mother again. As I grew older and more people died around me, a gnawing fear of death grew in me. What with all the crying, praying, and singing that attend vigils for the dying, and the “holy water”-cum-incense abracadabra of priests and nuns and their weepy flock who perform last rites for dying people, wake-keeping in Nigerian is a seriously spooky affair to the callow psyche of a child. None of the myriad horrors we harbor as mortals comes close to our dread of death: that inevitable end.
Religion is nothing but a crock used by people to fortify themselves against the frightening prospect of death, that chillingly inevitable end of life—just as a weak-willed person might fortify himself and steel his nerve with booze before taking a daunting action. And when death impends, be that at war, in hospital, or on death-row, people cling more desperately to that delusion. Even non-believers walk on eggshells when faced with a dying person who clings to faith. But we do so for humane reasons. Out of a sense of decency (which evangelical believers lack) we wonder: Is this really a good time to tread on sensibilities and disabuse the dying of their delusion? But then, I wonder, when is a good time?
Not long ago I found myself in that quandary. Someone I knew was dying, and I went to her deathbed to pay my respects. She was a woman who respected me as an elder of the Nigerian community in Cleveland. She was also something of a protégé, having sought my advice repeatedly as she considered the proper advanced-degree path to pursue. In my days as a scientific educator—when, also, two of my sons were in the university—I had become something of an information resource for my fellow Nigerians on matters like the choice of college to attend and the discipline of study, and especially how to tap into financial assistance programs available to good students and their parents in the USA.
I chose to go and see her during a slow time, when most of her friends and well-wishers would be at work. I was wary of the perplexed reactions of my fellow Nigerians when it became known I am an atheist. “Atheist?” I was asked now and then. My friends told me I would come across much better as an agnostic or a pagan than an out-and-out atheist, for Nigerians are often ranked alongside Americans in sheer religiosity—of the pushy and loud sort. It’s amazing that the very people whom religion has historically oppressed and denigrated the most (i.e. women, blacks, colonized people) are the ones who cling to it most tenaciously! The Nigerian media go so far as to estimate that one in three houses in the cities and townships of the Christian south of the country are used nowadays as churches, chapels, temples, tabernacles, or other places of worship.
I am an anomaly, for a “Nigerian atheist” is considered an oxymoron. Those who know I was raised a Catholic—and, to boot, an altar boy able to recite the entire Eucharist liturgy in Latin and English—profess themselves baffled by my apostasy. (Yes, I accept this term, but not as a pejorative.) It doesn’t help matters that Nigerians begin and end every gathering with prayers—even dancing parties; or that some of them look askance when I pointedly refrain from participating in praying. So I usually strive to arrive and leave at times calculated to avoid the prayer parts of the proceedings. This time I had no wish to get caught up in another Nigerian-style Via Dolorosa. Still, when I arrived a death watch was starting: a few women were gathered in her kitchen, talking in subdued tones—some silently mouthing prayers.
This visit was fraught. We all knew she was dying, having been discharged from hospital with IV-Stage cancer and no prognosis. She would be the sixth friend or close acquaintance of mine to die from a painful, wasting illness. One lesson I learned from experience is that people in the throes of dying are aware of the fact, but cling tight to life in desperate denial. If you make eye contact they scan your face eagerly for any signs that you share their hopes—or fear the worst. In such dire straits, the religious indoctrination of believers dredges up expectations of miracles. Nigerian prayer vigils give voice to that delusion with a lively chant, “He’s a miracle-working God.”
This visit to my dying friend evoked a déja vu. It had happened to me once before and that first time was unnerving. Another lady, who along with her husband was very close to my wife and me, had wasted to mere bones as she succumbed to breast cancer. On the last evening we spent in her home I sat by her bed through the dead of night and, after some reminiscence and thrust-and-parry, she challenged me to acknowledge I knew she was dying. I wouldn’t lie to her: she was among the sharpest persons I ever knew, and she’d know when I was lying. So, I nodded, too full of grief to voice out my acknowledgment. She then made me promise that my wife and I would keep an eye on the raising of her four little sons, one of whom I had accepted as my “godson” at his baptism—in a time before my open break with such nonsense. Her husband said later that she had rested better after that chat.
And now here in Cleveland was a reprise of the same awkward and close encounter with the dying. Since I hadn’t seen this lady in a couple of years, we started off with banter to catch up on news of our respective families. A few of her lady friends drifted into her bedroom to minister to her needs as we chatted—for she was bedridden and swollen up all over, like a baobab tree trunk. She had moved in swank circles in her time, and so these friends of hers were quite elegant. When she saw me eying them appreciatively she quipped that she hoped I had not come just to hit on her lady friends. I denied it, and we laughed. The mood lightened a bit.
But then she dropped a brick. “May I sing a song for you?” she asked.
I was nonplused. A simple request it was, yet loaded—perhaps deliberately so. She could have asked me to sing to her; or she could have gone ahead and sung without seeking my approval first. The friends who attended her had worried aloud that my visit was tiring her out: she hadn’t much energy left, was often wracked by severe bouts of pain, and occasionally became incoherent. So I understood her offer to sing to me was a big courtesy—if she wasn’t testing me and if she was lucid. Still, I had an idea what kind of song would come most easily to her in her current state. Looking her calmly in the face, I said, “Yes, as long as it is not a religious song.” She looked at me silently, like someone reprimanded, and looked away. I felt as if a child had offered to sing for me and I had turned her down. Our conversation became desultory, and I knew my visit was over. When an aide came in to massage her swollen feet I left her room to spend some time with her two college-age sons, whom I was meeting for the first time.
Two days after that visit the lady died. A memorial gathering was held for her. As usual it was a psalm-and-hymn affair. I attended, but evinced my usual aversion to religious pretences. (That was not easy to do; but, I don’t “go along to get along” any longer; my tolerance for humbug has gone into free-fall lately.) At the end, one of the lady’s sons came up and expressed his appreciation for the fact that I had come (and had also supported them in other ways) even though I am an atheist. I asked how he knew I was an atheist. “Well, mommy told us, after your visit to our home.” That was a relief. Apparently, then, my dying friend had not held it against me that I refused to hear her swan song unless it was a secular song. What a lady!
Nevertheless, I wonder, each time I recall that farewell encounter, whether I should have eased our final leave-taking by humoring her with acquiescence in her fervent but nonsensical belief. I knew that at that moment, when she was nosing down the final descent into that gentle goodnight, nothing was more important to her than comfort—both physical and emotional. As I left I worried that I might have disturbed her emotional comfort. Did I do right?
As long as my friends are of sound mind and body, whenever they challenge my unbelief I respond immediately to make them see the merits of freeing their thinking from the fetters of dogma; such freedom can only improve their outlook on life and living. But that’s just the point: When someone’s life is manifestly at its end, when there’s no more living to do, what’s to gain from knocking down their foolish props? On the other hand, while dying is the most somber part of living, is that adequate reason to mystify it with mumbo-jumbo—or to encourage others to do so? Must we forever abandon the service of hospice to snake-oil purveyors, just because their ware might work as a placebo? Soothing or not, a fairy tale remains a fairy tale!
Linus Thomas-Ogbuji
]]>
For a long time I puzzled over the prevalence of buck teeth among young Americans. It is a condition in which the central upper teeth protrude below (and sometimes farther out than) their neighbors. In some cases that condition is grotesque, and it reminds me of a rabbit’s teeth. I was puzzled because buck-teeth are rare among people from poor countries, and also scarce among Americans older than the baby-boom generation. That demographic fact led me to suspect that buck teeth are associated with the dietary or cultural environment of young Americans, but I could not think of a specific cause. I am an avid tennis fan, and whenever a young tennis player wins a match and smiles happily in close-up camera shots, I often notice their buck teeth. My puzzlement deepened when I began to notice buck teeth in increasing numbers of players from other countries as well (but, again, only among the younger ones). The growth of teeth is fastest in infants and slows to a stop as we age; so I concluded that the surge of buck teeth phenomenon must relate to some factor of upbringing that is peculiar to affluent modern families. But what were those factors?
I looked up buck teeth online, and the mystery cleared. The condition, it turned out, is a result of malocclusion of jaws: the upper and lower jaws failing to meet properly when the mouth is closed. And malocclusion is promoted by uneven growth of teeth. In proper occlusion the growth of any tooth stops when it is hindered by the neighbors opposite or beside it; in malocclusion a tooth that encounters no opposition in its path continues to grow. The tendency of babies of the affluent families to grow up with pacifiers almost constantly in their mouths even while asleep, leaves an empty or soft gap between the upper and lower teeth, and so the central incisors keep growing into that space. The use of baby pacifiers of course exploded into a fad with the baby-boom generation, a fad that continues till today. A baby constantly sucking the nipple of a feeding bottle (or, for that matter, its thumb) achieves the same malocclusion and buck-toothedness.
]]>

For a long time I puzzled over the prevalence of buck-teeth among the younger Americans. It is a condition in which the central upper teeth protrude below (and sometimes farther out than) their neighbors. In some cases that condition is grotesque, and it reminds me of a rabbit’s teeth. I was puzzled because buck-teeth are rare among people from poor countries, and also scarce among Americans older than the baby-boom generation. That demographic fact led me to suspect that buck teeth are associated with the dietary or cultural environment of young Americans but I could not think of any specific cause. I am an avid tennis fan, and whenever a young tennis player wins a match and smiles happily in close-up camera shots, I often notice their buck teeth. My puzzlement deepened when I began to notice buck teeth in increasing numbers of players from other countries as well (but, again, only among the younger ones). The growth of teeth is fastest in infants and slows to a stop as we age; so I concluded that the surge of buck teeth phenomenon must relate to some factor of upbringing that is peculiar to affluent modern families. But what were those factors?
I looked up buck teeth online, and the mystery cleared. The condition, it turned out, is a result of malocclusion of jaws: the upper and lower jaws failing to meet properly when the mouth is closed. And malocclusion is promoted by uneven growth of teeth. In proper occlusion the growth of any tooth stops when it is hindered by the neighbors opposite or beside it; in malocclusion a tooth that encounters no opposition in its path continues to grow. The tendency of babies of affluent families to grow up with pacifiers almost constantly in their mouths, even while asleep, leaves an empty or soft gap between the upper and lower jaws and the central incisors keep growing into that space. The use of baby pacifiers of course exploded into a fad with the baby-boom generation, a fad that continues till today. A baby constantly sucking the nipple of a feeding bottle (or, for that matter, its thumb) achieves the same malocclusion and buck-toothedness.
]]>A few nights ago I dreamed I was in Nigerian with my grandchildren. The eldest, Chidi, was lounging with us outdoors when he reached under a rock and a snake struck his fingers. As his face clouded with pain and fear I grabbed his fingers to cut the bite and suck out the venom, while yelling at my wife to use my belt for a tourniquet above Chidi’s elbow and then dial 911. (911 in Nigeria? Well, this was a dream!) Just then I woke up crying.
All that was standard procedure taught in my youth. But when I called Chidi later to tell him, he quickly corrected me. Everything I did in that dream, Chidi told me (except “911”), would hasten the spread of the venom in a body rather than prevent it! Reaching deeper into my science and consulting Google for confirmation, I found that he was absolutely right. (Anyone remember Mark Twain’s quip, about when he was 17 and thought his father was embarrassingly “dumb”?)
HERE’S THE SCIENCE:
The heart circulates blood as a two-stroke pump. At DIASTOLE the heart muscles relax and blood is sucked up the veins into the heart; then at SYSTOLE the heart muscles contract to push the blood out/down the arteries. So the venom-laden blood would first travel through the heart and into the rest of the body before I can suck it out (on the down-stroke, so to say). Thus, my sucking (yuck!) would assist rather than retard the spread of the venom.
In fact, the Mayo Clinic First-Aid instruction explicitly cautions us not to apply tourniquet or try to suck out the venom.
]]>A few nights ago I dreamed I was in Nigerian with my grandchildren. The eldest, Chidi, was lounging with us outdoors when he reached under a rock and a snake struck his fingers. As his face clouded with pain and fear I grabbed his fingers to cut the bite and suck out the venom, while yelling at my wife to use my belt for a tourniquet above Chidi’s elbow and then dial 911. (911 in Nigeria? Well, this was a dream!) Just then I woke up crying.
All that was standard procedure taught in my youth. But when I called Chidi later to tell him, he quickly corrected me. Everything I did in that dream, Chidi told me (except “911”), would hasten the spread of the venom in a body rather than prevent it! Reaching deeper into my science and consulting Google for confirmation, I found that he was absolutely right. (Anyone remember Mark Twain’s quip, about when he was 17 and thought his father was embarrassingly “dumb”?)
HERE’S THE SCIENCE:
The heart circulates blood as a two-stroke pump. At DIASTOLE the heart muscles relax and blood is sucked up the veins into the heart; then at SYSTOLE the heart muscles contract to push the blood out/down the arteries. So the venom-laden blood would first travel through the heart and into the rest of the body before I can suck it out (on the down-stroke, so to say). Thus, my sucking (yuck!) would assist rather than retard the spread of the venom.
In fact, the Mayo Clinic First-Aid instruction explicitly cautions us not to apply tourniquet or try to suck out the venom.
]]>All that was standard procedure taught in my youth. But when I called Chidi later to tell him, he quickly corrected me. Everything I did in that dream, Chidi told me (except “911”), would hasten the spread of the venom in a body rather than prevent it! Reaching deeper into my science and consulting Google for confirmation, I found that he was absolutely right. (Anyone remember Mark Twain’s quip, about when he was 17 and thought his father was embarrassingly “dumb”?)
HERE’S THE SCIENCE:
The heart circulates blood as a two-stroke pump. At DIASTOLE the heart muscles relax and blood is sucked up the veins into the heart; then at SYSTOLE the heart muscles contract to push the blood out/down the arteries. So the venom-laden blood would first travel through the heart and into the rest of the body before I can suck it out (on the down-stroke, so to say). Thus, my sucking (yuck!) would assist rather than retard the spread of the venom.
In fact, the Mayo Clinic First-Aid instruction explicitly cautions us not to apply tourniquet or try to suck out the venom.
]]>The interrogative pronoun “who” seems to give users quite a bit of trouble; it is one more error in spoken English that tends to creep into the written form. Like a noun, it has to be declined in a sentence. “Declined” means its inflection (ending) has to vary according to its case or function in a sentence. Its cases are:
Nominative case — who
Accusative (object of a verb) — whom
Genitive (possessive case) — whose
Dative and Ablative cases — whom. “SEND NOT TO ASK FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS, IT TOLLS FOR THEE.”
Note: the genitive form is whose, not who’s (which may seem contra-intuitive!)
Example:
It is wrong to ask, “Who are you talking about?” The key here is the preposition “about,” which, like the other prepositions (on, for, with, upon, about), introduces the ablative case.
So we say: about whom (not about who); for whom (and not for who).
Question:
Which of the following two sentences is correct?
Answer:
They are both correct. In (1) “about” again clues us to the ablative case. In (2) “who” is in the nominative (not ablative) because it is the subject of the phrase “who came home.”
Perhaps a clarification with two commas would help make this clear: He is the one who, I told you, came home.
]]>
From historic times, one hallmark of erudition for a user of English language is command of the lexicon: that is the range of one’s vocabulary. Essentially, no two words of English are identical (except, perhaps, “begin” and “commence,” to cite my high school English master, a doughty, old Irish priest whose Magister of Classics was earned in Oxford U of the UK). That being the case, the wider your English vocabulary the wider the range and nuances of meaning you can convey. And that range can be phenomenal!
April 24, 2017
THE FACTS
Charles Berlitz (a US linguist)* said English had “over one million words,” mostly derived from Latin. And he added:
A native speaker of any language who commands less than 3% of its vocabulary is of course failing badly!
We must bear in mind that Berlitz’s statistics are over three decades old, hence outdated. An explosion of new English words has taken place since his time, occasioned by technical and scientific advancements, socio-cultural progress, and the newspeak of the electronic/cyber age. But this only amplifies the lexical inadequacy of US English.
[* Numbers quoted here are from Native Tongues (Perigee Books, 1984) by Charles Berlitz, a famous US linguist.]
ONE EXPLANATION
Non-native users of English tend to acquire their vocabulary in the classroom or from literature sources. In contrasts, native speakers (perhaps Americans especially) seem to do so mainly via conversation (and increasingly TV). Hence the tendency in written US English to confuse phonetically similar words, or to misspell some others (as we saw elsewhere in these blogs) — for instance:
“do to” for “due to”
“principle amount” for “principal amount”
“peddle your bike” for “pedal your bike”
“mute point” for “moot point”
“duffle bag” for “duffel bag”
“loose your way in the dark” instead of “lose your way…”
“bigger then” for “bigger than”
“recumbant bike” for “recumbent bike”
“in dire straights” instead of “in dire straits”
“what is meat for the goose…” instead of “what is meet for the goose…”
… and so forth.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
There is a great deal of confusion in US literature between “farther” and “further.” They are two different comparative forms of the adjective “far.” But there is a subtle distinction between them in terms of connotation:
FARTHER is the correct comparative form for FAR when it refers to distance;
FURTHER is the correct comparative form when FAR connotes EXTENT, not distance. Here are examples:
Distance: farther (comparative)-farthest (superlative). “I walked one mile but she walked farther, two miles.”
Extent: further-furthest. “I invited only adults, but my wife went further and invited everyone we knew.”
In one sentence: “I walked and thought; and the farther I walked down the road the further I considered his idea.”
So, one might say that vocabulary is the Achilles heel of US English. But Americans are not unique in this regard. All people tend toward laxity over their mother tongue and let the looser forms of conversational vernacular creep into their writings. (My spoken Igbo is poor and my written Igbo is abysmal!) In contrast, foreigners are likely to become acquainted with the strictures of grammatically correct English before dabbling into spoken English—where their unusual accent is a major cause of self-conscious hesitation.
An Englishman I worked with in the USA made a facetious joke about a US exchange student in a literature class at a London university. A coed tried to start a conversation with the American after class and the following ensued:
English coed: “Do you like Rudyard Kipling?”
American: “Dunno. I never kipled in any kind of yard before.”
]]>
The telecopying of document (i.e. creation, transmission, and recovery of facsimiles) was with us for almost a century, from the dawn of telephony — but not very popular until the name of the process was shortened to the catchy word, “fax.” That is a sharp illustration of the power of a succinct word or phrase. For the same reason, the word for photographs (“pictures”) is now routinely replaced with “pix”; and nobody talks about taking a self-portrait (with a cell phone) anymore, but just a “selfie.”
Where does it end? And is it really creative? Does it not lead to obfuscation, making an otherwise clear message quite murky? Not long ago the media used to refer to police dogs as a “Canine Unit” (from canis, the Latin word for dog). Then someone realized that “canine” sounded like “K-9” and now even our print media have abandoned the accurate forms and begun to write routinely about “K-9s” in police units.
One wonders why “K-9” is now preferred in US English. K-9 is not easier or shorter to write or say than “dog” or “canine.” It is not even a clarification: indeed it is the opposite of clarification. Soon students will no longer know or remember the provenance of the term “K-9.” The degradation of our language is going beyond words to embrace the emerging fusion of words and pictures. In cell phone text messaging “U” stands for you, “ur” for your, “2” for “to,” and “4” for “for.” Thus, “I heart u” means I love you (the heart becoming a proxy for love). Now, try and translate “A K-9 is gud 4 u”; that’s the standard English of cell-phone texting, no doubt the English language of tomorrow.
And then there’s the fastest-growing sector of obfuscation: the perceived need to “supersize” every existing word, especially adjectives. It used to be a thing was small, medium, or large (big); then, with time, along came “enormous” from Latin e-normis (literally out of the normal); later we discovered “gigantic” (for “big as a giant”) and “tremendous” (causing a quake by its sheer size!). Then the “baby-boomer” generation created “humongous” (perhaps a cut-and-nail amalgam of “huge” and “monstrous”). Nowadays, teenagers combine “gigantic” and “enormous” to fashion “ginormous.” Inundated as we are with frenetic commercial advertising, we have all become self-boosters now, leap-frogging one-another with escalating comparisons.
Where will it all end?
]]>English is among the simpler languages in the way it forms plurals of simple nouns: in most cases it just sticks an “s” to the end of the noun. But some kinds of noun are not simple, and forming their plurals is not always straight-forward. Commonest among these are the compound nouns, which are comprised of two or more words: e.g., two nouns, or a noun and a qualifying word (an adjective, for instance), or a noun and a phrase. In such cases the compound noun is easily seen as a substantive noun, plus the qualifying word or words. To form the plural in such cases, an “s” is added to the substantive noun, not to the qualifiers. Thus, we have:
COMPOUND NOUNS
SINGULAR — PLURAL
Collective Nouns
In this context of pluralization, note that “staff” is one of those words that refer to a group (not a single person or item): like “team,” “cast” (of a play/movie), “faculty,” etc.
Such nouns may be viewed as singular or plural, depending on the context.