Given the fixity of idiomatic expressions, the deployment of supposedly similar expressions sometimes leads to unintended meanings and a breakdown in communication. Such confusions abound at the lexical level, too, with pairs such as lout and tout, damage and damages, and dupe (as a verb and as a noun). It is noteworthy that the distinctions inherent in the aforementioned pairs of words had been delineated in previous treatises. Against this backdrop, other prominently confused literal and figurative expressions will be discussed herein with examples to buttress their apt usages.
To begin with, the figurative pair, ‘back in the day’ and ‘back in the days’, should not be used arbitrarily. For clarity’s sake, ‘back in the day’ simply means ‘in the past’, as in:
Back in the day, fried rice was my favourite food (standard).
Back in the days, fried rice was my favourite food (non-standard).
By comparison, ‘back in the days’ portrays specificity because it is used to introduce a particular time in the past, as instanced below.
Back in the days when the late Tafawa Balewa was at the helm, my father owned several coffee plantations (standard).
Back in the day when the late Tafawa Balewa was at the helm, my father owned several coffee plantations (non-standard).
Read Also: Using determiners in English expressions
Moving on, speakers of English should refrain from deploying another pair of figurative expressions, ‘go by the name of’ and ‘by the name of’, interchangeably. The rationale behind this disclosure is that ‘go by the name of’ is used when mentioning a name that may not be someone’s real name. For example:
That academic who goes by the name of ‘GAB’ is married (standard).
Here, suffice it to use ‘go by the name of’ because ‘GAB’ is the nickname of the author of this treatise, Doctor Ganiu Bamgbose.
In striking contrast, ‘by the name of’ is used in formal settings to introduce a person’s name.
That academic by the name of Doctor Ganiu Bamgbose will chair the committee (standard).
Next, we have ‘not least’ and ‘not the least’. While ‘not least’ is the figurative equivalent of the adverb, ‘especially’, ‘not the least’ is synonymous with ‘not at all’ or ‘none at all’. Thus, we have:
The grievances of the employees, not least (especially) the academic staff, will be addressed tomorrow (standard).
I am not the least (not at all) terrified of snakes (standard).
The next pair is a blend of an adverb and an idiom: ‘often’ and ‘every so often’. Fascinatingly enough, these expressions are antonymous! That is to say, ‘often’ is synonymous with ‘frequently’, whereas ‘every so often’ is the figurative alternative of ‘occasionally’. By reason of this:
I travel to Abuja often (frequently).
I travel to Abuja every so often (occasionally).
Pursuant to that, I have observed that many Nigerians use ‘in the front of’ and ‘in front of’ indiscriminately. If you are ‘in front of’ a vehicle, a building and so forth, you are outside it; but if you are ‘in the front of’ a building, a vehicle and the like, you are inside it. By the same token:
Simbi is standing in front of her SUV. (She is outside the vehicle.)
Simbi is sitting in the front of her SUV. (She is inside the vehicle.)
What is more, ‘species’ should not be confused with ‘specie’. Species, whose singular and plural forms remain the same, refer to groups into which plants and animals are categorised. That is to say:
Salmon is a species of fish (non-standard).
Salmon is a species of fish (standard).
Specie (a mass noun), as defined by the Oxford Dictionary of English, is money in form of coins rather than notes. For example:
As of (not, ‘as at’!) December 1980, Bolaji had one hundred naira in specie (standard).
Next, do not lose consciousness of the difference between the idiomatic pair, ‘at somebody’s convenience’ and ‘at your earliest convenience’, as in:
I shall discuss with my uncle at my convenience (at a suitable or an opportune time).
I shall discuss with my uncle at my earliest convenience (as soon as possible).
Again, avoid mistaking ‘identify with somebody’ for ‘identify oneself with somebody’, as illustrated hereunder:
Samson identifies with the working class. (He sympathises with the working class.)
Samson identifies himself with government functionaries. (He has an affinity for, and supports government functionaries.)
Last but not least, do you usually ‘check up on’ people when you actually intend to ‘check on’ them? Well, the former phrasal verb is used to ensure that somebody is doing what s/he ought to do. Hence, I could say:
I have instructed your sister to read her books, Simon. Ensure that you check up on her in twenty minutes’ time (standard).
Notably, the latter verb phrase is used to ascertain someone’s welfare, as in:
I checked on my grandmother yesterday (to ensure there is nothing wrong with her).
The discussion of these pairs shows that the English language is a phenomenon to be handled with caution by anyone who desires to speak with exactitude. One must, therefore, be absolutely certain of the meanings of fixed expressions before deploying them in speech and writing.
