Opinion: Is it my name is or my names are?

The appropriateness of the expressions 'my name is' and 'my names are' has generated debate in some forums. For many years, 'my name is' has been the accepted form; instilled in, and internalised by learners. I have encountered individuals who cannot agree on which of the two expressions is correct.

Amongst readers of this column, I know, are linguists who can help in setting the record straight, leaving no doubt whatsoever. In order to set the stage for argument, let me stray a little. Some years back, science teachers, with all the authority they could muster, taught that the world was flat.

Without batting an eyelid, they taught that the sun orbited earth. The universe, they averred, contained eight planets; Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. It later turned out they, basing on what scientists wrote in textbooks and journals, were wrong. As late as last month, other planets and celestial bodies were still being discovered. The culprit was the limitation of technology then.

OFFICIAL FORMS

Could the same teachers have been wrong on insisting that one should state "my name is Alexander Chagema" instead of "my names are Alexander Chagema"? Allow me to play the devil's advocate here. Any of you that has had to go through bureaucracy, seeking Government services must no doubt have filled a number of official forms. One must first state who they are. I am yet to come across any form that puts the question 'your name' in a single box. They invariably begin with: First name, middle name and last name.

On others, it is Surname and Christian name. First, middle and last name makes three. How then does it become singular (name) instead of names? Surname, on the other hand, has its origins in our cultures while the Christian name is rooted in the Western culture, undoubtedly, forced on us. At what point did the two merge to become one?

People that would rather say 'my names are' than use the singular 'my name is' get chastised by those who cannot convincingly explain why it should be so. Because we must interrogate some of these things being taken as the gospel truth, let's have your view on this.

On to other matters, a headline from a local daily that 'City governor rivals set for debate today' and the story introduction 'Nairobi County gubernatorial candidates are expected to face off in a debate today ahead of the August 8 polls raises questions on whether to 'expect' and 'set for' can be used in the same context.

The writer's intention was to draw attention to the seat of 'Nairobi County Governor' that has attracted four aspirants. That being the case, it is the 'governorship' that is at stake, but the meaning got lost in the headline construction. Here is why. If we take 'City Governor' as reference to incumbent Dr Evans Kidero, that headline explicitly tells us that it is Kidero's rivals, not Kidero himself, who are set for debate.

PHRASES

The expression 'set for' is not the same as 'expected'. 'Set for' is definite. It leaves no room for doubt that the debate will take place on a specific date at a specific place. On the other hand, 'expected' carries no guarantee, hence using the two expressions in the same breath is contradictory. Regarding the presidential debate, after aspirant Abduba Dida lodged a court case challenging its format, Opposition leader Raila Odinga and President Uhuru Kenyatta said they would not attend the debate for various reasons. But, subsequent to the court ruling, Raila said he would attend and challenged Kenyatta to do the same. As a consequence of what might transpire if he shirks the debate, Kenyatta has no choice but to attend.

Note the words 'subsequent' and 'consequent'. Subsequent and consequent do not mean the same thing. Subsequent means to follow in time, come after something or in succession. Consequent means as a result, an effect. Consider the following; 'subsequent to the earthquake, the tall building collapsed' and 'consequent to the earthquake, weak buildings in the area were demolished '. 

Two other expressions that tend to confuse are 'consumed with' and 'consumed by'. The first one means to covet or to hunger for, e.g. 'David was consumed with love for Mary' .The second expression means to get totally engrossed or absorbed in something, eg 'Prof Jane was consumed by her research work to the exclusion of everything else'.