Translate

Sunday, 19 January 2014

I love Philip Ochieng but what's he doing here?

January 19th, 2014 - afternoon and evening
January 20th, 2014 - 0905h, 11:11h


Did you see the Saturday Nation, today?  Look up Philip Ochieng's column, Mark My Words.

Philip Ochieng is a hopeless anglophile, like me. I love and admire him and always read his column when I have paper to hand.  But he recently either fell into a horrifying linguistic trap or was doing some undercover research on how many people care about what he is talking about in such a manner that figuratively could locate him standing dressed scantily on the cliff-edge in a high wind, comfortable as it might have been to grant the accolade he did to Macharia Gaitho.  No doubt MG and the likes of Kwamchetsi Makhoka are superb writers who craft their short essays with spontaneity and Philip is probably the best among the elder Kenyan scribes to qualify such younger writers.

Plus, he's great fun, so I push ahead here only in gentle mockery on his apparent blooper in Saturday's Nation where he says that he would rather Gaitho used the understated English 'e' over the gaping American 'o' in the spelling of adviser (thus: advisor).  This made me realise that I have truly reached a point where I do not notice such things anymore.  I am jaded after a long war with Microsoft on my Word documents trying to get the UK English dictionary, on default setting or not, to work.  But when Philip continues to say that Americans use the 'ce' in both the verb and noun spellings of advise and advice I was alarmed. Now that Microsoft has irreversibly colonised my own mind with their abominable dictionary, 'MS Word' - American in its proclivities by default -  to the point that I have now forgetten why I should not spell surrendered with two 'r's or counseller (or is it counsellor) with two 'l's at the end, Philip's comment could only have aroused my attention because he seemed to have made a gross error in averring* that both the verb and noun in the Americanism are spelt in the same way: - 'advice' (see his article - "In Americanism, the word advice (with a "c") serves both as a noun and as a verb." ):  Was he just trying to be funny or was it a really an Ochiengesque faux pas

Normally Americans koroga'ed nearly every spelling that ends with 'se' in English, for example, epitomize, and eulogize (which we Anglophiles would rather spell with the traditional 's'), yet had to leave alone words like advise and prisePrize enjoys a clear precedent and prevents prise* from being siaga'ed but, strangely enough, they did not put the English 'advise' through the fire and wring it into 'advize' because it obviously looked overdone.  Often their attempts to be revolutionary (as in anti-colonial/ anti-British) enough, too often they seemed to betray such an aberration in their thinking that they had found just cause for reviewing British spelling as a major contribution to the American Revolution.  I am wondering now, how come Philip is like me:  Resistant to American spellings which may now be partially responsible for having ushered the world into The Age of Africa Command (the imperialistic DNA in all this colonisation and revolution being identical).

Nonetheess, the fact is that the American verb for the noun, advice is still 'advise' with the 's',  and the noun alone is spelt with a 'c' and I am hard put to understand how a man of Ochieng's heavyweight literary calibre might have slipped on this or might I have I read the sly man wrong?  Is he testing to see if you and I had honestly read his article?

Let me attempt an explanation on how 'advisor' might have strayed into this morass of spelling anomalies:  The nominal suffix (aka 'affix'), '-or' actually seems to me to be an American extension of is use in legalese, for example in relationships like payor/ payee, counselor/ counselee, abductor/ abductee, lessor/ lessee and, of course, advisor/ advisee though, following the logic Philip uses, why should 'advisee' not stem from 'adviser' with the 'e'?  The answer could be that if you wish 'adviser' (the original spelling) to have legal effect then spell it with an 'o' and, if otherwise and especially when you want to avoid a legal context, use the original.

Interestingly on the first search on the internet one would expect the use of the 'o' to predominate but, indeed, I came up with 'advisee' as a person who meets with Philip's 'adviser' with the first instance of this being at the beginning of the 19th century.   This goes to show that both the English English and the American one are still changing though, I suspect, it is the one on the British Isles that is taking most of the beating at the hands of ugly American self-centredness as epitomised in the early MS Word which does not abide by any respectable rules of logic, not that it took Bill Gates less than nearly two decades to realise his awful goof in terms of the debt Americans owe to UK English. 

Americans should surely use "advize" and "advizor" based on the logic of how they have zeddified (American "zee-ified") almost every other word amenable to such recolonisation...  (Or should I say 'recolonization').  As someone colonised by the Englishman I should rather develop long-term patience with Americans' need to take up space and demand attention than to allow my feathers to be ruffled by their over-confidence in matters of global management, or to have my spelling sullied in any other way around.

Anyway, however you look at the problems that he raises, I must reiterate, I simply love Philip Ochieng.  How would I read the paper without his benignly sharp presence there.  I wish he was eazier to find on the internet (I did that one on purpose).



Advertisement

Does anyone know how to use Buffer profitably?  I want to know more about how "Awesome" might help me raise money for disenfranchised people in Africa.  In this case this family of mother and four children in school just lost their breadwinner, the father, a friend of mine.

I want to help raise some money (about USD.15,000.-) to put in a trust account for the late Edward Wanzala's family - his story is being developed on my blog. any assistance and advice would be appreciated.  Anyone know and can advise me on Buffer?  Would going"Awesome" serve to raise my chances of finding possible well-wishers?


* averring (now why should the Americans not spell that "avering"?)
* prise (and its sister, enterprise - which, to fulfil the craving for perverted purity ought to otherwise be spelt enterprize)
* fulfil [this blogger dictionary demands I write that fulfill]

Wednesday, 1 January 2014

Guilty as an African, by default



I write this as an African, myself:  Unwittingly, I am by default, a guilty party to the snuffing out of my heritage; here, with an attempt to keep a long story short:


Janis asks me to describe the "rottenness" that  she has forewarned me about in her own words, below, and she keeps reminding me of the hordes of imperialist parasites that have swarmed over us.  It is no different - perhaps it has become most virulent, now - on the continent of Africa:  The system is turning human beings into moths - lovers of the shiny life; the system, which is global, has been condoned if not organized by agents of ignorance and mediocrity right here on the African continent, of which there are plenty of silenced examples:

My thoughts started when I had wished Janis a HAPPY NEW YEAR. after she had replied (touched up for clarity): 
Thank you.  May you and yours find refuge from the storm as the terrible monster, "democracy" - created - lashes out, strangling and suffocating on its own vomit, as it plans on taking everyone down.  Prepare yourself (not to openly fight but) to survive, along with your community and family.  That is meaningful resistance....

Resistance?  Why should we be resisting, instead of smiling away and thinking positive about the sludge we are swimming in*?  Long story.  Are you swimming or resisting?  I am resisting.

Janis forces one to write now, not later.  She chose one of my words, 'rottenness' and asked me to explain (she is always asking to explain).  When a writer tells someone who calls themselves a writer to describe something that the latter's moaning about, the challenge is a merciful thing, and has to be taken up at once.  So this is what I quickly thought up (now editing: 3 Jan 14/ 7 Jan 14):

Our betrayal begins with the story of the East India Company.  It mutated into a sort of an amphibious people-gobbling contraption about the size of a small planet which, like a lizard flicking its long tongue out at all the food in its line of fire, navigates the sludge of desperation, depression that is the rest of the world and is, in my case, Africa. The slimy 'monster' cannot think far and is in denial, but destroys with really cool dexterity, excreting little shiny trinkets with the one message inscribed upon them in its wake:  
"Wake up, Africa!  You are poised to lead the ranks of those who are destined to fill the black hole of the thankless slave market!  You are one nation, yet you are content to devolve into little countries  -  to appease the imagination of a few mediocrities, poised to compete, to fight and to annihilate one another, in order, if unwittingly, to be the first to serve the world more faithfully, more loyally and more foolishly than ever did any other race of self-made peons, including the god-forsaken nations of India and Pakistan!  
"Yes, and let your perennially and more increasingly worm-ridden chiefs teach you to keep up the pretences of having shrugged off the despondency of the ages -   you poor and miserable laughing sods of earth; and you shall be well taught at the feet of the our servants in those wonderful schools to which your children vie for entry.  You shall learn to deftly and knowledgeably contaminate - yes, YOU - you shall.  Contaminate your own land by order of none other than the Central Bank!  You feel rich and free, obviously, a few of you. (Forget about the poor for they do not count, as is proven by the media who shine like slime, too), even with a few pennies in your ragbags - while the billionaires that milk you KNOW that they are naught but poor beggars themselves.
"We shall come to harvest and make you feel even richer!  Read the advertisements for human resources attracted to the swollen, tangled government bloated with apathy and greed and much of 'civil society', as you prostitute your land, your women, your children, your history and identities, and wade through the mud and sludge we leave behind!  Here!  Take that BMW and Mercedes... that Hummer!  Take those paper palaces of yours in Karen and Muthaiga, here!  Build your walls high - those angry youth will have to use trucks to pull them down.  Empty out your new Christmas stockings and now wear them:  Yes, indeed! They look even better worn inside-out as you slip your handsome new effendicured feet  -  which march soremnry to the national anthems - into your new boots - gum-boots or army boots or whatever.  Wear them just the way would that man there... wrapped in cotton colours of the English moors in autumn; yes, that gentle Englishman.  See him, up there, watching us patiently from that promontory he named Mount Kenya, all by himself, smiling mildly as if posing for his picture on a banknote?  Come with me:  Let's be clever and revolt against him.  So that we can be just like him. You can't escape, now, sing as much as you like - you shall be just like him.  You are just like me.  You are nearly there!"
Links to look at today:
Edited 3rd Jan 2014 0715h, 7th Jan 2014 13:07h,  20th January, 2014 10:00h




*Credit to Shailja Patel for describing capitalism "the water we swim in".

Monday, 23 December 2013

Edward's family picture


Edward's family


continued from this page (Edward's picture):


I just took this picture of the family on the day after the release of his remains from hospital





Mama Meshack (Meshack's Mother) stands surrounded by her children
Meshack, Fernando, Raveena and Praise


Edward's picture

December 23rd, 2013

Continued from here - the earliest post on the late Edward Wanzala

Here is the picture of my friend

 
 
 
And click here for a view of the family he left behind the day after we received notification that his remains would be released:
 
 


Sunday, 22 December 2013

Zina K's take on the role of Prophet Muhammed when Prophet Mohamed's

The Banu Qurayza
by Zina K

18th September, 2012

The Messenger of Allah had to leave  Ibn Umm Maktum, in charge of Al-Madinah, and he had given the flag to `Ali bin Abi Talib... the Messenger of Allah went to them (Banu Qurayzah) laying seige to them for twenty-five days...they had breached their covenant and wished to destroy Islam...


When this seige had gone on for too long, they agreed to accept the judgement of their own ally and friend , Sa`d bin Mu`adh, the leader of `Aws because they had been their allies during the Jahiliyyah, so they thought that he would treat them kindly as `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul had done for his allies of Banu Qaynuqa` when he had asked the Messenger of Allah to set them free...and so if Sa'd had done the same the Prophet would have honoured the decision...


So, these people thought that Sa`d would do the same for them as Ibn Ubayy had done for those people...

When this happened, the Messenger of Allah called him to come from Al-Madinah to pass judgement on them.

When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the `Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying,

"O Sa`d, they are your clients so be kind to them, trying to soften his heart.''

But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said,

"Now it is time for Sa`d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.''

The Messenger of Allah said: (These people) -- and he pointed to them (Banu Qurayzah) -- (have agreed to accept your judgement, so pass judgement on them as you wish.)

Sa`d,  "My judgement will be carried out''

The Messenger of Allah said: "Yes.'' He said,

"And it will be carried out on those who are in this tent'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "And on those who are on this side'' -- and he pointed towards the side where the Messenger of Allah was, but he did not look directly at the Messenger of Allah out of respect for him.

The Messenger of Allah said to him: "Yes.''said:

"My judgement is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.''

Had the Banu Qurayzah chosen the Prophet (saw) to pass a Judgment...maybe he would have given a different ruling altogether...

There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them.

The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.

All of this is stated both briefly and in detail, with evidence and Hadiths, in the book of Sirah ...

Banu Qurayzah, who were Jews from one of the tribes of Israel. Their forefathers had settled in the Hijaz long ago, seeking to follow the Unlettered Prophet of whom they read in the Tawrah and Injil.

"..then when there came to them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it) (2:89). May the curse of Allah be upon them. ...

"..and cast terror into their hearts" means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know.

They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated.

They wanted to eradicate the Muslims but they were themselves eradicated. In addition to all this, they are doomed in the Hereafter, so by all accounts they are counted as losers..

Allah says: "..a group you killed, and a group you made captives.....And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches....He gave these things to you ....and a land which you had not trodden.."

So several things are to be noted, firstly it was not prophet Muhammad who had ordered this execution, rather it was Sa'd who was an ally to the Banu Qurayza, and it was the Jews who had called on Sa'd to pass judgement on them as they had trusted him more than the Prophet of God...

And the muslims then accepted the Judgment that was passed by Sa'd against the Jews....

Had Sa'd passed a Judgment that all of them be set free....the prophet would have accepted that also...and so blaming the prophet is simply a waste of time and the fitna of the enemies...!

Secondly  they kept the children ALIVE, and the women as well, the ones who were killed additionally were only the ones who had gone through puberty and were going through puberty, hence no children were killed...

What you see below is young boys who had not gone through puberty being killed, including little babies...and you find the dictate, in the Bible:

Isaiah 13:15-18
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

John Gill commentary:
Every one that is found shall be thrust through…

With a sword, spear, or lance, and be slain; that is, everyone that is found in the city of Babylon; and so the Targum adds,

``and everyone that is found in it shall be slain;''

so Kimchi, in the midst of it, or without; in the street, as Jarchi. The orders of Cyrus F8 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=015> were, that those that were found without (in the streets) should be slain; and to proclaim in the Syriac language, that those that were within doors should continue there, but, if they were found without, they should be put to death; which orders were executed, and well agrees with this prophecy:

"..and everyone that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword "
or "added" unto them; any of other nations that joined them as auxiliaries, see (Revelation 18:4 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+18:4>) or "that is gathered"; so the Septuagint, "they that are gathered"; that are gathered together in a body to resist the enemy, and defend themselves. Some render the word, "every one that is consumed", with age; neither old nor young, as follows, should be spared.

The Targum is,
``everyone that enters into the fortified cities,'' ..flees there for safety and protection.

"..Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their
eyes…"

Upon the ground, or against the wall, as was foretold should be, (Psalms 137:8,9 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ps+137:8,9>) and in way of retaliation for what they did to the Jews, (2 Chronicles 36:17 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=2ch+36:17>) and this was to be done "before their eyes", in the sight of the inhabitants, which must make it the more distressing and afflicting; and, as Kimchi observes, this phrase is to be applied to the following clauses:
 "..their houses shall be spoiled.."
plundered of the substance, wealth, and riches in them, by the soldiers:
"..and their wives ravished;.."
"..by the same, and both before their eyes, and after that slain, in like manner as they had."

ravished the women in Zion, (Lamentations 5:11 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=la+5:11>) ..

[Their] bows also shall dash their young men to pieces,
&c.] That is, the bows of the Medes should dash in pieces the young men of the Babylonians. The meaning is, either that they should put them into their bows, instead of arrows, and shoot them upon the ground, or against a wall, and so dash them to pieces; or that they should first shoot them through with their arrows, and then dash them with their bows; according to Xenophon F12 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=018>, Cyrus came to Babylon with great numbers of archers and slingers:

and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb;  even of those that were in the womb, but should rip up women with child, and cut them in pieces: their eyes shall not spare children;
in the arms of their parents, or running to them, shrieking and crying, and in the utmost fright; and yet their tender and innocent age would meet with no mercy. The Medes were notorious for their cruelty F13 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=018>, and which issued at last in the ruin of their empire.

I would like to see  you reply to this verse and this Christian commentary which is a very popular and known commentary. Note the verses not only order the killing of women and children, but the raping of women as well! I shall wait in anticipation for you to respond to this verse, and I shall wait in great anticipation for you to bring me something like this from the Quran, or the Hadiths, something the Junkies know they won’t be able to do...