In public life, words are not mere sounds arranged for convenience; they are instruments of clarity, carriers of meaning, and, at times, quiet architects of national standards. It is therefore both striking and concerning when a public figure, entrusted with influence and visibility, confidently advances a statement that unsettles the very structure of language it seeks to employ.
Hon. Mwengi Mutuse, Member of Parliament for Kibwezi West, recently defended his response, ‘Yes, I am with us,’ as an example of what he termed ‘English by construction’ as a form of expression, he suggested, where meaning overrides grammatical rigidity. At first glance, the explanation appears persuasive, even intellectual. Yet beneath that polished surface lies a fundamental misunderstanding of how language functions.
English, like any structured language, is governed not by arbitrary rules but by conventions that ensure mutual understanding. These conventions are not ornamental; they are essential. When the question posed is ‘Are you with us?’ the pronouns serve precise roles: ‘you’ identifies the respondent, while ‘us’ refers to a group distinct from the respondent at the moment of speaking. The expected reply, therefore, must preserve this relationship.
ALSO READ:
MP Barongo: All 12,700 bursary applicants to be funded despite delays
To respond with ‘Yes, I am with us’ is not an act of creative construction; it is a grammatical misalignment. The subject ‘I’ cannot logically align itself with the object pronoun ‘us’ in this manner. The sentence collapses under its own weight, producing not clarity, but confusion. It is, in effect, a statement that attempts to stand on both sides of its own meaning.
The defence that meaning should supersede grammatical correctness invites a dangerous precedent. Language stripped of structure is not liberated; it is destabilized. If every speaker were to construct English according to personal interpretation, communication would cease to be a shared system and instead become a fragmented exercise in guesswork. Precision would give way to approximation and understanding would become increasingly elusive.
There is, however, a deeper issue at stake; one that extends beyond the sentence itself. Public figures occupy a unique position in society. Their words are amplified, repeated, and, in many cases, imitated. For students navigating the already demanding terrain of English grammar, such statements do not exist in isolation. They echo in classrooms, in examinations and in the minds of learners striving for correctness.
When an authority figure not only errs but justifies the error with confidence, it risks legitimizing inaccuracy. It subtly suggests that rules are negotiable, that correctness is optional and that conviction can substitute for competence. This is not merely a linguistic concern; it is an educational one.
Satire, perhaps, offers the clearest lens through which to view the situation. One might imagine a mathematics teacher asserting that 2 + 2 equals 5 by construction, or a pilot announcing that altitude is a matter of interpretation. The absurdity is immediate because in these fields, precision is non-negotiable. Language deserves no less respect.
To be clear, the correction is neither complex nor contentious. The appropriate response to ‘Are you with us?’ is straightforward: ‘Yes, I am with you,’ or simply, ‘Yes, I am.’ These alternatives preserve both grammatical integrity and intended meaning. They communicate alignment without distorting structure and they do so with clarity that requires no defence.
It is worth noting that English does accommodate flexibility. In literature, poetry and informal speech, rules may bend to serve style, rhythm or emphasis. But such deviations are deliberate, informed and contextually justified. They are not accidental constructions later defended as innovation.
Hon. Mutuse’s assertion, therefore, does not represent a bold evolution of language but rather a momentary lapse presented as principle. And while such moments are human and inevitable, the insistence on their correctness is where concern arises.
ALSO READ:
Loan recovery drive Intensifies as HELB fines employers failing to forward deductions
In the end, this episode serves as a quiet but important reminder: language is a shared contract. It binds speaker and listener in a mutual agreement of meaning. To disregard its structure is not to expand its possibilities, but to weaken its reliability.
Leaders, perhaps more than anyone else, must recognize the weight their words carry. Not every statement must be perfect, but every statement should respect the system that makes communication possible. For in the delicate balance between authority and accuracy, it is accuracy that sustains authority; not the other way around.
And so, while one may, in a moment of rhetorical enthusiasm, declare, ‘Yes, I am with us,’ the English language, steadfast and unyielding, offers a quiet but firm correction: clarity must always come before construction.
By Angel Raphael
Angel Raphael is seasoned teacher of English, passionate about clear, correct language and effective communication, blending expertise with wit to inspire learners.
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
