“Side chick” vs “side chic,” “anyway” vs “anyways”

 “Side chick” vs “side chic,” “anyway” vs “anyways” 

By Azuka Onwuka

When a wrong expression is used repeatedly, especially by trusted sources like media houses, many people who are right assume they are wrong and start using the wrong expression. That is what has happened with the recent wrong usage of “side chic” instead of “side chick” when referring to a mistress of a man, because some social media influencers and media houses use the “side chic.” 

But "side chic" is not recognised in English. "Side chick" is what is known in English. And there are many reasons why it will be hard for “side chic” to become recognised. 

The first is the meaning of “chick” as against the meaning of “chic.”

A chick is the baby of the chicken. It is also an informal word for a young woman. "Chic" is a different word derived from French, better known as an adjective which describes a woman's fashion sense.

Secondly, "chick" is a noun. "Chic" can also be a noun, which means "stylishness and elegance, especially of a specific kind." However, it is better known as an adjective. For example, one can say that John’s new chick is chic, meaning that his new girlfriend is elegantly and stylishly fashionable. 

In terms of pronunciation, both words are sounded differently. The initial "ch" in both words are pronounced differently: the "ch" in "chick" is pronounced as "ch", while the "ch" in "chic" is pronounced as "sh", which readily suggests that "chic" (like chalet, champagne, chef, etc) was borrowed from French. Also, the “i” in “chic” is pronounced differently from the “i” in “chick.” "Chic" is pronounced like "sheek".

Because “chick” is a noun, it can take a plural form, while “chic,” which is an adjective, cannot be pluralised. That is why English recognises "ten chicks" or "two side chicks", but cannot recognise "ten chics" or "two side chics." It is for the same reason that English cannot recognise “ten handsomes” or “two good handsomes.” But it can recognise “ten handsome boys” or “two good, handsome boys.”

Just as “side chic” is gaining currency, “anyways” is also gaining currency. Many people have asked me if “anyways” is correct. My answer always is: It has been added to the English dictionary, but I will never use “anyways,” not even in my dream. Why?

This is its entry in Oxford Dictionaries (online):

“anyways – North American dialect, informal, non-standard form of ‘anyway’. Example: You wouldn’t understand all them long words anyways.”

The first reason is that unlike “mo” and “bike,” which are shorter than “moment” and “bicycle” respectively, “anyways” is longer than “anyway”; so why should I use “anyways” when I can use “anyway”? 

Secondly, “anyways” is informal, while “anyway” is standard; so why should I use an informal word that has a standard and well-known format?

Furthermore, “anyways,” as the example from Oxford Dictionaries above shows, is a non-standard American creation. Why should a communicator use a non-standard word when there is an original standard word.

In addition, “anyways” sounds wrong to my ears: “any” is singular, meaning: “each.” It should not go with a plural word:  anybody, anyone, etc. Until “anybody” and “anyone” are changed to “anybodies” and “anypeople,” I will stick to my good old “anyway.”

Finally, many people who use “anyways” in Nigeria just want to belong:  to sound hip and funky, especially our American-wannabe radio/TV presenters. I already belong, so there is no need for me to try to belong.

There seems to be a competition among young radio and TV presenters to outdo one another in the use of “anyways.” Those who usually engage in this are those who want to sound cosmopolitan and exotic. In the social media, there are like-minded graduates who feel cool any time they write a piece that contains “anyways.” In their minds, it makes them feel different and trendy.

"Anyways" is non-standard and dialectical. It originated from people who could not speak correct English in the United States. It is the same way those who could not speak Standard English in Nigeria and West Africa developed Pidgin English. Consequently, an English word like “witch” is corrupted as “winch” in Pidgin, while “mermaid” is turned to "mammywater". You cannot use “winch” or “mammywater” in serious communication unless you put it in quotes or italics to pass a particular message. Imagine a radio presenter saying: “Some women were accused of beings winches and mammywaters by the villagers!” Well, no Nigerian radio presenter will say that because Nigerian Pidgin is not seen as classy as North American English.

Embracing non-standard words like "anyways," "laters," etc, is driven by the same spirit that makes people take hard drugs because those they admire are doing so. Many chain-smokers and drunks also began that way. It is the me-too bug. Those who do so usually feel that their own style or way is not “cool” enough. 

It is the same mentality that makes someone use “KK” for “OK” during a chat. Why shorten “OK” to “KK,” reducing two letters to two letters? What a way to shorten things! Why use "anyways," which has seven letters, when you can use "anyway," which has six letters? 

“Anyway” was formed from two words "any" and "way". "Any" is like "every" or "each": they all point to one item - any girl, any country, any child. It can never be “any girls,” “any countries,” “any children.” In the same vein one cannot say "every girls” or “each girls”. Saying “anyways” is the same as saying "one ways" or “a ways.” It is an insult to Standard English. 

If “anyways” could be acceptable, why should we not also accept "anybodies" (instead of "anybody"), “anypeople” (instead of “anyone”), “anyhows” (instead of “anyhow”), "anywheres" (instead of “anywhere”), or “anythings” (instead of “anything”)? In the same token, why should we not also accept “somehows” as an alternative to “somehow”?

Those who wish to stand out in their written or spoken communication resist the urge to follow the crowd, especially when the crowd is trying to foist the wrong or low-standard word or expression on them. 

It is ridiculous that educated people would be glad to copy the language of uneducated people because they want to feel cool and hip. The only reason is because it originated from the United States of America. And to many people, whatever is from America is the gold standard. They believe that using "anyways" will make them sound exotic and well-travelled to their audience. 

It is the same way some people use "angst," thinking that it means "anger," because they heard it used by someone they admire. Consequently, they use “angst” everywhere they should use “anger,” not knowing that “angst” means “a feeling of deep anxiety or fear” and was derived from the German word for “fear.”

Those who find it hard to speak or write Standard English should not set the standard in English for the educated to copy. English can borrow words from every part of the world, but the basic rules of English should not be destroyed in a bid to feel cool or hip. 

Those who want their spoken and written English to be sweet and attractive do not use words because they heard others use them. In fact, once some correct words or expressions become widespread (like rejig, can-do, quagmire, mull over, etc), they avoid such words because clichés water down communication. 

It is generally accepted that language is dynamic. Nobody can stop changes in language. I love reasonable and logical additions or adjustments in English. For example, I adopted “stadiums” as the plural of “stadium” over 25 years ago, even though many still stick to “stadia” - which is becoming obsolete. Just as the case with ujamaa, hara-kiri, kimono, I look forward to seeing Nigerian words like gbam, aristo, mugu, etc, in the English dictionary soon. However, I do not like changes that make no sense, and “anyways” and “laters” are some of the changes that make no sense to me, because they emanated from the realm of wrong grammar and still bear the mark of incorrectness.