Provide an error analysis of language use in Amos Tutuola's The Palm-Wine Drinkard.

The amusing The Palm-Wine Drinkard
has several kinds of prescriptive English language errors in it that deviate from
Standard English English and American English (of course, from the view point of the
language being a dialect version of English, there may be no errors in it at all).
Several categories of errors reveal themselves on the opening pages. Some are: word
misuse; combining words; odd repetition; incorrect phrases; punctuation errors; idiom
misuse; preposition misuse; faulty time relationships; and restrictive / nonrestrictive
clause confusion.

The error of word misuse adds humor to
the narrative. For instance, Standard English speakers don't think of drinking alcoholic
beverages as "work": "I had done no more work than to drink
palm-wine." Other misused words in the opening pages are know, got, expert,
noticed, and because. The use of
because is interesting because because
introduces a "reason" for a thing to occur or to have occurred. It differs from
since, which also introduces a "reason" for occurrences, in that
since precedes the occurrence to give persuasive support for an
occurrence while because follows as an explanation of an
occurrence. In "because he was not keeping me long," supporting information is being
given to underpin his following action. Since he uses because, a
bit of humorous confusion is produced.

Another error is the
excessive repetition of some words like drinkard, which brings up
the error of combining disparate words. Drinkard is an interesting
and amusing combination of drinker and
drunkard. Phrases as well as words are erroneously turned on their
heads. In "I had no other work more than to drink palm-wine," the adjective
more is misplaced and misused. The very ironic and amusing phrase ought
simply to be, "I had no other work than to drink palm-wine." If
more were to be used, it would preceed the noun it is modifying,
not follow it. Another type of phrase, that of idioms (figurative expressions that mean
something other than what the words are defined as, e.g., "He's the bees knees"), is
subject to liberal adaptation, as in "from morning till night and from night till
morning." The idiom is "from morning to night," but the speaker has added its reverse
resulting in a humorous effect.

Some other errors occur.
One is in punctuation, such as inserting a comma between a predicate and it's verb as in
the following before was, "I did first when I saw him dead there,
was that I climbed another," or failing to use a period between
loosely related ideas, as is needed between died suddenly and
when it was: "father died suddenly, and when it was the 6th month."
Another relationship structure that is prone to error is the expression of correct
relationship between ideas through the choice of prepositions as in "look at every
palm," which would have the correct meaning expressed accurately through  the use of
either "look near every palm" or "look around every
palm."

This leads to the mention that time relationships
are also victims of error as with the redundant time markers in "But
when .... then my father
died." One final mention covers the confusion between restrictive
clauses, which have a which or
that not set off by a comma, and
nonrestrictive clauses, which
have a which (no
that) that is set off by a comma, as
is illustrated in this confused restrictive where-clause, "we found
him under the palm-tree, where he fell down and died," which should have
no comma.