Mea Culpa: we said what we did not mean – again
John Rentoul on errors and omissions from the past week
In a comment article that praised John Lewis for its Christmas TV ad, we managed to say the opposite of what we meant: “You cannot understate what it is for an enormous retailer to put children in care at the heart of its flagship ad campaign.” This happens so
often that all writers should be advised to avoid the “cannot overstate”, “impossible to overestimate” formula altogether. Thanks to Linda Beeley for spotting that one.
Long live the King: Simon Kane wrote to point out that we had referred to the King, Charles and King Charles all in the same article. He is right that the King’s mother was always referred to as the Queen, and not Elizabeth or Queen Elizabeth. However, I think that we are in a period of transition. It will take people time to get used to calling him just the King.
I was surprised to see that The Times refers to Camilla as the Queen, rather than the Queen Consort. I found the headline “Queen pays tribute to ‘dear mother-in-law’ Elizabeth in first speech” confusing because I thought (a) the Queen is dead, and (b) she seems to be talking about herself. I am not in the least interested in royal titles and flummery, but I think clarity is aided by Queen Consort until we get used to the new names, just as it helps to stick a Charles in here or there just to remind the reader who this unfamiliar King person is.
It’s Greek: We reported that Gillian Keegan, the new education secretary (we called her “education minister”, which she is, but she is the top one, the secretary of state), said “the criteria for who qualifies for free school meals is ‘always under review’”. We meant the criteria “are” under review, because criteria is the plural of criterion, and there is more than one criterion for eligibility for free school meals. Thanks to Philip Nalpanis for that one.
That’s a relief: In a report of George Eustice’s rude comments about the trade deal that was negotiated with Australia when he was a minister, we said he had been “relieved from his post”. The usual form is that someone is “relieved of” their post or their duties.
Meet the challenge, stall the change: Language changes, but The Independent should wait until a change is widely if not universally accepted before adopting it – a more formal, traditional style seems more authoritative. I say this most weeks, and this week’s new syntax is “meet with”. This Americanism is
becoming increasingly common in Britain, but it is not yet standard, so we should have said: “Theresa May was the last prime minister to meet Mr Xi”; “many players will meet migrant workers during this World Cup”; Michael Gove, the housing minister, “hopes to meet Awaab’s family”; and president-elect Lula “will meet civil society and indigenous groups, as well as UN secretary general Antonio Guterres”.
Want your views to be included in The Independent Daily Edition letters page? Email us by tapping here letters@independent.co.uk. Please include your address
BACK TO TOP