Errors & Omissions: You really ought to think carefully before using the word 'real'
Saturday 30 October 2010
Whenever you find yourself writing the word "real", pause for a moment: you should probably cut it out.
The word is a philosophical minefield, and in common usage it often masks a confusion of thought. Take this headline, from Monday's paper: "The real reason women outlive men: it's all a matter of breeding."
The use of "real" here seems to imply that there is a popularly held idea about why women outlive men, but it has now been shown to be erroneous, and the true reason has been found. No such the thing. The story simply reports that nobody has hitherto known the reason, but now scientists think they have found it. So it's not the "real" reason, just the reason.
Not well: This is from a news story on Tuesday: "The bacteria which causes Weil's, leptospira, is one of the most commonly transmitted diseases between animals, but transmission to humans is almost unheard of." Bob Lowrie writes in to point out the common but mistaken use of "bacteria" as a singular. Some people have trouble getting their heads round the idea of a word with a plural ending in -a. Blame it on the Greeks and Romans. Commonly misused examples are "bacteria", from Latin, and from Greek "phenomena" and "criteria". The respective singulars are "bacterium", "phenomenon" and "criterion".
There is a strange wrongness about almost everything in this sentence. Leptospira is not a disease; "one of the most commonly transmitted diseases between animals" is in the wrong order; and "almost unheard of" sounds as if the transmission is semi-mythical. In fact, it is perfectly well documented. There is too much "transmission" going on. And the scientific Latin name of a living organism should be in italics. So: "Weil's is caused by the bacterium leptospira. The infection commonly passes between animals; for a human to catch it is extremely rare."
Apparently so: From time to time, we have pointed out how the term "heir apparent" is frequently misapplied to anybody who expects to succeed to anything. It is only fair, then, to mention a rare case of somebody getting it right. On Wednesday, a news story reported on a television drama about the marriage of Prince Felipe of Spain: "Felipe and Letizia: a Love Story started showing this week, and the timing couldn't be better for the heir apparent."
Yes, Felipe is his father's eldest son; no closer heir to the throne can appear and supplant him. He really is an heir apparent.
Who he? This column recently declared war on the use of the same pronoun to mean more than one person in the same sentence. But that is not the only kind of confusion about pronouns. The following is from Matthew Norman's Wednesday column, explaining Ed Miliband's political dilemma. "The source of Ed's current paralysis is easily understood. The urge to wait patiently for the scything of welfare to ignite social unrest and make the Coalition profoundly unpopular must be intense. A full-frontal, tribalist attack on Osborne's deficit reduction plan would make no sense, meanwhile, in the absence of a well-defined alternative, and would dangerously undermine his positioning as a responsible centrist."
Whose positioning? Surely "he" must be Osborne, mentioned a mere 21 words ago. No, keep scrolling back for further 35 words and you reach Ed. The general thrust of the paragraph, with Ed the protagonist throughout, indicates that "he" is Ed. Also, most readers will know that Ed is the one who is trying to position himself as a responsible centrist. The clues are there, but why set the readers such a puzzle? Just make it "Ed's positioning".
Verbiage: A story on Monday about the architect Le Corbusier included this: "But now the level of demand for such works means that even the most mundane items...are fetching thousands of pounds." "The level of" is one of those terms ending in "of" that amount to little more than preliminary throat-clearing. They can nearly always be struck out. Other examples are "a sense of", "a series of", "the introduction of", "a package of", "a basket of", "a raft of", "a range of" and "the prospect of".
- 1 Russell Brand accuses FOX News anchor Sean Hannity of terrorism after aggressive Israel-Gaza debate
- 2 Disney heiress Abigail disowns her share of family profits in West Bank company
- 3 The secret report that helps Israel hide facts
- 4 Israel's propaganda machine is finally starting to misfire
- 5 'Hello mum, this is going to be hard for you to read ...'
Sally Farmiloe dead: Howards' Way actress, and former mistress of Jeffrey Archer, dies aged 60
Russell Brand accuses FOX News anchor Sean Hannity of terrorism after aggressive Israel-Gaza debate
Pope Francis issues top 10 tips for happiness – including don’t try to convert other people
Sabina Altynbekova, the girl branded 'too good looking' for volleyball, says social media obsession with her is a 'bit much'
Justin Bieber posts Instagram photo of Orlando Bloom crying after Ibiza fight 'over Miranda Kerr'
The secret report that helps Israel hide facts
Land for gas: Merkel and Putin discussed secret deal could end Ukraine crisis
Woman and two children killed by mob in riots over 'blasphemous' Facebook post in Pakistan
A day in the life of Vladimir Putin: The dictator in his labyrinth
Putin is 'thuggish, dishonest and reckless', says British ambassador to US
Richard Dawkins tweets: 'Date rape is bad, stranger rape is worse'
- < Previous
- Next >
£40000 - £45000 per annum + Competitive Benefits: Progressive Recruitment: Dig...
£40000 - £50000 per annum + Car, Medical, Fuel + More!: Progressive Recruitmen...
£50000 - £60000 per annum + benefits: Progressive Recruitment: An absolutely o...
£45000 - £60000 per annum + competitive: Progressive Recruitment: PHP Develope...