Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Errors and Omissions: Too many facts can give you the wrong picture

Our letters editor takes to task this week's Independent coverage

Guy Keleny
Friday 10 October 2014 17:15 BST
Comments
This is not the first time Jeremy Clarkson has courted controversy (BBC)
This is not the first time Jeremy Clarkson has courted controversy (BBC)

“Jeremy Clarkson appears to have broken driving laws by switching number plates on a car during the controversy which led to him and his crew being forced to flee Argentina while filming Top Gear.”

Thus began a news story published on Tuesday. That is what happens when you try to force too much into the opening sentence. The picture of the crew fleeing Argentina while filming – cameras still rolling as they scramble across the border – is an appealing one, though.

Another charmingly bonkers picture emerged from Wednesday’s City Outlook column: “Apple is walking on water again, at least from a financial perspective. And throwing its rotten cores at its critics.”

I think the writer probably intended that jolly clash of metaphors – so no error there.

A technology article published on Thursday caught the eye of Anthony North, who drew my attention to it. It opened with the words: “How did we used to manage?” That looks very odd.

The old way of forming a question, by reversing the order of verb and subject, has become archaic – lines like “Go you to Camelot?” are heard only in medieval Hollywood. That reversed formation has been replaced, in the course of the past 400 years or so, by formations using “do” – “Do you go to Camelot?”

There are exceptions, though, where the old word order survives. One is “do” itself, of course. Another is the verb “be” – we say “Are you there?” not “Do you be there?”

A third is the strange verb “used to”. “We used” can be turned into a question by reversing it to “used we”. It is perfectly all right to say: “How used we to manage?”

On Tuesday, Grace Dent wrote, in relation to the McCann case: “I cannot remember blame and spite directed at Jamie Bulger’s mother.”

Grace Dent is by no means alone in forgetting that this murdered child was called James by his family. “Jamie” Bulger is a tabloid invention (like “Maddie” McCann), and it is a great pity that it has gained such wide currency.

Last Saturday, a news story began thus: “Historical treasures are to be sold to the highest bidder in November when Monaco’s royal family parts with much of its unique collection of Napoleon’s possessions.”

“Royal” means relating to a king – from the French roi. It is not wrong to apply it to other sovereigns, such as the Prince of Monaco, but “princely” would in this case be more elegant.

Once again, number agreement breaks down. This sentence is from a cinema article published on Wednesday: “This is one of those films that makes you feel as if you are walking on eggshells.”

No, “makes” should be “make”. We are not talking about a film that makes you feel you are walking on eggshells, but about the films that make you feel that: the film under discussion is one of them.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in