Mea culpa: the abhorrent ape

Questions of style and usage lightly policed by John Rentoul, our chief pedant

‘Backlash, boy? I’ll give you backlash...’ (Getty)

In an article about Labour taking Nigel Farage seriously, we said: “The idea of aping Trump will abhor many inside Labour.” Thanks to Bernard Theobald for pointing out that we had the wrong word – or we had the subject and object the wrong way round. We could have said “appal”, or we could have said that “many inside Labour will abhor the idea of aping Trump”.

Backfire: We used the cliche “sparked a backlash” in our report of the world’s reaction to Donald Trump’s plan for a Costa del Gaza, which I thought had the effect of diluting the indignation. Calling it a “fierce global backlash” didn’t make it more dramatic, either.

A backlash was originally a term referring to machinery or gears where the parts engage incorrectly causing a jolt. It is not caused by a spark. The headline was simpler and better: “World recoils from Trump plan to ‘take over’ Gaza.”

Not impartant: We wrote about “Could You Be Loved”, a song by Bob Marley, on Wednesday, saying: “As ever, his words lend themselves to a kind of gentle guidance imparted on the listener.” The usual word that follows “impart” is “to”, rather than “on”. A small thing, but not worth distracting the reader with it.

Get ahead: We said that “at a Nato news conference ahead of his dinner with EU leaders in Brussels”, Keir Starmer appeared to almost relish being accused of trying to have a foot in both the EU and US camps. This use of “ahead of” is peculiar to journalism and business jargon (“ahead of fourth quarter results…”). Normal English is “before”. We should use that.

Made-up word: Richard Parry was delighted to come across the word “oligopsonistic” in an article about NHS reform, saying it “deserves to be celebrated – whether it really exists or not!” It does exist, although I am not sure it is the right word here. We referred to “the NHS’s oligopsonistic buying power”, an oligopsony being a market in which a few buyers dominate, on the model of oligopoly, a market dominated by a few sellers.

The British healthcare market is usually described as a monopsony: the NHS being a single buyer dominating the market – the equivalent of a monopoly, a market dominated by a single seller. There are private providers and insurance companies in the British market, but I think an oligopsony implies a few roughly equal buyers; the NHS is so dominant that I think it should be called a monopsonistic buyer.

Fallen ahead: In a sports report last weekend we said: “One of the many areas Manchester United have fallen behind noisy neighbours Manchester City in recent years is their inability to sell players at the right time.” Thanks to Teri Walsh for pointing out an unintended double negative. United have “fallen behind” in their “ability” to sell players at the right time.

Semi-besieged: We described Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, as “somewhat beleaguered” in an editorial on Friday. You are either under siege or you are not, in my view, and beleaguer is such a good word that it ought to be reserved for a city, town or fort with turrets.