Errors & Omissions: The stuff of nightmares isn’t beyond our imagination

Unimaginability, Franglais and a confusion between 'like' and 'such as' from this week's Independent

Henry V at Agincourt, by Sir John Gilbert

Here is the opening of a comment piece, published on Wednesday: “As a parent it is almost impossible to imagine the horror and pain of having your newborn baby ripped from your arms and handed over to complete strangers. It is the stuff of our worst nightmares.”

Make up your mind: is it almost impossible to imagine, or is it the stuff of nightmares? It can’t be both. If you can dream it you can imagine it. Which of, course, you can.

Writers have a habit of calling horrible things “unimaginable”. If that were true, a great deal of literature would fail to work. For instance, here is Shakespeare, making the audience imagine an even worse scene of parental bereavement. King Henry V is threatening the citizens of Harfleur with the frightfulness of a sack if they do not surrender to his besieging army:

If not, why, in a moment look to see...

Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,

Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused

Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry

At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.

There, I’m sure you managed to imagine that.

µ This is from a film review, published on Thursday: “Paul Thomas Anderson’s intricately textured mystery thriller is one of the most laid-back film noirs you will ever see.”

What is the plural of “film noir”? Well in the original French it is clearly “films noirs”: “noir” (“black”) is the adjective that qualifies the noun “film”, and French gives both noun and adjective a plural form.

The question is: has the term become Englished to the extent that its plural form should follow English rules? I should say, not yet. Some readers might be puzzled by “films noirs”, but I surmise that they will still be outnumbered by those who are irritated by “film noirs”.

That is just a guess, but I draw support from sports writing, where the plural of “grand prix” is still a Gallically correct “grands prix” – though admittedly to give that term an English-style plural would produce a glaring barbarism: “grand prixes”.

µ On Tuesday, we ran a news story about the lawyer Michael Mansfield, who is calling for better NHS support for people at risk of suicide. His campaign follows the death of his own daughter. A picture caption said: “Michael Mansfield says better support for those with suicidal thoughts might help save people such as his daughter Anna.” That should be “people like his daughter”.

There is much confusion about “like” and “such as”. It is more common to see the opposite error, using “like” when it should be “such as”. The most important thing to remember is that you cannot be like yourself. So while the category of things such as X includes X itself, the category of things like X does not.

Better support for people like Anna Mansfield might help to save them. But it is too late to save “people such as” her, because that would include her herself.