Mea Culpa: stylistic preference is different from grammar

Questions of style and usage in last week’s Independent, reviewed by John Rentoul

Baa humbug: bellwether sheep often don’t get the credit they deserve in etymology (iStock/Getty)

In the editorial on Thursday, we said “different to” instead of “different from”. I prefer “different from”, but this is a stylistic preference rather than any rule of grammar. Even so, we ought to be aware that it is the preference of many people, including some who do regard it as a rule of grammar. It doesn’t matter very much, but the fewer readers who are distracted or irritated by such things, the better an article will seem.

As it happens, it wasn’t the best phrase to use in any case. We said: “Divisions within the governing party will also encourage the Lords to make it more workable, but, no different to before, the House of Commons can’t simply legislate international law away.” It would have been better to say “but, no different from before”, but better still to simplify it and say “but, as before”. Thanks to Sue Alexander for making both points.

Making up the numbers: We sometimes get ourselves in a tangle with words such as “comprise” and “constitute”, but in a report from Gaza we confused the whole idea of parts of a whole. We said: “Mr Wenkert makes up one of 45 hostages who are expected to receive medication under the agreement, according to the French presidency.” Well, so he does, but the usual way of expressing that in English is to say “Mr Wenkert is one of the 45 hostages”, which is what we changed it to.