Mea Culpa: A departure from the Romans’ usual way of operating

John Rentoul on questions of style and usage in last week’s Independent

Bernie Sanders, a so-called leftie, campaigns in Phoenix (Getty)

You have to have a good reason to use words and phrases from foreign or dead languages, I think. That was the test that should have been applied to the editorial on Wednesday about coronavirus, which concluded: “So far, the government’s response has been proportionate and guided by expert advice – a welcome change from its modus operandi.”

I agree with that, but what did we gain by using Latin, instead of saying, “a welcome change from its usual way of operating”?

Seen it before: If there is a worse language than Latin to throw into our prose to try to make it sound elevated, it is French. Especially when we use it wrongly, as we did in a comment article about the way the Democratic Party establishment has united against Bernie Sanders: “Four years after party brahmins coalesced around Hillary Clinton as the electable candidate (hahahaha), the sense of deja vu is oppressive.”

The whole point of deja vu, a feeling of having already experienced something, is that one has not actually experienced it before.

Holding back: In our reporting of the effect of coronavirus on tourism, we noted that the rain in Britain would normally have spurred a surge in late holiday bookings, “but travellers are reticent”.

They may well be, but we meant “reluctant”. The words are similar in meaning, but “reticent” means not revealing thoughts or feelings readily – being “reluctant”, as it were, to express them.

Incidentally we also called the rain “dismal weather”, which is a value judgement. Rain is what makes this country so green and so great.

Fourth wall: Congratulations to Conrad Duncan for drawing attention to a cliche of political journalism. In his report on Thursday of the Sanders campaign’s reaction to its Super Tuesday setback, he said Sanders’ strategists were working to “regain momentum in the race after Mr Biden’s consolidation of the so-called moderate wing of the party”.

Many political labels are imprecise and value-laden. “Moderate” implies “sensible”, as opposed to “extreme” – although it is increasingly used these days by people who regard themselves as daringly radical to dismiss centrists as spineless and lacking vigour.

Anyway, it is the term that is used all the time to describe Sanders’ opponents in the Democratic Party, so it is fine to use it – but even better to do so in a way that reminds the reader that it should be handled with care.