Errors and Omissions: Why admit something you are perfectly happy to say?

In this week's dose of pedantry: do "jealousy" and "envious" have the same meaning? And what's the difference between "regularly" and "frequently"?

John Rentoul
Friday 29 March 2013 15:27 GMT
Comments
Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand
Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand (GETTY IMAGES)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Rio Ferdinand risked “enflaming the controversy surrounding his non-appearance for England”, we said on Saturday.

That should have been “inflaming”, and Laurie Wedd wrote to point out that the same report said that Roy Hodgson “admitted on Thursday that he was ‘not interested’ in how Ferdinand planned to spend the international break”. It was a good example of how writers, keen to avoid using “said” repeatedly, end up with unintended connotations. If Hodgson had merely “said” that he was “not interested” in Ferdinand’s holiday arrangements, the implication would have been quite different, and probably a more accurate reflection of what the England manager actually meant.

Encore: “Déjà vu” means the feeling that you have seen something before when you haven’t. It is always misused, and it always, always comes with the words “a sense of” bolted and rusted to it. This was the opening sentence of a feature on Saturday: “For those present at the employment tribunal involving Lord Sugar and his former apprentice, Stella English, there was an unnerving sense of déjà vu.” Meaning that we had seen that kind of “wild disagreement, accusation and counter accusation” on the programme. All this has happened before, and it will all happen again (as it says at the start of Peter Pan).

Oft confused: We reported on Wednesday the latest adventures of @toryeducation, the mysterious Twitter account that seems to operate out of Michael Gove’s private office, although he denies it. We said that it is “regularly used to praise Government education policy and to lambast critics of Mr Gove”. We meant “frequently”, as the tweeting is not at set intervals.

Love of money: Another distinction worth preserving is that between jealous and envious. Reporting on Wednesday about the teenager who made £20m by selling a company that wrote news summaries for mobile phones, we suggested other ways of becoming rich so that “you can make your friends jealous”. If they want what you have, they are envious. If they are fearful that you might take what they have, they are jealous.

In the detail: In describing on Thursday Giovanni di Stefano, the fraudster who pretended to be a lawyer, as the “Devil’s Advocate”, we were merely repeating a common nickname. He took on apparently unwinnable cases, often for unpopular clients, so it seemed a clever twist on the usual meaning, referring to someone adopting a position in debate for the sake of testing an argument. But it is worth knowing that the Devil’s Advocate was a real post at the Vatican, a canon lawyer formally known as the Promoter of the Faith, which was abolished only in 1983. His job was to argue against a candidate for sainthood, a case which would be made by another lawyer known as the Promoter of the Cause. The Devil’s Advocate, therefore, argued the case against the person in the dock.

Guy Keleny is away

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