Mea Culpa: One bad metaphor can spoil the whole barrel

A rotten analogy and arbitrary differences between similar words in this week’s Independent

John Rentoul
Friday 02 February 2018 06:35 EST
Comments
Apples, seemingly uncontaminated
Apples, seemingly uncontaminated

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.

A comment article this week took issue with the view that Carillion, the company that went bust last month, was a one-off failure, rather than evidence of a widespread problem among public contractors. “Many will say the firm was just one rotten apple,” the article said.

This is not what the rotten apple metaphor means. It refers to the way a single rotten apple can contaminate a whole barrel. The question is whether Carillion is a single, self-contained and non-contaminating instance of rottenness, or whether private contractors for public services are all a bit rotten to start with.

Make history: Saturday’s Daily Edition carried an article with the headline “Gavin Williamson confesses to historic office romance”. As Philip Nalpanis pointed out, the Defence Secretary’s affair is unlikely to be historic. It might have made history in the two families affected, but what we meant was “historical” – that is, something that happened a while ago.

The distinction between historic and historical is arbitrary, and there was no ambiguity here, but it is worth knowing the convention and observing it because it inspires confidence, among those readers who know the convention, that we care about language.

Battle forgone: The struggle to maintain the difference between two other similar words has probably been lost, if indeed it was ever won. We referred in News in Brief in the Daily Edition this week to Casey Affleck’s “decision to forego giving away” the Best Actress Award at the 2018 Oscars. Forgo means “go without”, but is usually spelt forego, which can also mean “go before”. Hence “forgoing” pleasures means doing without them, while “the foregoing” means the stuff we have just been writing about.

The Oxford Dictionary tries to preserve the version without the “e”, citing the difference between the Old English prefixes for- (against or without, as in forbid and forget) and fore- (before or in front). But I am not sure forgo was ever widely used. A search of Google Books (using Ngram Viewer) suggests the “e” form was always more common, and that forgo was rarer in the 19th and early 20th centuries than it is now.

Sometimes we pedants need to know when we are beaten, and this is one of those times. “Forgo” just looks odd to most people. My advice is to rephrase. On this occasion we used the word only because we had already referred to “the actor’s decision to withdraw from presenting”. At the second mention, we could have talked about his pulling out of the ceremony instead.

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