Mea Culpa: Multiple examples of when ‘several’ would do

Maybe this is just me, but I don’t see what is wrong with the word “several” and why it is being edged out by “multiple”. We had multiple examples of it this week.

Some of them referred to US court cases, in which such language is common, possibly because it sounds legalistic. Amber Heard alleged Johnny Depp “had been violent towards her on multiple occasions during their 15-month marriage”.

But on Monday we also said that Serge Aurier, the Paris Saint-Germain defender, “has found himself in trouble on multiple occasions during his career”. On Tuesday we reported that Prince had almost been booked for the Pyramid Stage at the Glastonbury music festival “multiple times”. And so on.

I don’t go round lamenting words being used as synonyms for other words that used to mean subtly different things, although the Oxford Dictionary says multiple, as an adjective, means “numerous and often varied”. I just think “several” is easier on the eye and ear.

Named after a light bulb: A profile of Rebecca Gomperts, the abortion rights campaigner, on Tuesday introduced its subject, and asked: “But what was it that prompted that first eponymous light bulb moment?” I am not sure what this was intended to mean. Perhaps a moment of realisation that is commonly called a light bulb moment. Eponymous refers to a person who gives their name to something, such as the eponymous hero of Doctor Who, the Doctor, or it refers to something named after a person or group, such as the eponymous album, Led Zeppelin III.

Word order: A comment article on Wednesday referred to “the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Managing Director, Christine Lagarde”. The brackets after the possessive is not something you could read aloud, which is a simple test of clarity. The IMF is a well-known abbreviation, but it is better to spell it out at the first mention. This was easily done, not least because our style is to put the person’s name first, followed by title, unless there is a good reason not to. So: “Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).”

Mixed metaphor: “One of the hallmarks of the approaching winter months is the beginning of a new season of Homeland,” was the opening line of our report on Thursday of a delay to the programme’s next series.

Hallmark is one of those metaphors that has nearly lost all its original meaning. But not quite. Most people still know that it is the term for a stamp on precious metals certifying their purity, even if they don’t know that it derives from Goldsmith’s Hall in London, where such tests were carried out and the marks made.

A stamp, in the form of a TV series, that confirms that the approach of winter meets the approved standard? A metaphor too far.