Is it always wrong to wear your trousers too high?

I seem to be going through another BBC News phase. Here's something I spotted on the site a little while back:


Is it always wrong to wear your trousers too high? Yes, by definition - the word too means "to a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible" (Concise OED). 'Possible' isn't applicable here but 'desirable' and 'permissible' both could be.

A fairer question would be 'Is it always wrong to wear your trousers high?'.

Every word should earn its keep

As mentioned in previous posts, one of my many bugbears is the use of words in news stories that don't earn their keep. Flowery language is OK, even welcome on gossip pages, or blogs, but not in news.

JD and I keep a selection of these redundancies in our black museum; some have been published here. But this very day I was presented with: "He had lent his licence temporarily." The OED confirms that lend means: "grant to someone the use of something on the understanding that it will be returned". The redundant qualifier was duly chucked over the side.

I was happier, the story was happier, the author didn't notice the difference. Which is why they pay JD and I a pittance to ply our trade in the engine room.

Doubly new; doubly redundant

The following was penned by a senior journalist among our charges: "New enhancements were brought about by the new changes."

The trick is, when you've finished writing a story sit back, take a deep breath – and READ IT before you inflict it on the subs, let alone your readers.

Huge influx

We were nearly caught out by a tautology this morning: 'huge influx'.

It surprised us, but the OED says an influx is "the arrival or entry of large numbers of people or things".

That means it's not possible to have a 'small influx', and it's tautologous to say 'large influx' or 'huge influx'...

More from the black museum

The writers whose copy is subbed by JD and I are a pretty competent bunch. But (you knew there was going to be a but) sometimes they forget that every word in a story ought to earn its keep. Further to our first offering from the black museum, here are a few more examples of redundant words we've encountered recently:

Previous history
Future plans
Submerged under the water
International business to and from the UK

Feeling worn out

According to some copy today, a certain component provides a "10% increase in wear and durability".

I can only assume that is an increase in wear resistance not in wear rate. 'Yes, our component is very durable, but wears out quickly...'

Besides, the OED definition of durable being 'hard-wearing', it's a tautology to say something offers an increase in wear [resistance] and durability: just say the thing is "10% more durable" and have done with it!

Word pairs

Some pairs of words seem made for each other, but that doesn't mean they belong together. Earlier today I was rewriting some copy and used the phrase "a safe haven". Then I checked my trusty OED, confirmed that if it isn't safe it isn't a haven, and deleted the word "safe".

A reminder that we should always think of the exact meaning of the words and phrases we use – and that subs need subbing too... as JD is always happy to remind me.

Black museum

JD and I keep a record of the more memorable solecisms submitted by the writers in our care. We call it the black museum; here are some recent arrivals:

armed gunmen
today’s modern engines
Inside, the interior has been dramatically revised
after carrying out evaluation trials
general consensus
anti-smoking bans
32 million metric tonnes
he was acquitted of a joint conspiracy

A lack of conviction

We had this in one of our news stories today:

Having overturned his false conviction, John Smith is...

Would you make any changes?

I took out 'false' – it's not wrong, but it's pretty self-evident. After all, the conviction has been overturned. I don't think there's anything wrong with:

Having overturned his conviction, John Smith is...