Words Are Hard
I used to subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review. It was one of those periodicals that languished at the edge of the coffee table, looking on with envy as the more popular periodicals got thumbed through.
"Ooooh, well look at little Miss New Yorker," the CJR would no doubt think, "I guess she'll spread her pages for anyone. And would you look at the way The Nation's subscription cards are just hanging out? I guess we know how someone gets her 'circualtion figures' so high, if you know what I mean."
Magazines can be so petty.
Where was I? Oh yes, the CJR. The one feature that I would always read was the back page, where they'd print funny typos and odd grammatical constructions.
Once, in an article about a company whose finances were on the rise, someone had edited the copy so that it read: "After the second quarter earnings, they were back in the African-American."
My all time favorite was from ad or an article about a weight loss procedure. Some woman had gone from 240 pounds to 160. The copy read something like: "She lost 80 pounds. A third of her left behind!"
That must've been 15 years ago and I still laugh a third of my ass off everytime I think about it.
Today I went to cnn.com (occasionally I like to check in with the lowest common denominator) and saw this headline: "Toddler improves on experimental medication."
Now there isn't particularly anything wrong with that phrasing. But I stared at it for several moments wondering what kind of genius toddler it was who was making these pharmaceutical advancements.
Then I saw this:
That's just egregiously bad English. In the first headline about the toddler, I simply misread the function of "on."
Or when my students write that Thomas Hobbes "supported the erection of the king," well that is simply them being entirely tone deaf.
But the above sentence is just dreadful. "Killed" is awkward, there are too many prepositional phrases, the last of which makes it sound as though the US invaded San Francisco as part of the Iraq war.
And this presumably went through an editor. Blech.
My students often complain about being corrected on such minor things as grammar and clarity. "But, can't you just talk about what I'm saying and not how I'm saying it?" they plead.
My dears, I often have no idea what you are saying.
"A third of her left behind." Hee hee.
"Ooooh, well look at little Miss New Yorker," the CJR would no doubt think, "I guess she'll spread her pages for anyone. And would you look at the way The Nation's subscription cards are just hanging out? I guess we know how someone gets her 'circualtion figures' so high, if you know what I mean."
Magazines can be so petty.
Where was I? Oh yes, the CJR. The one feature that I would always read was the back page, where they'd print funny typos and odd grammatical constructions.
Once, in an article about a company whose finances were on the rise, someone had edited the copy so that it read: "After the second quarter earnings, they were back in the African-American."
My all time favorite was from ad or an article about a weight loss procedure. Some woman had gone from 240 pounds to 160. The copy read something like: "She lost 80 pounds. A third of her left behind!"
That must've been 15 years ago and I still laugh a third of my ass off everytime I think about it.
Today I went to cnn.com (occasionally I like to check in with the lowest common denominator) and saw this headline: "Toddler improves on experimental medication."
Now there isn't particularly anything wrong with that phrasing. But I stared at it for several moments wondering what kind of genius toddler it was who was making these pharmaceutical advancements.
Then I saw this:
That's just egregiously bad English. In the first headline about the toddler, I simply misread the function of "on."
Or when my students write that Thomas Hobbes "supported the erection of the king," well that is simply them being entirely tone deaf.
But the above sentence is just dreadful. "Killed" is awkward, there are too many prepositional phrases, the last of which makes it sound as though the US invaded San Francisco as part of the Iraq war.
And this presumably went through an editor. Blech.
My students often complain about being corrected on such minor things as grammar and clarity. "But, can't you just talk about what I'm saying and not how I'm saying it?" they plead.
My dears, I often have no idea what you are saying.
"A third of her left behind." Hee hee.
posted by Feemus at
6:30 PM
3 Comments:
"Toddler improves on experimental medication."
This took me several moments to see the true meaning behind the illusion of a young, whispy haired toddler bent over a bubbling beaker, sweat beading on his forehead, diaper askew. The on is so weak, I don't see how they expected anyone to NOT see what I see.
At least with the protest thing, I can glean a meaning. That is if I only read the first half of a sentence.
"After the second quarter earnings, they were back in the African-American."
There's a story there somewhere but the sentence is unfinished. Take out the period and add something interesting...such as;
"After the second quarter earnings, they were back in the African American's Panties."
Ahh. Intimate and aloof at the same time.
Benticore
Out
By
Benticore, at 9:47 AM
Yeah, I just pictured a little kid in a lab coat and horn rimmed glasses muttering about how he had to do everything himself.
I imagine the board of directors would be thrilled about the (ahem) *rise* in their fortunes.
"Panties" is perhaps the dirtiest word ever. There is something about the very prissiness of the word that makes it sound even dirtier.
By
Feemus, at 5:23 PM
Isn't is though? I mean the word has 'Pant' right in there...
By
Benticore, at 7:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home