I'm not in a position now to say what my rules would be for newspapers regarding grammatical errors in quoted material. But I too dislike the proliferation of errors that should have been prevented by good education in English when we were kids. Correct grammar and sentence construction are valuable to enable us to convey ideas to others accurately. I tire of having to at least mentally correct others' errors just to understand their statements accurately. Some errors make it impossible, so I have to ask them. I shouldn't have to. Here are some common errors:
1. Dangling participle; common from broadcast reporters.
2. "Issue" instead of "problem." This euphemism began as a diplomatic usage. We now seem to have reporters who can't say "problem" unless it's in a quote. My favorite example is a traffic report which included that someone "completed the trip without issue." ROFL! That was a long trip!
3. "Should of" for "should have." Transcription instead of verb conjugation.
4. "Impact" instead of "affect" (the transitive verb).
I'll close with an example from the Tribune's Sunday Magazine from years ago. There was an interview with a chemist about something I forgot. At one place, the text used the term "inner gas" in a sentence about some chemical elements. I knew from my own high-school chemistry education that the chemist had said, perhaps not crisply enough, "inert gas." The reporter and everyone else at the Trib responsible for publishing this piece, must not have known enough to be able to put in the word the chemist actually said, however casually. This may be on an inadequate education system.
If the people responsible for this print error can't deal with our casual, "colloquial" pronunciations, they shouldn't get near French. I began my education in French from a native speaker. This included all the normal ways to say things in French. Heaven help anyone who tries to utter "Au revoir" or "Je ne sais pas" with phonetic perfection.
I missed the piece on John Kass and his reported seven references to George Soros, but critics on the left who want those of us on the on the right to take seriously their arguments in support of “social justice” criminal prosecution policies should stop asserting that any other-than-positive mention of Soros is “anti-Semitic,” for at least three reasons. First, many of us would not know - and most of us likely don’t care - that Soros is Jewish if critics of his critics did not constantly harp on it. We tend to object to his public policy ideas, not his religion or ethnicity. Second, like it or not, the name “Soros” - like that of many a public political figure - has become generic (or more, accurately, descriptive); a “George Soros prosecutor” no longer necessarily means a prosecutor whom Soros has personally backed but now simply refers to one who believes in a modern “social justice” approach to the criminal law rather than a traditional “law and order” approach. Like the terms “left wing” and “right wing” themselves, it is simply shorthand for a generalized point of view. Finally, as several decades of largely unproductive social media sniping should have taught us all by now, accusing those who disagree with us of racism, anti-semitism, etc., does little if anything actually to advance the discussion of ideas, instead building disharmony and advancing divisiveness among societies that already have enough problems that will take generations to solve if we work together with mutual respect.
I support the Grammar Police. And also, I vote for a DaVinci statue instead of a Columbus statue. But apparently, honoring a brilliant, beloved artist and inventor (But: Oh no! GAY!) is less preferable than honoring a cruel, vicious, racist invader. That’s just how we roll, isn’t it.
It seems to me that when the error slightly affects the meaning of a statement, as in “My prick is the biggest in Chicago” and the writer – “prick” can have several slang denotations -- really means more clearly to say, “My dick is the biggest in Chicago,” it may or may not make sense to correct it or attribute the error to the author – it is a judgment call. In something like, “John Crass wrote a controversial article,” instead of saying, “John Kass wrote a controversial article,” the offending error may be seen as affecting the written meaning significantly, and it may be worth correcting for the sake of clear communication.
I would sic a sic on every damn "between you and I." Well, not really. That would be mean. We must gracefully accept the decline and fall of civilization on our way to public copulation, battery at black-tie functions, etc.
Re: George Soros. One major reason that he is reviled by many Jews was his complicity with the Germans in a concentration camp. He collaborated with the guards, selecting which Jews would be next to the slaughter, and which had more value alive. How do I know this? I saw him on a TV interview several years ago. He openly discussed his role, and made no apologies for it. It was just something that kept him from being gassed along with his co-religionists. What would any of us do under the same circumstances? We can only guess. But the fact of his complicity is just that- a fact.
Regarding Trump’s stupidity about the “Meijer” name, he is apparently unaware that in Dutch, “ij” serves as a single letter, the equivalent of our “y”.
Too bad the tweet poll can't use those with images....I get a real laugh over at least one each week. Today, both the Chihuahua and "begs the question" tweets did it for me.
I'm not in a position now to say what my rules would be for newspapers regarding grammatical errors in quoted material. But I too dislike the proliferation of errors that should have been prevented by good education in English when we were kids. Correct grammar and sentence construction are valuable to enable us to convey ideas to others accurately. I tire of having to at least mentally correct others' errors just to understand their statements accurately. Some errors make it impossible, so I have to ask them. I shouldn't have to. Here are some common errors:
1. Dangling participle; common from broadcast reporters.
2. "Issue" instead of "problem." This euphemism began as a diplomatic usage. We now seem to have reporters who can't say "problem" unless it's in a quote. My favorite example is a traffic report which included that someone "completed the trip without issue." ROFL! That was a long trip!
3. "Should of" for "should have." Transcription instead of verb conjugation.
4. "Impact" instead of "affect" (the transitive verb).
I'll close with an example from the Tribune's Sunday Magazine from years ago. There was an interview with a chemist about something I forgot. At one place, the text used the term "inner gas" in a sentence about some chemical elements. I knew from my own high-school chemistry education that the chemist had said, perhaps not crisply enough, "inert gas." The reporter and everyone else at the Trib responsible for publishing this piece, must not have known enough to be able to put in the word the chemist actually said, however casually. This may be on an inadequate education system.
If the people responsible for this print error can't deal with our casual, "colloquial" pronunciations, they shouldn't get near French. I began my education in French from a native speaker. This included all the normal ways to say things in French. Heaven help anyone who tries to utter "Au revoir" or "Je ne sais pas" with phonetic perfection.
That's enough from me now.
There's a lot of grammar talk today. So...
"If the Cardinaling thing ever gets old, he could probably make it as an editor."
If he becomes an editor - will he mention that he Cardinaled in the past?
I'm going to assume this was deliberately ironic.
" (not gonna referee the excessive force complaints here) "
I missed the piece on John Kass and his reported seven references to George Soros, but critics on the left who want those of us on the on the right to take seriously their arguments in support of “social justice” criminal prosecution policies should stop asserting that any other-than-positive mention of Soros is “anti-Semitic,” for at least three reasons. First, many of us would not know - and most of us likely don’t care - that Soros is Jewish if critics of his critics did not constantly harp on it. We tend to object to his public policy ideas, not his religion or ethnicity. Second, like it or not, the name “Soros” - like that of many a public political figure - has become generic (or more, accurately, descriptive); a “George Soros prosecutor” no longer necessarily means a prosecutor whom Soros has personally backed but now simply refers to one who believes in a modern “social justice” approach to the criminal law rather than a traditional “law and order” approach. Like the terms “left wing” and “right wing” themselves, it is simply shorthand for a generalized point of view. Finally, as several decades of largely unproductive social media sniping should have taught us all by now, accusing those who disagree with us of racism, anti-semitism, etc., does little if anything actually to advance the discussion of ideas, instead building disharmony and advancing divisiveness among societies that already have enough problems that will take generations to solve if we work together with mutual respect.
Loved the piece about Trump/Drumpf and your calling him an "out-of-touch buffon" (sic)
I support the Grammar Police. And also, I vote for a DaVinci statue instead of a Columbus statue. But apparently, honoring a brilliant, beloved artist and inventor (But: Oh no! GAY!) is less preferable than honoring a cruel, vicious, racist invader. That’s just how we roll, isn’t it.
Was this intentional?
By the way, both the stories from which I clipped those “sic” references at the top of this iten were very interesting.
It seems to me that when the error slightly affects the meaning of a statement, as in “My prick is the biggest in Chicago” and the writer – “prick” can have several slang denotations -- really means more clearly to say, “My dick is the biggest in Chicago,” it may or may not make sense to correct it or attribute the error to the author – it is a judgment call. In something like, “John Crass wrote a controversial article,” instead of saying, “John Kass wrote a controversial article,” the offending error may be seen as affecting the written meaning significantly, and it may be worth correcting for the sake of clear communication.
The Meijer stuff sounds like a bit by that SNL Trump impersonator.
I would sic a sic on every damn "between you and I." Well, not really. That would be mean. We must gracefully accept the decline and fall of civilization on our way to public copulation, battery at black-tie functions, etc.
By the way, both the stories from which I clipped those “sic” references at the top of this iten were very interesting.
Did you mean to write ITEM with an M?
As far as the Cardinal YOU…personally I don’t think he typed the letter or proofread it. Some et al did
Re: George Soros. One major reason that he is reviled by many Jews was his complicity with the Germans in a concentration camp. He collaborated with the guards, selecting which Jews would be next to the slaughter, and which had more value alive. How do I know this? I saw him on a TV interview several years ago. He openly discussed his role, and made no apologies for it. It was just something that kept him from being gassed along with his co-religionists. What would any of us do under the same circumstances? We can only guess. But the fact of his complicity is just that- a fact.
Charles Bagdade
Highwood, IL
“Columnists an pundits in other forums tend to analyze events as they see them”. This is a gag, right? Riffing on the “sic” theme?
Regarding Trump’s stupidity about the “Meijer” name, he is apparently unaware that in Dutch, “ij” serves as a single letter, the equivalent of our “y”.
Too bad the tweet poll can't use those with images....I get a real laugh over at least one each week. Today, both the Chihuahua and "begs the question" tweets did it for me.