Saturday, June 01, 2013

For Mom

The New York Times demonstrates impeccable grammar.

The table needed stitches!


Dad said...

To those who say grammar and spelling are unimportant, I say:

fjoskk sjlfkj diopopop mogluut!

Mom said...

"Impeccable grammar" and "the New York Times" don't belong together as much as one might think! (But it's always scary to write grammar commentary because of the 99.9% probability that the grammar critic will write something ungrammatical.) I found several howlers in that article in addition to the injured table. For instance: the incredibly long and awkward first sentence has a tense error. Removing most of the verbiage to reveal the problem: "A man who was killed . . . had . . . ran at [the agent] with a metal pole before being shot" It's "had run," not "had ran" -- or leave out the "had" so that the verbs "knocked" and "ran" are parallel.

And there's more! But I'll spare you. :-)

Laura said...

My favorite part is that the article is still up in full without any corrections.

Luke Murphy said...

And it was co-authored! Two heads are not better than one.