Saturday, 24 August 2013

Double-take, # 14

Since having Sky installed some years ago, I’ve found very few errors on its schedule. This, however, is a beauty:


Gibbs’ should, of course, be Gibbs’s (this use of the possessive apostrophe was covered last week); but it’s the relationships that have confused the scheduler: both Gibbs and Fornell have (not concurrently) been married to the same woman, whose present husband’s abduction is the focal point of the episode. Definitely only one kidnap victim, so the are should be is.

Friday, 23 August 2013

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 17

Dr Faustus comments: ‘Worse than the actual news reported is this hideous apostrophe catastrophe.’ It had been corrected on the BBC News webpage by the time the Chief Mangler arrived, but a search revealed numerous remnants of its earlier incarnation, beginning with the BBC News page:


The Internet is unforgiving and has a long memory. Check before posting!

If you were wondering where the ‘His boss is Germany’s leader is’ sentence might be going, that hasn’t been corrected: 

Thursday, 22 August 2013

Not Washed or Cooked, # 54

An odd way to advertise services:


Contributor Richard Bonsor’s covering comment was: ‘Not very confident in their services: “upto” is now one word. “Complaint”?  I hope they are better with their mathematics.’


Tuesday, 20 August 2013

Not Washed or Cooked, # 52

Remember anaylst? Dr Faustus has found a variation on that mangle, this time from the blurb of an academic publication:

Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2011. Link: Google Books


Monday, 19 August 2013

Sentences are not paragraphs

When did the arbiters of house style at BBC News decided to conflate the sentence and the paragraph? This comment appears in a guide called ‘How to write a press release’, targeted at schools:


Contrary to the assumption here, however, a staccato writing technique such as this frequently makes it more difficult to comprehend content, as well as requiring the reader to discern connections that the writer should be making plain.

An example can be found in the opening section of the report that supplied yesterday’s mangle:


Various issues arise. The report shows that the ‘one or two facts’ method does not indicate the relationship between different facts or sets of facts: for example, what relation does the ‘Egham’ paragraph bear to the information that immediately precedes and follows it? The information that is shown is not clear or unambiguous: for instance, does ‘Egham was to be branded “the gateway to Magna Carta country” at Runnymede’ mean there was to be a branding launch ceremony at Egham? At Runnymede? The failure to explicitly connect one insular set of facts to another makes it seem as if all of the council’s £1m, and the total £8.3m, was to be spent on the branding exercise: is this true (a ‘fact’) or not?

The problem is that these ‘single sentence paragraphs’ are not being used ‘quite often’, and in a specific manner and for a specific purpose, as ‘How to write a press release’ implies, but all the time and without thought. In BBC News writing, sentence has become synonymous with paragraph. In the report on the Magna Carta commemoration, every sentence is treated as a paragraph, as if each were self-contained and logically complete. There’s no denying that breaking down content in this way is sometimes useful (if facing the audience with very long sentences to read onscreen, for instance); but the technnique, if overused, disrupts both the flow of the syntax and the text’s logic. It is, of course, possible for a sentence to be completely self-contained: the opening paragraph in the BBC report above is a perfectly valid single-sentence paragraph. However, treating all sentences as paragraphs undermines the text’s coherence by blurring the causal relationships and the logic of the progressions.

Paragraphs are intended to draw together material that is closely associated, making the connections in the content immediately and visually apparent, in order to aid the reader’s understanding. The correct composition of paragraphs is a subject that occurs in many of the BBC’s ‘Bitesize’ education pages. Perhaps BBC News should require its journalists and editors to take its quiz on paragraphs, and revise the topic where necessary:


Succinct and corrrect, even if the syntax of the question and answer are not always harmonized…


Sunday, 18 August 2013

Double-take, # 13

This sentence, in a BBC News report on commemorating Magna Carta, is not best phrased:


The above screenprint was taken on 14 August, 2013, at 11:22. Someone has obviously recognized the phrasing as problematic, as the later edition (14 August at 15:36) has added punctuation:


Instead of removing the problem, this has emphasized it. Yet it could have been resolved quite easily by moving a single word to the previous paragraph and deleting the rest of the phrase:


Saturday, 17 August 2013

Friday, 16 August 2013

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 16

Today, another apostrophe — or rather another gap where an apostrophe should be — in a prayer that was posted on Facebook, and which you can buy, with minor variations and less punctuation, as a poster at Zazzle:


Here, of course, Jesus needs a possessive apostrophe and a possessive s: Jesus’s. I’m not sure when and where the habit began of not adding the normal ’s to singular nouns ending in s, but it isn’t right, it isn’t clear, and it offers much opportunity for error and misunderstanding. The added possessive ending should also be pronounced…

The rules are covered in Oxford Dictionaries, under ‘Apostrophe’. However, I can’t agree with OxfordDictionaries about the correctness of exemptions to the rule (and I’m backed by both the British MHRA Style Guide and the North American MLA Style Manual on this): all singular nouns ending  in s, common and proper, should take a final s after the possessive apostrophe.

OxfordDictionaries offers St Thomas’ Hospital to exemplify the exemptions. Wikipedia points out that it was ‘usually known as St Thomas’s Hospital until the late 20th century’ — but why should some idiot’s grammatical fail be allowed to mar and mangle the moniker of an ancient institution?* I’ve never heard anyone pronounce it St Thomas’ Hospital (i.e. St Thomas Hospital) only St Thomas’s Hospital (St Thomasez Hospital).


* A brief history of the hospital can be found on The Old Operating Theatre: Museum and Herb Garret website, which points out that the hospital ‘was described as ancient in 1215’.

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Not Washed or Cooked, # 49

Yesterday’s mangle demonstrated confusion between complimentary and complementary (or was perhaps an unchecked typographical error). This text has the correct word, but definitely needed spell-checking…



Tuesday, 13 August 2013

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 18

In my attempt to tidy the archive, I found this mangle that crept into The Telegraph in January 2013:


The subclause is awkwardly phrased, but that isn’t the main issue. If you’re involved in cosmetics, I imagine compliments should ideally feature somewhere, but certainly not in this sentence: the word required is complementary