Comments on: Style Police

By: bandiera

bandiera — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:26:50 +0000

Oh dea-yer, ya mean the whole sentence coulda been subject to misinterpretation by the poster? Nevermind. François…hein?

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:23:10 +0000

Wilbert, that was probably my mistake not the Times’s. If I can find the paper copy around the office I’ll check on the details, but my expectation is that I got it wrong.

By: Francois Lachance

Francois Lachance — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:53:48 +0000

It may be because English is not my mother tongue but I don’t see any difficulty in parsing the sentence or any fault in style. Michael wrote: “I don’t think anyone has nailed the key grammatical problem: there is a predicate stem “may not be” that has a double complement, “better” and “richer.” However, he doesn’t mean to say “may not be richer.” He means to say “certainly are richer.”” I reply: I think whether intended or not the possibility of conveying the meaning that the current Mets may not be richer than the ancestor Mets is quite logical (consider taxes, inflation and calculate real dollars) The sentence as quoted by Brian in the blog entry reads elegantly if read aloud. The commas set off an aside. They to my perhaps non-American eye and ear indicate an ellipsis: but [they may be] certainly richer. Has the subjunctive mood and the phrasings of the mind at work teasing possibilities vanished from public discourse in the English-reading world or just with reader-responders at Crooked Timber?

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:53:21 +0000

Did you konw taht aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Mabye we shuold aplpy tihs same logic to grmamar and levae the poor bsatard alnoe; the piont is the tgiers scuk.

By: Wilbert Robinson

Wilbert Robinson — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:58:12 +0000

Unable to resist a chance to put the boot in on the Times, I thought I’d note that the manager of the 1962 Mets was Casey Stengel, not Stengal. Of course, since the story isn’t in the Times’ online edition, I don’t know if that’s really the Times’ bad as well, but I’m happy to believe it is …

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:24:40 +0000

I think the way to fix the problem is for the Mets to spend some of their riches on better players. Unless I’ve misread something here.

By: mario

mario — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 03:47:50 +0000

thanks all. I was wondering why I had to keep re-reading that sentence to try and figure it out. I thought it was me.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:47:10 +0000

I don’t think anyone has nailed the key grammatical problem: there is a predicate stem “may not be” that has a double complement, “better” and “richer.” However, he doesn’t mean to say “may not be richer.” He means to say “certainly are richer.”

By: roy edroso

roy edroso — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:16:09 +0000

All the commentary here is noteworthy, though I believe we are trying to revive a dead horse. I disagree (respectfully) with James, and agree with Raj. “Ancestors” is the giveaway. I think the Tigers came into it only because they’re famously bad right now, and the author felt they should be referenced. I’m also guessing that the author’s original opening graf was better than this, and his editor told him to condense it. That’s the sort of thing that gives even a pro writer fits, and this has all the symptoms of forced editorial conflation. The author should have blown off the Tigers. In fact, the opening sentence could have been, “Forget the Tigers.” Now, back to fixing my own rickety prose…

By: raj

raj — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:47:20 +0000

Try “It’s the Detroit Tigers, not Art Howe’s Mets, who are threatening to eclipse Casey Stengal’s original Mets of 1962 for most losses in a season. The current Mets may not be better, but they certainly are richer, than their notorious and hapless ancestors.” However, I prefer having the second sentence something along the lines of: “The current Mets may not be better than their notorious and hapless ancestors, but they certainly are richer.” Except that the Detroit Tigers are hardly ancestors of the Mets.

By: nick

nick — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:43:04 +0000

God, that’s a horror. Without changing much: ‘While it’s the Detroit Tigers that threaten to eclipse Casey Stengal’s original Mets of 1962 for most losses in a season, the current Mets may not be much better (though are certainly richer) than their notorious and hapless ancestors.’ There are so many problems here, though: the flip-flop-flip of the clauses; the problem of referring to a team collectively (singular or plural? our experts differ); the added problem of using the American practice of referring to a team in the singular when the name itself is a plural… and so on. The repetition of ‘Mets’ doesn’t help.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:07:25 +0000

Roy: Good fix. …but what have the two ideas in the sentence (the Mets are not as inept as the Tigers; the new Mets have more money than the old Mets) to do with one another? The point, presumably, is that the Mets are arguably worse than the Tigers because they lost nearly as many games while spending markedly more on payroll. The Mets have spent a ridiculous amount of money—geometrically more than the Tigers could ever afford—and still managed to stink. The Tigers at least have an excuse: they can’t afford good players.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:05:56 +0000

People take the “avoid passive voice” rule and apply it inappropriately. To wit, “may not be better” is neither passive nor bizarrely so. It is an inelegant phrasing; but in a way wholly unrelated to the passive voice. “May be worse” is not an apt replacement as it does not mean the same thing. I think “may be no better” communicates the intended idea and sounds good too.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:08:52 +0000

But then you made up for it with the laugh.

By: sidereal

sidereal — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:37:22 +0000

Holy cow. I read the comments and somehow missed Roy’s explanation also. Apologies for the repetitive redundancy with which I said something over again.