I can’t tell whether this is poor style, or poor grammar, or both. It’s the one sentence summary of an inside story from the front page of today’s NY Times. (It doesn’t seem to be duplicated in the online edition.)
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, but the current Mets may not be better, but certainly richer, than their notorious and hapless ancestors.
The two ‘but’s close together are pretty bad, which is why I thought poor style. But I can’t imagine any sentence could start “the current Mets may not be better, but certainly richer…” which is why I thought poor grammar. It’s probably a fun game to try and formulate the precise rule they are breaking here, but I’m not going to be the one to do that.
Oh yeah. Speaking as an editor and proofreader as well as writer and all-around nag, that clause is baaaad. It’s not poor grammar, it’s bad grammar. Use of the word ‘poor’ as a euphemism for ‘bad’ is also bad, by the way, but that is indeed by the way. ‘may not be better, but certainly richer’ is just not an English sentence. Re-do. Probably best to make the one sentence two; at any rate, a pronoun is absolutely required in that second clause, along
with a repeat of the verb. ‘They may not be better but they are certainly richer.’
Obviously.
The Times is abysmally sloppy in the copy editing department these days - and yet they’re always telling us they’re the ‘greatest news organization in the world’. I. don’t. think. so.
To amplify on Ophelia’s excellent commentary, I will tell you why the grammar here is bad: In “the current Mets may not be better, but certainly richer,” the “but” is used as a conjunction. (“But” can also be used as a preposition, though that does not apply here.) Conjunctions are meant to join two equal forms — two words, say (“I like swimming and baseball”), or two independent clauses (“I may be down but I’m not out”). This author uses “but” to marry a clause to a sentence fragment. That’s-a no good, boss.
As to the other “but,” we could fix that too, but it would be more trouble than it’s worth, as sound grammar cannot rectify unsound thinking. Observe:
“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; but, while the current Mets may not be better than their notorious and hapless ancestors, they are certainly richer.”
As grammar, this new version parses — 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?
My next step would be to examine the whole graf, but that is more than I’m prepared to do at this rate of pay.
As one who tends to write long, convoluted sentences, I’m curious whether this would have been acceptable with a little rearranging. For instance, suppose that it had read:
“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, but the current Mets, though certainly richer than their notorious and hapless ancestors, may be no better.”
That looks better to me, but is it? I suppose that it should still be split into two sentences by replacing “season, but” with “season. But”. It also still seems a bit unclear about exactly whom the Mets are no better than.
I know that I took English at some point in my education. I wonder what happened? It’s all so foggy now.
Somehow I managed to miss Roy’s post even though I made mine twenty minutes later. That answers most of my questions. Thanks.
My go, under the self-imposed rule of minimal change:
but the current Mets may not be better — despite being richer — than their notorious and hapless ancestors.
A real fix would be to change the bizarrely passive ‘may not be better’ to ‘may be worse’
I think the particular rule being broken is semantic rather than syntactic. Specifically, ‘but’ introduces an exception in the assertion or a change of mood. . . successive buts does a reverse exception and is basically equivalent to a double negative. Also, I’m a couple of years removed from SyntaxII, so I’ll get the terminology wrong, but I believe the final ‘but’ is not conjoining equal phrases. It attempts to conjoin ‘be better’ and ‘certainly richer’ which are a clause and a phrase, respectively. ‘but are certainly richer’ would allow it to conjoin clauses.
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.
But then you made up for it with the laugh.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.”
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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?
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.
Oh dea-yer, ya mean the whole sentence coulda been subject to misinterpretation by the poster? Nevermind.
François…hein?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review