quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English elsewhere:
I have just read the following, "...i don't see how you can diss the natty light guys, it gets plenty of college students good and drunk night after night, along with the oodles and noodles for every meal, but it still does the job..." And "...i chose natural light over any beer not just because of the price..."

US English speakers, can you offer me a translation?

---

Of course, transpondial English is inevitably a model of pellucid clarity, especially at the highest levels, from which I proffer this example:

quote:

---

The British Defense Ministry, and its boss Geoff "Buff" Hoon, had been the butt of abuse for weeks, criticized for failing to take due care of Dr. Kelly, a shy and private man, who, despite giving briefings to journalists which* had been catastrophic for all concerned, had been honored been honored for his past work as a distinguished scientist and weapons inspector in Iraq.
-- Peter Stothard, editor of the Times Literary Supplement of London, former editor of the London Times, and evidently a prolific "comma-tator"
(*Presumably the "which" was intended to refer to "briefings" and not "journalists.")

---

(Links in this quotation have no meaning, but except been added to produce underlining as a highlight.)

[This message was edited by shufitz on Sat Jan 31st, 2004 at 20:41.]

quote:

---

had been honored been honored for his past work

---

It looks like an American has been editing that extract. Ignoring the repetition, a Brit would have written "honoured".

quote:

---

Presumably the "which" was intended to refer to "briefings" and not "journalists."

---

Of course. Otherwise he would have written "who". He'd probably also have closed his quotes properly, as well.

Well if we're going to be pedantic, there is no such thing as the London Times or the Times Literary Supplement of London, or indeed the Defense Ministry, and this passage has been heavily edited by Americans and appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Since they've added 'Defense', 'Dr.', and 'honored', I might presume they've also added what they think are a decorative selection of commas. How much is Sir Peter Stothard's and how much is some American editor's is anyone's guess.

What's actually wrong with the passage is not all the commas, which are all fine but one, but the change in perspective at a point that can't bear it. There's a main clause that ought to end with '... to take due care of Dr Kelly'. This assumes we know who he is, or it should have said 'Dr David Kelly'. If we do know who he is, we don't need the apposition ', a shy and private man', though it can stand it.

What it can't stand however is the second apposition, beginning ', who...'. The comma before this is the one that really goes wrong. If it had been phrased as a single apposition ', a shy and private man who...' it would be more rhythmically readable. It is unfortunate that it immediately drops into yet another subordinate clause, but that would be impeccable within that context (and the 'which' is perfectly clear), and the commas would be correctly positioned for rhythm.

But the topic began as the Ministry of Defence and Mr Hoon, whereas Dr Kelly was in an oblique role. With the ill-chosen 'who' clause brought in, Kelly becomes the topic and we now get a long comment about him. It is really this switching out of minor role into major that makes the sentence read as ungainly. Without it, its complexity would not be daunting.

As aput has said, the original article by Peter Stothart appeared in the Wall Street Journal and has obviously been edited by an American. It is not unlikely that the American editor added subordinate clauses in an attempt to "clarify" the original text for American readers.

The online version of the WSJ is only open to subscribers, but a longer extract from the article appears here.

It is a common US device to refer to The Times as such in order that is not confused with the, clearly more important, "New York Times"

Richard English

Hmmm, good points. Yet, I don't get it. Reading arnie's link, the quote here is accurate (except for the double posting of "honored"). Did someone other than Peter Stothard write it (or edit it), do you think? If so, and if it is quoted as Peter's in the Wall Street Journal, isn't that unethical?

At any rate, I agree with you, aput, that the commas as used are grammatically correct, except for the one that you criticize. Yet, they make the reading of the piece quite awkward and therefore not acceptable in my mind. At least in the U.S. the current thinking on the use of commas is the fewer the better. As one who has graded many college papers, that one I would have returned.

Oh, and I disagree with you, aput, that the "which" is perfectly clear. One can figure out what is meant after pondering for a bit, but it was not perfectly clear to me.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Sun Feb 1st, 2004 at 10:19.]

If the article had been written for a British publication the phrase "British Defense Ministry" would have been written as "Ministry of Defence" or possibly "MoD". "Dr." would have been written as "Dr", the word "criticized" would (probably} have been spelt "criticised", and "honored" would have been "honoured".

It is possible that Stothard, knowing that his article was to be read primarily by Americans, made these changes himself. However, I suspect an American editor made the changes. If he made these changes, did he make any others not so easy to spot?

I should mention that the Wall Street Journal was not merely quoting Lord Stothard. Rather, it published an editorial under his byline. Normally the author takes responsibility for what he allows to go out under his name.

There's a certain "Pete Roseland" air to blaming any awkward writing on some anonymous editor. But I suppose such a thing is possible.

Here are some further excerpts. (By the way, the word "honor", so spelled, appears a second time a bit after the excerpt previously quoted.)

quote:

---

Not only did Mr. Blair have to dodge the Hutton juggernaut, but to* escape a massive rebellion, by his own Members of Parliament, on a plan to reform the funding of universities, a defining element of his New Labour domestic policy. [*You don't find out whether "but to" means but also to or but in order to until you pass the last comma, 19 words later.]

Instead today, it is the opposition to Mr. Blair, both in the Conservative Party and his own part, which have been scattered by the Hutton express. [sic; should have be has? Does the metaphor of "scattered by the express" work?]

---

Arnie, you raise a good point in your last sentence. Do you think it might be productive to e-mail the question to Lord Stothard?