From a piece of work handed in by one of my students...


Mr Revell got £4000 for the injury and loss of earrings.

Bob, am I a dolt if I were to ask what it was supposed to be?

Probably.

loss of earnings

ROFL Glad you asked, Kalleh. I was sitting here thinking perhaps the fellow had the sort of accent that caused him to spell "hearing" as "'earing"!

I was imagining some sort of ear injury where the earrings (diamonds or gold) were also damaged.

It has been a long couple of weeks for me. I've been on the road constantly, sometimes waking up and thinking, "Now where am I? Las Vegas? No. Oh yes. Kansas City." That's my excuse!

I am reviving this thread of Bob's because I am too embarrassed to start a new thread with this. I really am a dolt.

In today's Tribune I read this:

quote:

Having to pay as little as $10 toward a mammogram leads many older women to skip the exam, a large Brown University study of Medicare users has found.

So, I am thinking, they think that the test isn't worth much unless they have to pay more?

This time I haven't even been traveling!

It's not a good sentence, but if the phrase, "as little as $10" were to be parenthesised, then it would make more sense, thus:

Having to pay (as little as $10) toward a mammogram leads many older women to skip the exam, a large Brown University study of Medicare users has found.

Mind you, I am now left wondering how a "large Brown University" differs in its achievements from, say, a small white one.

I agree that it would be better parenthesised, although commas might do as good a job. I think I'd use 'even' as well to clarify the meaning even further, thus:

Having to pay, even as little as $10, toward a mammogram ...

It's pertinent to note that on first (even second) reading I didn't get it either. Reason: In the typical PC font "ri" looks a lot like "ni"

I have oftn wondered how often owing to this peculiarity the proofreader misses the mark

I think the sentence is clear as it is. Parentheses or additional commas are not needed; they would just clutter up the sentence.

Here is the original Jan. 23 article, and a second from Jan. 24. And, in case you're interested, here's the abstract of the study from the New England Journal of Medicine.

I never said that it wasn't a clear sentence; it was. I just thought it was funny that I had misread it.

BTW, the difference from Tinman's quote, and mine, is that I had quoted directly from the paper version of the Chicago Tribune, which is slightly different from the online version apparently.

When I first read your post I thought you didn't understand the sentence, Kalleh, and I was going to respond. But on rereading it (always a good idea before responding) I realized you did understand it, that you were just reporting your initial reaction. But seeing that others wanted to "clarify" the sentences by adding parentheses or commas prompted me to respond. The quote from the Jan. 23 article is slightly different from the one you posted, but the one from the Jan. 24 article is the same.

quote:

but the one from the Jan. 24 article is the same.

Ah...yes, you're correct.