During a recent election trailer on TV, the announcer said, "With his language skills, President Obama chose [the candidate]".

My question is: who does the clause refer to -- the president or the candidate?

By the way, an interesting sidenote about the candidate: One night he called police to report his car stolen. They found it outside a local convenience store with the keys in the ignition and the motor running. When he was told about it, he suddenly recalled going to the store -- and forgetting he had taken the car, then walking home.

Who is this dufus candidate?

I'd say the "his" belongs to the candidate, but it is quite unclear, I agree.

It's a very rare example of an "in-the-wild" dangling modifier that potentially could cause genuine confusion. But a moment's thought reveals that it's unlikely that it refers to the president as it would be something of a non sequitur. The president's language skills seem to have little or no bearing on the matter. It must therefore refer to the candidate.

Whenever people complain of a dangling modifier they inevitably jump on the potential ambiguity and refuse to acknowledge the fact that normal people pass straight over it to the intended meaning.

I agree it refers to the candidate but you'd think the ad agency that prepared the trailer would have been more careful in their wording.

I hesitate to name "the candidate" but he is the grand-son of a former long-serving governor who has no political experience -- and apparently not enough sense to be issued a license to drive.

quote:

apparently not enough sense to be issued a license to drive.

You mean he called the police to look for his 'stolen' car even though he wasn't allowed to drive it in the first place? That is stupid.

Are you pulling my leg? I obviously meant he didn't have enough sense that he be allowed to drive, although if you have enough money it's relatively simple to acquire a license.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:


I hesitate to name "the candidate"

Dan Quayle?

quote:

I obviously meant he didn't have enough sense that he be allowed to drive, although if you have enough money it's relatively simple to acquire a license.

I honestly don't get what you mean. His family kept him from driving because of incompetence? It isn't hard getting a license in the U.S., you are right. Besides paying a nominal fee, you need to take a written test, pass a road test and of course not have a suspension or the like on your record.

quote:

Besides paying a nominal fee, you need to take a written test, pass a road test and of course not have a suspension or the like on your record.

Assuming your family isn't well-connected in political circles and has more money than Mitt Romney. Funny how laws melt away when cash is in play.

Really? I've not heard of that for getting a driver's license, though I may be living a "sheltered" life.

Having said that, an ex Illinois governor is in jail for allowing truck drivers to get licenses without having the correct qualifications - but I've not heard of it for automobile driver licenses.

As my father used to say, "I could be wrong, you know!"