Posts Tagged ‘sentence structure’
Friday, January 20th, 2012
Here is a good example of where proofreading could improve a sentence:
Ikea has received eight reports of the buckles opening worldwide, with three reports of injuries.
What was that again? Ikea has (to their credit) voluntarily recalled high chairs sold between 2006 and the beginning of 2010 because of a problem with restraint buckles. However, the sentence above makes it sound as if these buckles OPEN WORLDWIDE. What the reporter means is that, worldwide, there have been eight reports of the buckles opening unexpectedly, but that is not what the sentence says. It should read this way:
Worldwide, Ikea has received eight reports of the buckles opening unexpectedly, with three reports of injuries.
It is important to be sure that a modifier like WORLDWIDE is inserted where it will describe the correct thing.
Tags: adjectives and adverbs, Ikea, sentence structure, The Birmingham News
Posted in adjectives and adverbs, Grammar, wording | 10 Comments »
Thursday, January 5th, 2012
There is an amusing sentence in a current Celebrex television commercial. It is part of that scary warning section that warns the viewer/listener about all the side effects of the medication. The same sentence appears in the warning section on the company's website:
 Patients taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers.
What is that again? It sounds as if both ASPIRIN and THE ELDERLY are objects of the present participle (ING word) TAKING. That would imply that PATIENTS take both things–ASPIRIN and THE ELDERLY–which, of course, does not make sense. Only the words TAKING ASPIRIN refer to PATIENTS. THE ELDERLY is a separate category.
The way to fix this sentence is to reverse the descriptions so that THE ELDERLY are not lumped with the ASPIRIN! It should be worded this way:
The elderly and patients taking aspirin are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers.
Tags: Celebrex, sentence structure, using ING forms
Posted in Grammar, using ING forms, wording | 3 Comments »
Wednesday, December 14th, 2011
Today's Grammar Glitch gave me my laugh of the week, but in order for you to laugh, too, I must share a bit of background story. Apparently, a 45-year-old man in northwest Pennsylvania wanted some time off from work, and he knew he could get paid leave for bereavement if someone close to him had died. His solution? Have the local newspaper print an obituary for his mother!
That in itself is bizarre, but now read this sentence, which appeared in the news story about the incident:
Relatives called The Jeffersonian Democrat newspaper in Brookville after the obit appeared to report the woman was actually alive and well.
What? This sentence confounds the confusion by making it sound as if the obituary itself reported that the mother was alive and well. I know journalists do not like introductory phrases, but sometimes (as here) they are necessary. This sentence really needs to begin with AFTER THE OBIT APPEARED. It should read this way:
After the obit appeared, relatives called The Jeffersonian Democrat newspaper in Brookville to report the woman was actually alive and well.
NOTE: Is there a journalist out there who would like to comment on this?
Tags: sentence structure
Posted in Grammar, wording | 7 Comments »
Monday, November 21st, 2011
I came across this sentence this morning in an Associated Press article about the accused al-Qaida sympathizer arrested yesterday in New York City:
 He was under surveillance by New York police for at least a year who were working with a confidential informant and was in the process of building a bomb.
What was that again? When a reporter creates a prepositional phrase like FOR AT LEAST A YEAR, it is important to place it close to what it modifies, in this case UNDER SURVEILLANCE. The subordinate clause WHO WERE WORKING WITH A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT refers to NEW YORK CITY POLICE, so it should be close to them.
Finally, it is the terrorist who WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING A BOMB, certainly not the NEW YORK POLICE, but when the reporter puts the word AND between WERE WORKING and WAS IN THE PROCESS, it sounds as if the police are doing both things.
This sentence needs a complete overhaul. I would suggest writing it this way:
He was in the process of building a bomb and had been under surveillance for at least a year by New York police who were working with a confidential informant.
I hope you will agree that this is much clearer.
Tags: sentence structure, The Associated Press
Posted in Grammar, sentence structure | 4 Comments »
Wednesday, November 16th, 2011
When you write about a range of items in a series, use of the word FROM should lead to the word TO. The writer of this sentence did not proofread well or forgot this usage point:
 Once again GLC would like to thank the designers of the unique tablescapes whose themes ranged from the beach, fiestas, children's fancy, football, fall and holiday elegance.
The tablescape themes ranged FROM a group of things TO another group of things. Without the word TO, the sentence is awkward and seems to leave the reader hanging. I'd suggest rewording it this way:
Once again GLC would like to thank the designers of the unique tablescapes whose themes ranged from the beach, fiestas, and children's fancy to football, fall and holiday elegance.
Tags: sentence structure
Posted in Grammar, sentence structure | No Comments »
Thursday, November 10th, 2011
Even if you use correct grammar and punctuation, you can still confuse readers if you don't put words and phrases in an order that makes sense. Take a look at this lead sentence from an article in this morning's The Birmingham News:
The Alabama Board of Education will select a new superintendent to lead the state during this morning's board meeting, following a nearly five-hour meeting Wednesday in which members interviewed three of the four finalists it selected last month.
First of all, the State School Superintendent does not LEAD THE STATE of Alabama. That's Governor Bentley's job. Second, whoever is leading the state is probably not going to do it just DURING THIS MORNING'S BOARD MEETING. I would suggest wording the sentence this way:
The Alabama Board of Education will select a new State School Superintendent during its meeting this morning, following a nearly five-hour meeting on Wednesday in which members interviewed three of the four finalists it selected last month.
Or,
During its meeting this morning, the Alabama Board of Education will select a new State School Superintendent. This action follows a nearly five-hour meeting on Wednesday in which members interviewed three of the four finalists it selected last month.
COMMENT: Best wishes to retiring Alabama State School Superintendent Joe Morton who topped off his 42-year career in education by serving as superintendent from 2004 to 2011.
Best
Tags: sentence structure, The Birmingham News
Posted in Grammar, wording | 3 Comments »
Tuesday, October 25th, 2011
WHERE you place a phrase in a sentence could make a huge difference in meaning. Take a look at this sentence that appeared in the national news feed this morning:
 A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Whoops #1: As worded, the phrase ON MONDAY sounds as if it refers to when the welfare applicants will receive benefits. i seriously doubt that would happen only on a Monday. ON MONDAY needs to be placed closer to TEMPORARILY BLOCKED because it refers to when the judge did this.
Whoops #2: Grammar Glitch has mentioned before the importance of making sure a pronoun (IT in this case) is close enough to its antecedent (what IT refers to) for clear meaning. In this sentence, IT is supposed to refer to Florida's new law, but the pronoun is too far away from FLORIDA'S LAW for that to be clear. In this sentence, it is probably simpler to repeat THE LAW instead of trying to decide where to place IT.
This sentence should read as follows:
On Monday a federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits, saying the law may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Tags: pronoun/antecedent agreement, sentence structure
Posted in Grammar, pronouns, sentence structure | 6 Comments »
Friday, September 9th, 2011
Last week (September 1 post), I mentioned that I was not seeing as many run-on sentence errors as in the past. Apparently I spoke too soon. I received a colorful ad brochure this week that contained an advertisement for a cleaning company called Top Notch. The focus sentence in the ad was this one:
Call us to schedule your weekly, bi-weekly or one-time house cleaning, we'll design your service. around your needs. 
Sounds like a good service to me, but this focus sentence is squished together with only a comma between two independent ideas. It should be separated between CLEANING and WE'LL into two sentences. It should read as follows:
Call us to schedule your weekly, bi-weekly or one-time house cleaning. We'll design your service around your needs.
Tags: sentence structure
Posted in Grammar, sentence structure | No Comments »
Friday, September 2nd, 2011
The US National Cowboy Fast Draw Championship is being held this weekend in Pendleton, Oregon. More than 100 gunfighters from all over the country will compete. I didn't know we still had any of those–even out west–and under age to boot! 
A press release for this event contains two apostrophe problems. Here is the first:
The competitor's ages range from 8 or 9 years old to 80.
Whoops #1: AGES is plural, so it is logical to conclude that COMPETITORS should also be plural. The process is to make the word plural first (COMPETITORS), and then add the apostrophe to show that the AGES belong to the COMPETITORS. The sentence should read this way:
The competitors' ages range from 8 or 9 years old to 80.
Here is the second apostrophe problem:
Thursday kicks off with a practice match that let's the gunfighters get in a warm up on the range….
Whoops #2: LET'S is a contraction of LET US. In this sentence, all the press release writer needs is the plain old 3rd person singular verb LETS. I don't really know what a WARM UP is–an UP that's been out in the sun maybe? When used as a noun, it should be WARMUP. The sentence should read this way:
Thursday kicks off with a practice match that lets the gunfighters get in a warmup on the range….
BONUS GLITCH FOR THE LABOR DAY WEEKEND: Here is a usage glitch I've never seen before, one I think I'll share with Tammy Gross who did the list of commonly misused words for LinkedIn. (See August 23 post.)
I like this site its a master peace !
Where do I begin? First of all, it is a run-on sentence. (See yesterday's post on those.) There should be a period between SITE and ITS. Second, IT'S needs the apostrophe because it is a contraction of IT and IS. Finally, PEACE is a homonym for PIECE, which is the correct choice here, and it should be a compound word with MASTER–MASTERPIECE. The sentence should read this way:
I like this site. It's a masterpiece !
I do thank the writer for liking this site, and I hope he or she will come back often in spite of (or because of) my comments on the statement. Thanks!
Tags: apostrophe, sentence structure, word usage
Posted in apostrophe, Grammar, sentence structure, word usage | 2 Comments »
Thursday, September 1st, 2011
I don't see as many run-on sentences as I used to, but these hard-to-read creations have not died out completely. You might know them as "comma splices." Here is an example I came across this week in a real estate advertisement:
We only have 89 ACTIVE listings on the market, this is way below the national average of homes on the market in any large neighborhood.
There are two separate and complete thoughts here, and they should not be squeezed together with only a comma separation. One solution is simply to replace the comma with a period and capitalize THIS. Another solution is to use a conjunction (like AND) to connect the two ideas properly. A third solution is to change the second clause to a dependent one. Here are some examples of what could be done:
We only have 89 ACTIVE listings on the market. This is way below the national average of homes on the market in any large neighborhood.
We only have 89 ACTIVE listings on the market, and this is way below the national average of homes on the market in any large neighborhood.
We only have 89 ACTIVE listings on the market, which is way below the national average of homes on the market in any large neighborhood.
NOTE TO MY READERS: This is the 400th Grammar Glitch Central post, and I would like to thank all of you who have become regular readers and contributed questions or ideas for posts. Your input and comments are so helpful.
Tags: sentence structure
Posted in Grammar, sentence structure | 1 Comment »
|
