Et Tu, NYT?

I once offered my students extra credit for every grammar error they found in print. Fairly soon I was forced to exclude mistakes from a couple of newspapers. Had I not done so, every kid would have received an A+. It was just too easy! But The New York Times was different. Finding a poorly worded sentence there was tough — then. Now, I’m not so sure.

Here’s a pull-quote that should have been pulled before it hit the screen or page:

Gentile?

What a difference one extra letter makes! I’m not going to speculate about the nature of “gentile” affirmations or how they differ from Jewish affirmations. Instead, I will proceed to another lapse in grammatical judgment.

This pull-quote comes from an obituary:

Surf that was used for D-Day?

I hadn’t realized that it was possible to “use” a surf, let alone “for D-Day.” Misplaced modifier, anyone?

One more, from my archives:

Printed before Amazon selected sites in Virginia and New York.

“Square foot modern.” A new architectural style?

In fairness to my local paper, I have to forgive the editors who overlooked these mistakes. No one’s perfect. As we all know, to err is humane.

6 thoughts on “Et Tu, NYT?

  1. William Cooper

    It’s called economy of words. Gentile affirmations are more gentle(manly). (Although some claim HM’s raison d‘etre was to change that.) The Newspaper of Record was killing two wasps with one stone.

    Reply
  2. P Finestone

    Your post was on my mind as I reviewed my new patient’s chart at the hospital today. Included was a letter from a doctor at another facility. The letter concluded with a lovely irony: “This dictation was made with voice recognition software and may contain an intended errors.”
    I shudder at the thought of what the intended errors might be.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *