The Jounalistic SP Times Priesthood Sinks Davis, Exalts Smith, Cuffs Around the English Language
St. Petersburg Times Gentlemen Editorial-board
(I bet you all are) Pooh-bahs and suchlike Zeus personae of your paper's y-chromosome-weighted Olympian caste system:
Your Sunday endorsement essay (included below) on Smith and Davis is not bad. It represents little rhetorical felicity: no vivid diction, no sophisticated structure, no startling insights. It's meat-and-potatoes style provides homely fare. But I have seen The NY Times editorial grandees do worse.
That paper’s cozened denizens doubtless get lamb chops and baby asparagus for lunch in chambers provided by the dumbest publisher in the newspaper world. Y’all, I bet, get Chinese in the cafeteria with plastic forks.
Considerate writing demands that you acquaint yourselves with hyphens. They help readers understand a sentence when you use them before a noun preceded by words used as a single adjective.
You did not disgrace yourselves with passive verbs, but you’re not on the wagon with them yet. They make what you say sound duplicitous and weak—both of which readers suspect anyway. And passive verbs are always wordier than active verbs. Rid your writing of pussy-footing passive verbs, and you will ascend to Grub Street paradise and hang out with Mencken.
You can get away with an idiomatic “it” or two, but you must be solicitous enough of your readers to provide the word you mean instead of resorting to broad-pronoun reference. Readers shouldn’t have to do your work for you and ponder what fugitive antecedent the writer means.
Diction forensics--“charismatic”; “courageous”; “solid” -- betray your real reason for favoring Smith: This is a guy’s guy, a farm-boy macho specimen whom you would invite into Mystic Krewe’s sweat lodge in the middle of the clearing, not to smoke rabbit tobacco, which every Georgia farm girl such as I knows intimately, but to smoke roll-your-own Prince Albert’s because that is what Smith first contaminated his lungs with behind the barn.
Had any--or at least more--women huddled on the endorsement vote,
But
Besides, to top his list of pluses,
No woman named Peggy ever blabs your secrets or tattles that she spotted you at the beauty parlor looking like hell coming out from under the drier. We trust Peggys. And most voters are women. And, hurrah, we outlive the stronger sex. Na, na, na.
I bestow a B- on this essay and advise you to see me in my office after class.
lee drury de cesare, sporadic reader, constant critic
Sunday, August 13
(St. Petersburg Times Editorial Board) Both Rod Smith and Jim Davis have solid records of service. But Smith has the leadership style needed to bring both parties together.
Democrats have an opportunity this year to restore some measure of political balance to
Both Smith and U.S. Rep. Jim Davis of
At the same time, it is hard to find significant policy differences between the two Democrats. Davis and Smith Davis’s and Smith’s: You need separate possession before “support.”support [for]preserving abortion rights, reviewing sales tax hyphenated “sales-tax” exemptions and creating an independent commission to redraw legislative and congressional districts. Both have plans to raise teacher salaries and transform the FCAT into a diagnostic tool to help students rather than punish schools. Both oppose altering the class size hyphenate amendment, changing the state Constitution to allow tuition vouchers and altering the Save Our Homes hyphenate amendment in ways that could exacerbate inequities or decimate local government budgets.
While both candidates have proposals for dealing with the property insurance hyphenate crisis, Smith's is more comprehensive and ambitious. While
The choice between Smith and Davis boils down to electability and the ability to govern. In style, temperament and experience, Smith is best suited: Comparative “better suited”: you have only two. to make the case that the Democrats' values match mainstream
In 2000, Smith won a north
Most importantly, Smith has repeatedly demonstrated he is a charismatic leader who can bring together Democrats and Republicans to take courageous stands under enormous pressure. He helped lead a coalition of senators who refused to let Bush and the Legislature no capital defy the courts and interfere with Terri Schiavo's constitutional right to have her end of life hyphenate wishes carried out. This past legislative session, Smith held another bipartisan group together that prevented the Republican leadership from trying to restore tuition vouchers that the Florida Supreme Court had found unconstitutional. He did the same thing to make sure voters weren't confronted with a convoluted proposal to gut the class size hyphenate amendment. In an era when extreme partisans define…both political parties… both major political parties are often defined by their most extreme partisans, Florida needs a governor who can reach across party lines and lead by consensus.
The Times Why does The Times not observe the protocol of treating a newspaper as a book and italicize? Is the problem newspaper rebellious idiom, or is the problem ignorance? recommends Rod Smith for the Democratic nomination for governor.
12 Comments:
It's [sic] meat-and-potatoes style provides homely fare. But I have seen The NY Times editorial grandees do worse.
Well done, Lee. In your first paragraph you make one of the most boneheadedly stupid errors of all time. The NY times editorial may do worse, but you ex-teachers of English with twenty-eight years' experience really take the cake.
I'm scared to read on.
>Davis and Smith Davis’s and Smith’s: You need separate possession before “support.” support [for] preserving abortion rights, reviewing sales tax hyphenated “sales-tax” exemptions and creating an independent commission to redraw legislative and congressional districts.<
Are you serious?
Davis's and Smith's support for preserving abortion rights, reviewing sales-tax exemptions and creating an independent commission to redraw legislative and congressional districts.
In the original "support" is a verb. Your revised version (with "support" as a noun attributed to Davis and Smith) is a sentence fragment.
Didn't you learn in your twenty-eight years of teaching that a sentence needs a finite verb? Perhaps not.
>Another reason that the SPTimes editors favor Le Smith is the specimen below shows that birds of a feather flock together.<
My goodness, Lee. "Specimen" (the complement of "is") is also the subject of "shows". This must be one of the most ridiculous sentences you have ever churned out in your ranting.
Try:
Another reason that the SPTimes editors favor Le Smith is the specimen below that shows that birds of a feather flock together.
or:
Another reason that the SPTimes editors favor Le Smith is the specimen below, showing that birds of a feather flock together.
or, better still:
Say "no" to cheap drugs that affect your writing.
>They help readers understand a sentence when you use them before a noun preceded by words used as a single adjective.<
Oh, go on. Fix your limp passive verb for me. I'll let you decide how.
>That paper’s cozened denizens doubtless get lamb chops and baby asparagus for lunch in chambers provided by the dumbest publisher in the newspaper world.<
More passive verbs. Try:
That paper’s cozened denizens doubtless get lamb chops and baby asparagus for lunch in chambers that the dumbest publisher in the newspaper world provides.
Now, Lee, why didn't you think of that? Or does avoiding limp passive verbs apply only to others when you're dishing it out?
Heavens, I didn't know I had a fan. Thanks for your anal-retentive attention, Matt. Let me riposte, old sweetie.
The "it's" represents the revenge of the spellchecker. But gloat if you wish. You are right. Don't use "boneheadedly." It's a redundant adverb. "Stupid" is sufficient. Strunk & White would rap your knuckles. Avoid cliches such as "take the cake." They make you sound stale, dear one. (continued)
Matt: >Davis and Smith Davis’s and Smith’s: You need separate possession before “support.” support [for] preserving abortion rights, reviewing sales tax hyphenated “sales-tax” exemptions and creating an independent commission to redraw legislative and congressional districts.<
Me: No, I don't need separate possession. These guys supported the project together.Your "support" needs a capital. It begins a sentence or a fragment or a partridge in a pear tree. My sentence fragment was a green pony to see if you were awake.
Matt: Didn't you learn in your twenty-eight years of teaching that a sentence needs a finite verb? Perhaps not.
Me: I want you to write me an essay on "finite" verbs. You are trying to use flossy terms that would have confused my students just to make you look learned. I told the dears that a sentence needs a verb that shows time.Talk American, Matt. Since we are being picky, "Perhaps not" is a fragment. Don't try that old "elliptical clause" flim flam on me to weasel out of this grammar felony.
Your "birds of a feather" comment has the period mark outside the quotation marks at the end. Only if one lives in Great Britain must it go outside.
Me: One can omit "that" ("specimen below" comment) if it is not the subject of the subordinate clause. The complement of "reason" is not "specimen"; the complement of "reason" is the noun clause "[that] the specimen below shows that birds of a feather flock together."
I do not "churn out" sentences, Matt. I craft them. I do not "rant"; I deliver remarks in measured tones of relentless logic. You've a tin ear, young man.
Do you suggest I take drugs? I haven't yet but am considering ingesting hallucigens to induce grammar ecstasy.
>They help readers understand when you use them before a noun preceded by words used as a single adjective.<
Me: I have no passive verb in this sentence, sirrah. I have a past participial phrase.That phrase is adjectival. A verb must be finite, Matt. You pressed that wisdom upon me.
Me: >That paper’s cozened denizens doubtless get lamb chops and baby asparagus for lunch in chambers provided by the dumbest publisher in the newspaper world.<
Me: You again mistake past participial phrases for verbs. These act adjectivally as they did in my previous sentence. You tilt with grammar windmills and show you don't know the difference between finite verbs and participial phrases.
Matt: Now, Lee, why didn't you think of that? Or does avoiding limp passive verbs apply only to others when you're dishing it out?
Me: "That" has no antecedent, Matt. Neither does "it" in your cliche "dishing it out." Your synapses have burned out.
I see from the time stamps that I deal with a critter who sits in front of his CRT screen at four in the morning. Doubtless you are a farmer in the grammar badlands of Iowa or some other rural fastness at the end of the civilized world.
What you must comprehend, Festus, before you issue forth to slop the hogs is that if we are to play this grammar game,there is a major rule for you to observe: What in others is a grave character flaw in me is a charming foible.
Chew on that, Mr.Carper Darper. And go feed those hogs. Today is harvesting day for the North Forty.
lee drury de cesare, Gulf of Mexico, Florida
The great grammargrinch blames the spellchecker for her error! Wow!
Lee, I’m short for time right now. I’ll respond later to your many wonderful points.
I’ve chewed on that which you suggested, and I thank you for clarifying your double standard.
While you’re waiting for my reply, chew on the following.
Your original stance:
>Davis’s and Smith’s: You need separate possession before “support.”<
Your current stance:
>Me: No, I don't need separate possession. These guys supported the project together.Your "support" needs a capital. It begins a sentence or a fragment or a partridge in a pear tree.<
Lee, I was quoting you. You’ve jumped in and corrected the amendment you made in your earlier post. Make up your mind.
>It begins a sentence or a fragment or a partridge in a pear tree.<
“It” has no antecedent. If you cannot remember my previous sentences to establish an antecedent, why should I have to do so when reading yours?
Sorry to keep you waiting. I had a lot of hog pens to slop out.
I could write an essay, but I’d rather just quote a source. Strunk and White is no use; let’s try Nesfield.
The forms of the different Participles are as follows: -
Transitive verbs
Present or continuous
Loving (Active voice)
Being loved (Passive Voice)
Past indefinite
Loved (Passive Voice)
Past Perfect
Having loved (Active voice)
Having been loved (Passive Voice)
Intransitive verbs
Present or continuous
Fading
Past indefinite
Faded
Past Perfect
Having faded
....
Since a Participle is a verb as well as an adjective, it can take an Object, which may be of five different kinds.
Having shot the tiger, he returned home. (Direct Object)
He is busy, teaching his sons Greek. (Indirect Object)
Having been taught Greek, he was a good scholar. (Retained Object)
We saw him fighting a hard battle. (Cognate Object)
Having sat himself down, he began to eat. (Reflexive Object)
All your participial phrases start with a past indefinite participle in the passive voice. A participle is still a verb; it still tells time (as you told your little cherubs). I never maintained that participles are finite verbs; you are putting words in my mouth, dearie.
Now, perhaps you could write me an essay on how
… chambers provided by the dumbest publisher …
is any less flabby than
… chambers that are provided by the dumbest publisher … .
They’re both written in the passive voice. If you want to believe that all your participles introducing your participial phrases are not verb forms used in the flabby old passive voice, that is your prerogative.
Lee: A verb must be finite, Matt. You pressed that wisdom upon me.
I pressed no such wisdom. I wrote that a sentence needs a finite verb. Are you maintaining that an infinitive is not a verb? Infinitives can also denote present or past time and be active or passive.
Twenty-eight years, you say? Nesfield is spinning in his grave.
Lee: >The complement of "reason" is not "specimen"; the complement of "reason" is the noun clause "[that] the specimen below shows that birds of a feather flock together."<
You’re saying that “the reason” is “that the specimen below shows something”? The SP Times editors wouldn’t have seen anything below. Nice try.
>What in others is a grave character flaw in me is a charming foible.<
And people tell you this, right? Maybe you really did spend twenty-eight years teaching (or what you call teaching), browbeating your students with lessons consisting of "I say it; so it's right."
Keep deluding yourself if you must. You're as charming as a rattlesnake.
>Lee: Since we are being picky, "Perhaps not" is a fragment. Don't try that old "elliptical clause" flim flam on me to weasel out of this grammar felony.<
I wouldn’t dream of trying the old "elliptical clause" flim flam to weasel out of it. This excerpt from Strunk & White’s Rule 6 should do the trick.
"It is permissible to make an emphatic word or expression serve the purpose of a sentence and to punctuate it accordingly:
Again and again he called out. No reply."
Lee, go and read your little book. Properly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home