Wednesday, May 28, 2014

I am in good company!

When I was a kid, the elders often appreciatively commented about the quality of writing in the newspaper that we subscribed to--The Hindu.  After coming to the US, however, I have always been shocked at the atrocious grammar there and wonder whether it was the case even back then, or whether the quality has really deteriorated over the years.

Here in the US, I have often commented to students about the wonderful writing styles in the New Yorker and The Economist.  But, recently, I have been noticing grammar issues in The Economist.  A few weeks ago, I even wrote a sarcastic letter to the editor:
Dear Editor:
I reckon the distinguished newspaper loves the word reckon so much that it reckoned it would make for an interesting reading by using four reckons in the Saudi America piece--two of those reckons in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph.
Who woulda reckoned that!
Of course, the magazine newspaper did not publish that letter.  If they had, you, dear reader, would have known about it by now!

Why write about some old story today?  Glad you asked.

I picked up the mail and the latest issue was in.  On the cover was the image of India's most powerful bachelor (ok, married but living separately.)  Over dinner, I read that lead article, and then glanced through the pages and ended up reading this piece on digital disruption on the farm.  Not really a new story, but a neat commentary that ties a few pieces together.  Which is when my brain caught a spelling mistake.  Do you see what I saw?

Yes, I checked the online version.  Thankfully, that error does not show up there.

Wait, are you still searching for the error?  Tsk, tsk! And I  thought the readers of this blog were incredibly smart people! ;)  Oh well, there is more to life than grammar, right?

BTW, don't even attempt to poin out the writhing problems that you find alot in this blog.  Their not paying me fur this ;)


Ramesh said...

Grrrr. If you say even the slightest derogatory statement about The Economist ...............

It's a rare rare bloomer that slips into this "newspaper" - and don't ever compare the New Yorker to The Economist (brrrr).

And to top it all, an American commenting about the Queen's English ??????? Blasphemy :):)

Anne in Salem said...

The error I see is an incorrectly spelled plural. I assume the other error is, as Ramesh says, use of the Queen's English rather than American English. Too much reliance on spell check is creating a generation of incompetent spellers.

And no, I have not seen anything in the blog that makes me writhe, though a misused apostrophe might have.

Sriram Khé said...

The Queen's English? What are you two talking about?

Consider the following examples of the stiff-upper-lip way versus the correct way:

The Queen can kiss my arse!
The Queen can kiss my ass!

Muahahaha ;)

Most read this past month