USAToday's Naive Grand Headline Mistake

In Aeronautics and Space Science, such simple mistake sometimes kills.
YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE SUCH MISTAKE IN SUCH IMPORTANT POSITION. Because USAToday online faces more than one hundred million readers!

We are talking about the USA Today not the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, or any other Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper of august reputation.

We are talking about the USA Today not the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, or any other Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper of august reputation.

How could a newspaper that provides cover for war crimes/war criminals/terrorist activities, like the New York Times, be considered to have an "august reputation", Tsars?

The number of grammatical slip ups would probably be pretty much the same for all newspapers.

I can see the possibility
that one newspaper will have better quality editing than another one,
depending on personnel and filosofy thereof.

I reject your accusation
that I have set myself up as any expert on language.

I have merely argued the logic on the merits,
the same as adding a row of numbers.

No one need be an expert to offer such comments,

Quote:

We are talking about the USA Today not the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, or any other Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper of august reputation.

How could a newspaper that provides cover for war crimes/war criminals/terrorist activities, like the New York Times, be considered to have an "august reputation", Tsars?

The number of grammatical slip ups would probably be pretty much the same for all newspapers.

But In 2011, Time magazine listed Strunk & White's The Elements of Style as one of the 100 best and most influential books written in English since 1923. JTT

April 17, 2009
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice
By Geoffrey K. Pullum

April 16 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of a little book that is loved and admired throughout American academe. Celebrations, readings, and toasts are being held, and a commemorative edition has been released.

I won't be celebrating.

The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.

The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead. William Strunk was a professor of English at Cornell about a hundred years ago, and E.B. White, later the much-admired author of Charlotte's Web, took English with him in 1919, purchasing as a required text the first edition, which Strunk had published privately. After Strunk's death, White published a New Yorker article reminiscing about him and was asked by Macmillan to revise and expand Elements for commercial publication. It took off like a rocket (in 1959) and has sold millions.

This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents. Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less. Certainly White was a fine writer, but he was not qualified as a grammarian. Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century.

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497

So please recommend some newspapers for us to read, JTT.
I always feel from your tirade that there is no newspaper at all for me to read.
I often read GuardianUnlimited. How about [the] that newspaper?

Quote:

But In 2011, Time magazine listed Strunk & White's The Elements of Style as one of the 100 best and most influential books written in English since 1923. JTT

There's no doubt that it has been influential, Ori. It has been exceptionally influential. Influential does not in any way equate to 'best'. That TIME magazine might think so is because they too were steeped in that dung heap.

Simply because it has been so influential, Americans are some of the most ignorant folks on the planet when it comes to English grammar.

Quote:

April 17, 2009
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice
By Geoffrey K. Pullum

April 16 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of a little book that is loved and admired throughout American academe. Celebrations, readings, and toasts are being held, and a commemorative edition has been released.

I won't be celebrating.

The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.

The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead. William Strunk was a professor of English at Cornell about a hundred years ago, and E.B. White, later the much-admired author of Charlotte's Web, took English with him in 1919, purchasing as a required text the first edition, which Strunk had published privately. After Strunk's death, White published a New Yorker article reminiscing about him and was asked by Macmillan to revise and expand Elements for commercial publication. It took off like a rocket (in 1959) and has sold millions.

This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents. Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less. Certainly White was a fine writer, but he was not qualified as a grammarian. Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century.

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497

No one need be an expert to offer such comments,

That's true, Dave. But you'd think that someone with your terrible track record might consider refraining altogether or at least explaining at the outset that you know very little about the workings of language.