I was reading a piece in the Washington Post today and came across this: Not interested in debating the sentiment, but does that second "about" belong? WaPo usually has decent copy editing, but this sentence looks off to me.
I think that second about should have been a 'which'. I've seen a lot of puzzling sentences in news articles lately; that's not the worst of them. A recent one: "Police did not release the names of the two children who were arrested because they are minors" Two children arrested because they were minors? I added the quotation marks, but that's how it appeared in the article, lack of punctuation and all.
Yeah, another one in today's WaPo: "It works like this: An aircraft releases the bomb, a fan on the tail and nose whir in the air, turning a number of times until the fuse is primed, which detonates a small charge to set off the explosive power of the main charge." Emphasis mine.
I agree that it feels off. I tried to see the piece and have apparently used up my free Washington Post articles but in the half-second before the paywall blocks it, does it say that it's written by an "audience editor"? Does that mean it's more like a letter to the editor than an actual professionally written story? Not that that excuses a failure to edit it. It would just explain how the error came about in the first place.
English generally seems much lenient and lax as to the use of commas. Some writers don't include a comma even in instances where the information is clearly non-descriptive (extra) or where the sentence is lengthy and would benefit from one. Or else in places where the comma would render the speech chunks. And in other times it is included, but it literally hampers the reading experience and feels obnoxious and clumsy.
The first one feels like there are missing words and the punctuation is off "The sad part is that the worker’s incompetence and the chaos he caused, have exposed to the world ugly old tropes about Hawaiian accountability and competence, about which the state residents would love nothing more than to shake off. on the second one its a pluralisation error It works like this: An aircraft releases the bomb, fans on the tail and nose whir spin in the air, turning a number of times until the fuse is primed, which detonates a small charge to set off the explosive power of the main charge. (also fans is an odd word choice I'd have said propellers or rotors)
[QUOTE= (also fans is an odd word choice I'd have said propellers or rotors)[/QUOTE] Sorry to be awkward but the use of fan is accurate, it could be an impellor if the fans are working as a dynamo to create a charge to prime the fuse. Both propellers and impellers use what is refered to as fans. A propeller is an uncased/exposed fan that acts to propell and create motion with thrust by what it pushes against so if it is not propelling the item then it is not a propeller. An impeller is cased and does a similar job by what it draws through it like a jet ski. But both use fans.