Today's NYTimes:
I can't proceed without unraveling not just the ambiguity, but its sources. I'm paralyzed by the drive to clearly understand. Why continue reading without understanding the premise?
This affliction makes me a slow, but thorough reader. (And a charter member of the Obviousness Fan Club.)
Pausing to think it through, I suppose it must have been McCain who had upbraided Obama for dwelling too much on the stock market.
But this post is not about politics or unclear writing. It's about cognitive psychology. I want to know: am I alone afflicted with this condition? Are are any of you so vexed?
(PS: Turns out I was wrong; it was McCain's campaign manager who had made the comment, not McCain.)
Mr. Obama criticized Mr. McCain and Rick Davis, Mr. McCain's campaign manager, for his comment on Friday that the campaign is "not a CNBC news show on the stock market."Reading such sentences is, to me, like running into a brick wall. Whose comment? About whose campaign? Is that person suggesting that there should be more talk about the stock market? Or less?
I can't proceed without unraveling not just the ambiguity, but its sources. I'm paralyzed by the drive to clearly understand. Why continue reading without understanding the premise?
This affliction makes me a slow, but thorough reader. (And a charter member of the Obviousness Fan Club.)
Pausing to think it through, I suppose it must have been McCain who had upbraided Obama for dwelling too much on the stock market.
But this post is not about politics or unclear writing. It's about cognitive psychology. I want to know: am I alone afflicted with this condition? Are are any of you so vexed?
(PS: Turns out I was wrong; it was McCain's campaign manager who had made the comment, not McCain.)
The whole quote does follow the rule of grammar (which few follow, alas, and that adds to your confusion), is that the HIS should refer to the closest previous mention. I'm sure there's a way to say it with all the right terms, but that doesn't help those who need to learn the rule in the first place. The internal quotation IS badly worded, but I'd hope it was understandable in context? (Although to me, the GOP rarely is.)
I'm often irritated by bad usage, (which is different than poor grammar or incorrect punctuation.) Dialogue can be perfectly understood when it captures the voice, meaning, intent, etc., of the speaker (no matter the wording.) But reporters get shorted by editing done by others, and for inches, not clarity. And business writers often use jargon and thesis-length lines to justify their education and sell their expert status. Ugh. YOU keep it clean, clear and edutaining. Thank you.