Being grammatically correct
And other ditches not to die in
A recent leader in the Times newspaper got me thinking the other day. It was a piece about the new (at the time of writing) British PM, Rishi Sunak, where the editor argued that the PM didn't need to be a user of the NHS in order to understand why the British people need to save it. He wrote: "he (the PM) understands as well as anyone that every shortened waiting list potentially lengthens his political lifespan. There is no reason for he or his family to join one.”
If you read that quotation without your eye twitching a little then good for you. But for me, a committed clear-writing enthusiast, my eye went into spasm, and then it got me thinking. Of course, the section that I got momentarily stuck on was the bit about there being "no reason for he or his family to join (a waiting list)". Now, before we get into a discussion about the grammatical rights or wrongs of what the editor wrote - and I contend that it is strictly grammatically wrong - I would simply just argue that a "him or his family" would have been far better. The majority of readers would have glided over it like a wandering albatross over the Southern Ocean, without a second glance. And I wouldn't have written an article about it.
Often, when Fraser and I are sharing our early drafts of our various articles, we often talk about whether something "catches" —whether it stops the reader in their tracks or not. We want to avoid that. Quite simply, it distracts from what the author is trying to say (do you actually remember anything of the first sentence of the leader now?). So why die in your (dubiously) grammatically correct ditch?
For the Times editor, that's for he to decide.
 | A guest post by
|
I am a newcomer to this world of "Plain Language" as an OFFICIAL establishment. Here I am questioning my own intellectual growth from over the last 4 decades... all due to misused syntax + proper punctuation!!! Who know that grammar nazis were just plain rude... and unnecessary!!!
This article lacked any tangible relevance to the reality or Political World Stage.
As a Millennial, American Woman, former USMC wife, and Florida Native that is currently living in the DMV (District | Maryland | Virginia), I am disgusted with the twisted narratives that are being spun through fallacy, snobbery and bigotry... I laundry listed my social setting to preface the validity of my common place concerns as they resonate with over 60% of the US populous.
The snobbery and fallacy is characterized by the ASSumption that "anyone", as to say "EVERYONE", would have such backhanded motives whenever they're able to make good on the promises they've made...
Furthermore, the article, and the writer, are completely out of touch with their prospective readers.. I would even dare say that I am not the only "reader" of this article who is completely clueless on what the "NHS" is or why there was a waiting list or who was on said list or how this was even relevant to leading current events and since when did we promote the writing of trash???
What I want to know is, where is the context and back drop of the story??? How did those key elements get missed as they're significant to enticing the reader to keep reading so they can get the scoop and 411... which leads them to understand the significance and importance of how the information fits into a bigger picture timeline or chain of events...
Without those context clues, there is no instinctual response that generates our own curiosity or launches the use of critical thinking skills... those little brain awakening queues are vital for ensuring that the targeted audience will return and want to dive in again for more digital downloads and juicy details about random strangers and insignificant gossip!