I can’t resist posting this tw**t from Nick Bilton, a columnist for the New York Times (sent by reader Barry):
And a screenshot of the correction in situ:
And here’s the original error, appearing in a column called “My life in bicycles,” by Jennifer Finney Boylan:
I prefer exercising at least two miles away from any other human being. For me, biking is a solitary activity. In the Kennebec Highlands, on my mountain bike, I pedal past Kidder Pond, up to the blueberry barrens high atop Vienna Mountain. From there, I watch bald eagles and ospreys, and other birds, whose poop, owing to their diet of berries, stains the gray rocks purple. Sometimes I’ve run into deer and porcupines, and on one memorable occasion, a moose. Another time, I lay with my back against a tree, watching a beaver build a dam in Boody Pond.
In fact, the passage seems ambiguous, for the purple poop might be attributed to the “other birds” rather than the eagles and ospreys. However, and perhaps a grammarian can weigh in here, the common between “and other birds” and “whose poop” might imply that eagles, ospreys, and “other birds” are a set, all producing purple poop. It would have been less ambiguous without that comma. Where’s Pinker when we need him?
My editors would have deleted that comma [err., “common”] *and* changed that second “and” : “… ospreys, as well as other birds whose…”
But then my editors insist on rules that Pinker deprecates, so who knows?
/@
First you talk about Catholics, now you’re on to birdsh*t. Think communion and wafers.
In the immortal words of Big Bang’s Penny:
“Holy crap on a cracker”
Too many damn commas. It’s a massacre.
But commas are so versatile. They can be used for practically anything. If you want.
The original essay didn’t have the “and other birds” in it – that’s the corrected version. But the original essay is exactly that, an essay about the joys of bicycling alone, not any kind of factual piece about anything but her emotions. She may love watching birds as she bikes past, but she didn’t feel the need to learn anything much about them…
Which makes it a fatuous article, IMO. Of the forgettable sort the Times is full of, these days.
Well, you have to admire that kind of dedication to accuracy.
Especially in these days of throw-away online text.
Maslow would label this discussion the expression of meta-needs, the kinds of needs one develops when other, more fundamental, needs are met. Striving to refine our intellectual capabilities, for example, is a meta-need expression.
The expression of meta-needs, in part, is what defines the self-actualizer.
I would think the poop only applies to the other birds. No one would apply the poop to the trees and clouds in this sentence: “From there, I watch the trees and clouds, and birds, whose poop, owing to their diet of berries, stains the gray rocks purple.”
Then again, this may be more a result of context than it is lack of ambiguity in the sentence structure.
As long as you chuck the comma after “birds” 😉
The unofficial poll of my office mates indicates unanimity in interpreting the poop as belonging only to “other birds.”
love it!!
Of course this would appeal to our mode of thinking!!!
How annoying in the first place. Delighted that such a stupid was error pointed out.
I’m more interested, though, in how she could “lay with [her] back against a tree.”
Brilliant. 🙂
I suppose like this.
Er, I just realized this is also an illustration of what can happen under sperm competition.
LOL!
(But that posture doesn’t match my definition of “lay.”)
You are correct.
Chickens lay eggs.
And Bob Dylan knew he was incorrect when he sang: “Lay lady lay, lay upon my big brass bed”.
He wasn’t talking about chickens!
Actually, now that you mention it, I think Boylan did sort of lay an egg, here.
“… and other birds whose poop…” would make a set. It might still sound a tad ambiguous, but at least we’ve got our grammarian ass covered. 🙂
not to mention our grammarian shit together
‘zactamundo!
I was distracted by this sentence* describing the bike ride:
….a pedant, smart ass, and someone who can’t hand code very well.
LOL
My thoughts exactly…. 🙂
Somebody said above that is the corrected sentence, and it reads OK to me as corrected, if the line had meant all the birds are purple poppers, it would have not had the “and” between “Eagles and Ospreys”, it would have read “Eagles, Ospreys, and other birds” (+/- Oxford comma). “Eagles and Ospreys, and other birds, whose..”
it seems the comma after other birds also instructs us to read that clause as relating just to the other birds, whereas no comma after “other birds” might lead us to read “whose” as everyones. I know nothing of grammar. That is how I would parse those.