TFP needs a copy editor. Can you spot what's wrong with the following sentence?: "For reporting on Columbia’s anti-Israel protests and the occupation of Hamilton Hall for the Columbia Sundial and The Free Press, other students, including many in student government, slandered me on social media." It should be "For reporting on Columbia’s …
TFP needs a copy editor. Can you spot what's wrong with the following sentence?: "For reporting on Columbia’s anti-Israel protests and the occupation of Hamilton Hall for the Columbia Sundial and The Free Press, other students, including many in student government, slandered me on social media." It should be "For reporting on Columbia’s anti-Israel protests and the occupation of Hamilton Hall for the Columbia Sundial and The Free Press, I was slandered by other students, including many in student government." I love you, TFP, but you need to up your game.
I don't agree. The original sentence is gramatically correct. Your construction is considerably weaker with the added auxiliary verb and the leading 'I' in the phrase.
I was an English major and professional editor. Adam is correct. The original sentence contains a dangling modifier.
The sentence begins with a prepositional clause beginning with "For." "For reporting..." is tied to "other students...". The "students" become the subject of the sentence [the ones doing the action]. As written, it indicates that the students (who slandered him) were the ones reporting on the anti-Israel protests.
The way Adam rewrote the sentence is technically correct and ties the "for reporting" directly to "I" [who was slandered]. "I" becomes the subject of the sentence.
The "dangling modifier" rule that I learned in my editorial training 30 years ago has become somewhat of an arcane technical rule, as the author's meaning is often still understandable, as it was here. But if you're being geeky about grammar, it can be construed to have an unintended meaning.
TFP needs a copy editor. Can you spot what's wrong with the following sentence?: "For reporting on Columbia’s anti-Israel protests and the occupation of Hamilton Hall for the Columbia Sundial and The Free Press, other students, including many in student government, slandered me on social media." It should be "For reporting on Columbia’s anti-Israel protests and the occupation of Hamilton Hall for the Columbia Sundial and The Free Press, I was slandered by other students, including many in student government." I love you, TFP, but you need to up your game.
What do you expect from an Ivy League education costing $85K+ per year. Their focus is not grammar but indoctrination.
Maybe you could get a decent education in English grammar at a community college, but that would set you back about $5K per year.
I don't agree. The original sentence is gramatically correct. Your construction is considerably weaker with the added auxiliary verb and the leading 'I' in the phrase.
I was an English major and professional editor. Adam is correct. The original sentence contains a dangling modifier.
The sentence begins with a prepositional clause beginning with "For." "For reporting..." is tied to "other students...". The "students" become the subject of the sentence [the ones doing the action]. As written, it indicates that the students (who slandered him) were the ones reporting on the anti-Israel protests.
The way Adam rewrote the sentence is technically correct and ties the "for reporting" directly to "I" [who was slandered]. "I" becomes the subject of the sentence.
The "dangling modifier" rule that I learned in my editorial training 30 years ago has become somewhat of an arcane technical rule, as the author's meaning is often still understandable, as it was here. But if you're being geeky about grammar, it can be construed to have an unintended meaning.