A Poorly Constructed Sentence

Maybe I just feel curmudgeonly today. You can decipher the sentence, maybe, but it takes a while to figure out what’s wrong with it. Here’s the sentence:

“Shield” should jump right out at you as incorrect: it should be “shields,” to go with “decades-old law,” right? So why did a professional writer (and editor, I presume) use the plural, “shield”? I think to go with the plural “changes” in the second line. But “the decades-old law” interferes! Especially since we see only one comma, which separates that plural verb (shield) from the plural (changes) and puts it with the closer singular (law). But putting a comma after “law” makes the sentence sound awkward. (The rule is that two commas count as zero commas.) And what if the intention was to use “shields,” which changes the meaning of the whole sentence!

A bad sentence no matter what you do to it. How would you fix this?

Here’s my solution:

Frank Pallone Jr., the chairman of the committee hosting the hearing, said he wants to explore making some changes to Section 230 to shield tech companies from lawsuits over posts, videos, and photos that people share on their platforms. The law is decades old.

Maybe the sentence means the opposite:

Frank Pallone Jr., the chairman of the committee hosting the hearing, said he wants to explore making some changes to Section 230 because it shields tech companies from lawsuits over posts, videos, and photos that people share on their platforms. The law is decades old.

Make the reference to the age of the section into a separate sentence.

Here’s a picture of the CEOs scheduled for the hearing. I don’t have a shot of Mr. Pallone.:

PS—I fixed the missing oxford comma, too. Did you notice?

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

The accuracy of headlines has long been one of my hobby horses, so this first post after a bunch of rather plain lessons is a comic in which a character accurately (if humorously) suggests a more accurate headline. Good for him. Last panel.

“Beach ape” is this strip’s name for humans. If I may be a pedant, I’d suggest “reef” instead of “something.”

First, the list:

I’d add “peeps” (for “people”) to the list. Seems to me that a couple more such are floating around. Can you add to the list? Put them in the comments.

Hey, at least this post isn’t a repeat lesson for before.

My experience with small town newspapers tells me that they have a lot of weakness in their proofreading and copy editing departments. Redundancy is a pretty common error.

Redundancy is when you repeat yourself unnecessarily. Here’s today’s example:

In order to provide the building with some tender loving care, Magin enlisted the help of Jackson, Wyoming, business MD Roofing to help tackle some of the work that needed to be put into the house to restore it back to its original state.

“Restore it” is enough. you don’t need “back.”

While I’m being a curmudgeon, I’ll mention that the first two words (“In order”) aren’t necessary, and although the “it” after “restore” is grammatically correct, a noun (the house) is better than a pronoun.

Harrumpf.

Oh. A picture of the place:

Well, three.

The Partnership to End Addiction has an ad inside the back cover of the January 2021 Scientific American.

(I added bold for emphasis.)

Here’s the headline:

SOCIAL DISTANCE CAN ALSO BE A SIGN OF ANOTHER EPIDEMIC

And here are the first couple sentences of the text:

Physical distance can keep you safe and healthy. But if an emotional distance forms between you and those closest to you, it may be due to drug or alcohol use.

So three distances, all correct. Go thou and do likewise.