Here is another bundle of woeful lapses by the print and broadcast media.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Triple trouble from an international news organization: \u201cGarcia graduated law school in California and passed the state\u2019s bar exam, but has been forbidden from practicing law.\u201d<\/p>\n
Using graduate<\/em> as a transitive verb here is still frowned on by traditionalists. Make it \u201cGarcia graduated from<\/em> law school.\u201d<\/p>\n The sentence would be tidier with a he <\/em>before \u201chas\u201d: \u201cbut he <\/em>has been forbidden \u2026\u201d<\/em> And the final four words should be \u201cforbidden to practice<\/em> law.\u201d The New York Times <\/em>stylebook says: \u201cUse to<\/em> with forbid<\/em> and from\u00a0<\/em>with prohibit<\/em>: forbid them to attend<\/em>; prohibit them from attending<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2022 \u201cGrowing up near West Palm Beach, he and his mother lived in six different apartments.\u201d The phrase \u201cgrowing up\u201d should describe the sentence\u2019s subject, but note that there are two subjects, \u201che and his mother,\u201d and his mother had already grown up. This is an unusual example of a dangler<\/strong> (the nemesis of callow or distracted writers). The sentence must be rewritten so that \u201cgrowing up\u201d applies only to \u201che\u201d: \u201cGrowing up near West Palm Beach, he lived with his mother \u2026\u201d But that\u2019s not all\u2014why \u201csix different\u00a0<\/em>apartments\u201d? Aren\u2019t all apartments different? \u201cSix different apartments\u201d seems to be an imprecise way of saying \u201csix apartments at different times.\u201d It would be better to write something like Growing up near West Palm Beach, he lived with his mother in six apartments over the years<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u2022 \u201cNeither the name of the victim nor the suspect was immediately released.\u201d This sentence is ambiguous because of faulty parallelism<\/strong>. The sentence says the\u00a0suspect<\/em> was not released, but it wants to say that the suspect\u2019s name<\/em> was not released. We can make it right without changing a word: The name of neither the victim nor the suspect was immediately released<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u2022 \u201cThe gift by Ronald Linde and his wife Maxine will go to support promising initiatives and research.\u201d Why\u00a0by<\/em>? A book or a painting is by<\/em> someone; a gift is from\u00a0<\/em>someone. And commas are needed around \u201cMaxine\u201d\u2014since Mr. Linde can have but one wife at a time, we need not know her name to understand the sentence. In grammatical terms \u201cMaxine\u201d is nonessential<\/strong> (or\u00a0nonrestrictive<\/strong>) information and therefore requires commas. So make it The gift from Ronald Linde and his wife, Maxine, will go to support promising initiatives and research<\/em>.<\/p>\n* * * * * * * * * * * * *<\/strong><\/pre>\n