“Well, to allow yourself to be abused like this when you are a fully-functioning adult. Particularly when there’s a few of you and only one abuser.”
“Depending on the type of the abuse, I suppose. What have you been reading now?”
“The Daily Telegraph.”
“And?”
“They wrote about this children’s doctor who sexually abused not only the boys he was supposed to be looking after but also their parents.”
“You are kidding!”
“No, no, look: that’s what they wrote.”
“John Farmer, prosecuting, told the court how Bradbury abused boys with their parents in the room and said the doctor began using a camera pen in an attempt to gain images of the boys when partly clothed.”
“No, no, it’s the commas!”
“But they said it was sexual abuse.”
“I know, I know, it’s absolutely awful, but he didn’t actually abuse the parents.”
“But they said he had abused boys with their parents!”
“No, no, no: ‘with their parents in the room’ is a content disjunct.”
“A what?”
“A content disjunct – a type of adverbial.”
“Of what?”
“Adverbial – one of the five clause elements. This one is actually a contingency construction.”
“A WHAT?”
“Oh never mind; the point is that ‘with their parents in the room’ should have been enclosed with two correlative commas.”
“Correlative commas?”
“Yep, commas that come in pairs – because they co-relate. If The Daily Telegraph had used these commas, the meaning would be completely different.”
“I s-e-e-e, so he didn’t actually abuse the parents themselves.”
“Nope.”
“But, even so, they must have twigged.”
“Well, it says here that he was behind a curtain, doesn’t it? So they probably couldn’t see him.”
“But, but … how could anybody not have noticed that this doctor was partly clothed? Surely, alarm bells must have rung or something …”
“Ha, ha, ha, it wasn’t he who was partly clothed!”
“But that’s what it says …”
“I know, I know, but it’s a relatively common error. Look, participial adverbials really are a minefield – how many times? What they should have written is this.”
John Farmer, prosecuting, told the court that Bradbury had abused boys, with their parents in the room, and said the doctor had begun using a camera-pen in an attempt to obtain images of the partly-clothed boys.
“Or they could have said: ‘to obtain images of the boys, who were partly clothed’. What they can’t do is leave this sentence as it is.”
Not necessarily! Anyway, you certainly never produced anything as misleading as this sentence. By the way, The Daily Telegraph is a British newspaper with pretentions to stellar quality and lots of money for sub-editors, so there! 🙂
Wow! You can actually logically explain the errors with suitable terms. I suspect many, like me, would have an intuitive understanding but would not be able to explain.
Aw, Ankur, you are so kind – thank you so much! I’m looking forward to reading your post (been extremely busy these past few days). Warm season’s greetings.
Correlative commas, hmm, I think I left some of those out just the other day. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Happens to us all, Deborah! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
But I’ll bet it happens to me more than it happens to you. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not necessarily! Anyway, you certainly never produced anything as misleading as this sentence. By the way, The Daily Telegraph is a British newspaper with pretentions to stellar quality and lots of money for sub-editors, so there! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, I surrender. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL!
LikeLike
Wow! You can actually logically explain the errors with suitable terms. I suspect many, like me, would have an intuitive understanding but would not be able to explain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aw, Ankur, you are so kind – thank you so much! I’m looking forward to reading your post (been extremely busy these past few days). Warm season’s greetings.
LikeLiked by 1 person