61–64 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the “The” applies to “tar pits”, not “La Brea”, as in “The Panama Canal” or “The Seattle Seahawks”.
It translates as "The The Tar Tar Pits".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It translates as "The The Tar Tar Pits".
Ah, yeah that makes sense. I just assumed La Brea was a nearby city or area; I didn’t know it translated to “tar”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point was that she was so bad at her job that she wasn't going to write anything about the attack, at all, whatsoever. She spent most of the time trying to dictate things she'd already written over the phone. She didn't have the initiative to walk to ground zero. And then what she did write was a story about how she was sad the fun events were cancelled but she wasn't that sad because she had appletinis.…
I'm not picking on you deliberately, only choosing to reply to this thread because your wording succinctly sums up the underlying mistake in most people commenting here: > so bad at her job Her job was as a fashion journalist. Not a news reporter, not a war correspondent, not somebody who was remotely trained or prepared to deal with a situation like this. How often do we tech people get irritated by pointy-haired bo…
The reason this doesn't excuse her for me, is that a journalist - of any type - is supposed to absorb events, place them in their context, and convey the result to a general public.
So she may have been hired as a fashion journalist, but this shows her to not rise above a fashion writer. That is, someone who produces stories, not someone who reports on events.
Or, to put it differently: I reject the notion that fashion journalism is completely unrelated to other forms of journalism. These professions share a common core, and the actions discussed in this twitter thread show the person in question completely missing that core.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is useless because it is nitpicking. But still, descriptive rules for a language can still be pretty specific and complicated, so even if we toss out all prescriptivism that won't free us from corrections I think.
It will because no "correction" is necessary. If the speaker's intent was understood by their audience then their usage was correct. If it was not understood, the audience will seek clarification and the intended meaning will emerge that way. This sort of unsolicited "correction" of other people's language is unnecessary and basically never helpful outside of an explicit educational/language-learning context. The goa…