If they had said “Jo Cox’s murder trial” we could read that as “(Jo Cox’s murder) trial” or as “Jo Cox’s (murder trial)”.
But “her murder trial”? That cannot be the trial relating to her murder? I think not.
Agammamon
But its not *her* murder trial – its his murder trial. For her murder.
Formal English is pretty unambiguous about how this sentence should be constucted – though most people would gloss over the mistake, having taken in the context and understanding what was meant.
Still, poor form for a form of media who’s cheerleaders used to crow on about how ‘real’ newsrooms had editors and bloggers were rank amateurs doing it in their pajamas.
Bloke in Costa Rica
* whose
<pendant class="grammatical-howlers" />
BraveFart
The Mail is most concerned about wardrobe malfunctions, nip slips and the flaunting of ample cleavages and endless legs by female not-quite-celebrities.
Hard news and grammatical correctness is very much secondary and the non celeb stuff is probably only still included to maintain some spurious credibility as a news organisation. To be fair, given the probable source of income from their website and the fact that it continues to be free, this is not unreasonable.
Bloke in North Dorset
I see the BBC have been insisting that this is a political as opposed a the work of a lone nutcase if it had been a member of the RoP.
BobRocket
No reason why she couldn’t be tried, Pope Formosus was tried posthumously and found guilty.
If we get through the business without Trump / Farage getting mentioned I will be amazed….
So Much For Subtlety
Agammamon – “But its not *her* murder trial – its his murder trial. For her murder.”
Yes and we know that. It is, however, also inherent in the language of “her murder trial” in a way it isn’t in “Jo Cox’s murder trial”. They got it wrong instead of just being ambiguous.
BraveFart – “The Mail is most concerned about wardrobe malfunctions, nip slips and the flaunting of ample cleavages and endless legs by female not-quite-celebrities.”
Well yes. And that is why we love them. But they also do pretty much all the serious investigative journalism still done by British newspapers.
Johnathan Pearce
Amazing things, apostrophes.
KJ
‘Far right obsessed loner who killed Jo Cox spent hours studying the Nazis…’
Who?
Is English inherently ambiguous here?
If they had said “Jo Cox’s murder trial” we could read that as “(Jo Cox’s murder) trial” or as “Jo Cox’s (murder trial)”.
But “her murder trial”? That cannot be the trial relating to her murder? I think not.
But its not *her* murder trial – its his murder trial. For her murder.
Formal English is pretty unambiguous about how this sentence should be constucted – though most people would gloss over the mistake, having taken in the context and understanding what was meant.
Still, poor form for a form of media who’s cheerleaders used to crow on about how ‘real’ newsrooms had editors and bloggers were rank amateurs doing it in their pajamas.
* whose
<pendant class="grammatical-howlers" />
The Mail is most concerned about wardrobe malfunctions, nip slips and the flaunting of ample cleavages and endless legs by female not-quite-celebrities.
Hard news and grammatical correctness is very much secondary and the non celeb stuff is probably only still included to maintain some spurious credibility as a news organisation. To be fair, given the probable source of income from their website and the fact that it continues to be free, this is not unreasonable.
I see the BBC have been insisting that this is a political as opposed a the work of a lone nutcase if it had been a member of the RoP.
No reason why she couldn’t be tried, Pope Formosus was tried posthumously and found guilty.
If we get through the business without Trump / Farage getting mentioned I will be amazed….
Agammamon – “But its not *her* murder trial – its his murder trial. For her murder.”
Yes and we know that. It is, however, also inherent in the language of “her murder trial” in a way it isn’t in “Jo Cox’s murder trial”. They got it wrong instead of just being ambiguous.
BraveFart – “The Mail is most concerned about wardrobe malfunctions, nip slips and the flaunting of ample cleavages and endless legs by female not-quite-celebrities.”
Well yes. And that is why we love them. But they also do pretty much all the serious investigative journalism still done by British newspapers.
Amazing things, apostrophes.
‘Far right obsessed loner who killed Jo Cox spent hours studying the Nazis…’
So an avid Daily Mail reader then..