Pa. woman to stand trial for pot-laced margarine

Yahoo News ^ | May 20, 2011 | Associated Press

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“That’s because most journalists are idiots.”

That sums it up nicely.

Most journalists have no particular expertise in any field. The one thing that they’re supposed to be able to do is write well. What good are they, when they can’t even do that?

If they simply used established rules of grammar, they could impart more useful information, in fewer words. It’s often important to know whether an action: is happening in the instant; is ongoing; or happened in the past. When reporters don’t bother using the proper tense; we are left to puzzle things out for ourselves.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"I repeatedly asked my son if he broke the window, and he swears that he did not."

I'm gonna say that this sentence is not correct. It should read:

"I repeatedly asked my son if he broke the window, and he swore that he did not."

The first example may sound correct but it is not.

I have pinged an experienced eye as an arbiter. Mainly because I'm only 98% certain of my claim.

May I ask your indulgence Mademoiselle?

[fr_freak]

I feel better now. How about you? ;-)

Heh. In an odd way, it does make me feel better.

[Joe 6-pack]

I would contend that the oath or affirmation provides for an ongoing, present condition or state. Until relieved of the oath or the swearing is found to be invalid (i.e. determined to be a lie), his swearing continues, thus, “he swears.”

[fr_freak]

I agree that stylistically it makes for a clumsy read; however, it's not entirely inappropriate when somebody has made a permanent report, affirmation or filing:

There definitely are appropriate ways to use present tense rather than past, but the key here is consistent usage of either tense. In this case, the author states that the "12-year-old's mother called Upper Burrell Township police", then the next sentence says that "The woman tells police". There is simply no excuse for that kind of behavior by someone who claims to be a writer.

[Joe 6-pack]

In this case you're right. I'm not sure if you've read my other posts on this thread, but my point is that a tense shift when referring to an historical record or document (in this case, an alluded to police report) can be proper if the information remains current and valid, even if it was recorded in the past:

"I was (past) in the courthouse looking through old records. I found (past) a document which states (present) the family no longer owns (present) the property."

In the article in question it's ambiguous and clumsy, and more appropriately it would be the woman's statement or affidavit that (present tense) 'tells' the police what the subject did, which was my point...the tense may not have been entirely wrong, but the way it was put together and presented was awkward.

[Erasmus]

The pot was more natural than the yellow stuff it was on.

[Erasmus]

The use of present tense in newspaper stories may be because headlines are conventionally written in present tense. Perhaps it filters down that way into the text.

[RichInOC]

I’m looking forward to the new post-legalization brand extension “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Cannabutter!”.

[martin_fierro]

	It's a 'Burgh >> PING << Thing.ô
Send FReepmail if yunz want on/off BPT list, 'n'at
Learn Pittsburghese! Free Streaming 'Burgh Radio
The List of Ping Lists

[TigersEye]

It makes you wonder how many tubs of special margarine copy writers eat per day.

[airborne]

Not guilty!

IMHO, it’s just a little “seasoning” in da butter!

[dfwgator]

“If you think it’s butter...but it’s not.....”

[dfwgator]

"Is it butter? No No No Noo No No. Is it margarine? No No No Nooo No No....Is it ganja? Yaya, Yaaa, ya!"

[bigheadfred]

What I find fascinating is no one has mentioned the most telling sentence in the article.

Her home phone is disconnected.

It speaks volumes.

But when the FR grammar police take umbrage, ready to revolt, it doesn't surprise me much.

But ya'll gots me to thinking.

There should be a single word to describe FR grammar police revolutionaries.

Hows about "Dictionaries"?

Nah.

Nevermind.

I don't wanna give my fellow Freepers FRightmares worrying a dictionary is hiding in the grass ready to take them out.

Fear of the mods is enough.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I suppose I will have to defer to your explanation. The more I read that damnable sentence the better it looks.

Perhaps if the word 'repeatedly' weren't there, I could make a better case.
Aye, therein lies the rub.

[WestSylvanian]

I used to live in New Kensington. Believe me, you need to be stoned on something to live in that dump.

[Joe 6-pack]

I posted that from work and on my drive home was thinking about how to more clearly explain it. I think the following example will help illustrate my argument more persuasively. Suppose you come home from work and the window's broken. You ask your son about it and he repeatedly avows that he didn't do it but you find some evidence that suggests he did. Shortly thereafter, your wife comes home and asks you what happened. You tell her:

"Jimmy swore he didn't break it, but I found evidence to the contrary."

In this statement, you've placed the assertion in the past tense...that is, the oath is void, because the evidence is strong enough to refute it. If on the other hand, you state:

"Jimmy swears he didn't break it, but I found evidence to the contrary," there is an implication of uncertainty, that the oath may still be valid and the evidence unconvincing. Now your wife clearly knows for a fact that you spoke to Jimmy before you spoke to her, and thus his oath was made in the past, but use of the present tense conveys that the oath may still be actively in force. Apart from tense, the statements are identical, although it's clear in both that the oath itself was made in the past. The only difference is in the implication as to whether the swearing has been refuted, or whether it may still be valid.

See where I'm coming from?

[SoothingDave]

I knew a guy who built some apartments across the river from New Kensington.

Tarentum.

[martin_fierro]