"The Prime Minister is expected to give a major speech on repatriating powers from Brussels in the Netherlands before the end of the month". That gem comes to you from genius Matt Chorley, the Daily Mail online political editor.

And we're supposed to take these children seriously?

View full article here

I certainly read it as as Cameron giving a major speech on repatriating powers ... from Brussels in the Netherlands.


Such is my low esteem of the media that I am certainly willing to accept that a Mail journalist doesn't know which country Brussels is in. If I've miss-cast it, then it reflects his poor writing technique. One tries to avoid accidental ambiguity. His phrasing can be read either of two ways.

Yeah ... both are badly written ... structure would be much better as subject-verb-object, followed by the location and then the qualifying or descriptive clause - precisely to avoid confusion.

Bruges was fully booked?

I thought this kind of elementary verbal confusion was one of the specific reasons newspapers employed editors — to spot and eliminate them.

Most of us talk and write in this way but almost always the context sorts it out and no one really notices. Actually I think ordinary language has oodles of potential for confusion and imprecision but eliminating these things puts one at the risk of sounding strained or pedantically verbose*.

Also if the listener or reader is tired then it's a lot easier to latch on to an incorrect meaning as the mind is only too happy to let the 'rut' do the steering.

Education helps but some people just have a natural talent for expressing themselves clearly which no amount of education can substitute for. I noticed this with colleagues, none of whom were dedicated wordsmiths as such, but quite a few of them had an apparently effortless and enviable flair in communicating their ideas. I remember one occasion where we had to explain some complicated findings and the resulting need for a particular course of action. I thought, "This is going to be a bugger to get across in digestible form," but my colleague went straight at it and had it done while I was still thinking about it. I was very impressed whereas he seemed to be completely unaware how effortless he made it seem. Not only that, the whole thing flowed so nicely. Booker's pieces have that hallmark. I bet he doesn't have to work at it.

There's someone else around here who's similar but I can't recall his name right now. Ha ha! :)

By the way, and for what it's worth, I understood what the hack here meant at first reading and had to take a second glance to notice the ambiguity. However, I feel quite fresh and was anticipating the thrust. Another time I'm sure it would have leapt out at me. Probably on a Wednesday just after a liquid lunch would be a good time for that. :)


* I understand the great Niels Bohr had a terrible time in trying to get what was in his head across clearly. He used to agonise over every word. The result wasn't always attractive, or clear. But it seems he managed nonetheless, eventually. :)

That's why it's wring.

If the Flemish movement in northern Belgium get their way it might be a matter of fact....

I've given up tormenting my (mostly Flemish) Belgian colleagues in this as they predictably bite every time we tell them we "heard on the news that Belgium has split".

In the Telegraph there is the article about the Spitfire crash-landing at Midlands Airport.



That's some range..

Will he, I wonder, follow his undoubtedly show stopping repatriation of powers trick with the twin miracles of feeding a multitude with five loaves and two fishes and walking on water?

Thinking about things, he could cut benefits, and the overseas aid bill, 'at a stroke' (Whose memorable phrase was that?) if he can pull off the loaves and fishes job.