On the observing of the Observer of the observers

[j4]

"Health groups said they were concerned the government could be using the consultation exercise to placate rebel MPs who oppose its plan to exclude pubs that don't serve food from a ban on smoking in public places." (Observer, 4/12/05, "Age limit for cigarettes may rise to 18")

Okay, maybe this is just me, but it took me about six reads of all those double negatives to work out who the hell wasn't refraining from not doing what to everybody but whom. Of which.

Comments

[classytart.livejournal.com]

"Fine" as in grammatical, and logical (technically correct), if non-standard, English.

Written down I'd assume it was dialect, though spoken I would probably assume they'd mentally switched what you do with curtains or a window with what you do to an electric light.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a well-formed English sentence (like "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously"), but I'm not sure what you mean by "technically correct". I don't really want to get into the whole Standard English debate, or philosophical questions of what is "correct" and what is not, but a) I doubt that you'll find an attestation of that particular usage in any English dictionary, and b) I suspect a lot of readers/listeners wouldn't immediately know what it meant without context. (This is not a moral judgement on that turn of phrase or on people who may use it.)

[classytart.livejournal.com]

I mean technically as in "the technology is".

[j4.livejournal.com]

Ah, right. You seemed to be arguing that it was perfectly fine and normal English usage, which was somewhat confusing.

[classytart.livejournal.com]

Oh, no. It's clearly non-standard, I just rather like it. And apart from being non-standard I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Well, apart form language existing to communicate, and some not understanding it. But that's true of some words I use fairly often, so I only half want to think about that angle. :)