No dangling allowed

Comes now defendant Tracy Sears of WTVR TV before this session of the Language Court.

Defendant Sears is accused of breaking the English language law against dangling modifiers.

The court must observe that the law exists for good reason. Break it, and one can say something very different from what one means. As an aside, the court must observe that dangling modifiers often make people laugh.

The court draws from its lengthy experience to provide an example of a modifier that dangles outrageously: Turning blue, the chicken wing was stuck in my friend's throat.

Dangling modifiers switch meaning around because they cling tenaciously to the nearest noun that follows. In the example above, the modifier, "Turning blue," demands that it be allowed to grab hold of the closest noun, "chicken." But the court observes that it is not, in fact, the chicken that is turning blue. What the speaker should have said is, "My friend was turning blue because he had a chicken wing stuck in his throat."

The court in its summary judgment turns now to the accusation of battery of the language to be adjudicated in this case -- a risible example, to be sure. On Sept. 26, defendant Sears was voicing a story for the 6 p.m. newscast about Chesterfield school renovations. The record is undisputed on what she said:

Built in 1968 and last renovated 25 years ago, parent Sally Bowles knows Providence Middle School could use a makeover. [The court has changed the name to protect the innocent.]

Then defendant Sears repeated the breach an hour later on the 7 p.m. newscast.

Sally Bowles was not built in 1968. And the court takes judicial notice that whether Sally needs a 25-year makeover is between her and her fashion adviser.

What the defendant should have said was, "Parent Sally Bowles knows that Providence Middle School needs a makeover. The school was built in 1968 and was last renovated 25 years ago."

Pesky things, those dangling modifiers.

The court once had a professor in college who used to say that facts are far too important to be left in the hands of those who write and speak sloppily.

The Language Court verdict in this case: Guilty. The defendant will therefore study the following web page and write for the court a short essay summarizing what she learns: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/597/1/

Next case, please.