=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  EDline Vol. 8, no. 46   (28 April 2003)

  Editorial mailing list (digest version)
  Published by the Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Contents:

         Q & A
  [2xy]  Sentence structuring

  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


---[2]-- Q & A --------------------------------------------------

         Date: Sun, 27 April 2003
         From: Dene Bebbington, d_bebbington@onetel.net.uk

On Ceefax today there ws a news item which started out with the
following paragraph:

  British passports could have a computer chip added with
  "biometric" information about the holder within two years - 
  but they will cost #19 more to renew.

Is the definition "within two years" placed correctly in the
sentence? To me it would have been clearer if written:

  "Within two years British passports..."

Also, shouldn't they have used "containing" rather than with
"with"? Maybe they did that due to space constraints with Ceefax.


         ------------------------
         Date: Sun, 27 April 2003
         From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com

Yes to both (and a comma after "years"). But "with" is clear
enough for government work.

(Will these passports cost extra only to *renew*, or will it also
be more expensive to get one if it's your very first passport?
The way it's phrased, it seems to assume everyone is virtually
born with a passport--am I missing something?)


         ------------------------
         Date: Sun, 27 April 2003
         From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com

Dene Bebbington wrote:

> Is the definition "within two years" placed correctly in the
> sentence? ... Also, shouldn't they have used "containing"
> rather than with "with"?

The answer to both questions is "journalese". You see similar
things in advertisements.

"British passports" has been put first partly because it's the
true subject, and partly to grab the reader.

"With" is shorter than "containing". Journalists are very
strongly encouraged to use short, strong, words, even if the
meaning is strained. For example "claim" for "allege".


         ------------------------
         Date: Sun, 27 April 2003
         From: Dene Bebbington, d_bebbington@onetel.net.uk

Judy Stein wrote:

> (Will these passports cost extra only to *renew*, or will it
> also be more expensive to get one if it's your very first
> passport? The way it's phrased, it seems to assume everyone is
> virtually born with a passport--am I missing something?)

I think there's more paperwork involved when applying for one's
first passport, but the cost may well be the same as for a
renewal. The article does go on to explain that the cost of the
new passports would be 52 quid instead of 33 quid for the current
type. We aren't given a passport automatically, which is a shame
because life would be easier if we did!

I'm not sure what the point of a computer chipped passport would
be, most times I've ever been abroad and come back through
passport control people's passports aren't properly checked -
usually you have to do little more than wave it opened to the
page with your photo.

Anyway, that slightly ambiguous paragraph is just one example of
what I've encountered a few times recently in news items -
whether written or verbal.


  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  END OF EDline 8.46

  Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm >

  ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those
  of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect
  the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. **

  Articles (c) 2002--2003, by individual contributors
  Design (c) 1996--2003 Iain Brown
  Compilation (c) 2003 Iain Brown / The Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=