Hullo, sweetie!
Did the Nation's Newspaper of Record simply not get the message about what happens when you cross your own timeline?
Ms. Martinez de Luco likes to cite a biblical passage from Leviticus in which Jesus tells farmers to leave some fallen grain behind for the needy.
Sunday's correction:
An article in some editions last Sunday about Ana Martinez de Luco, a Catholic nun who runs a can and bottle redemption center in Brooklyn, paraphrased incorrectly from a passage in Leviticus that she likes to cite. It is God, not Jesus, who tells farmers to leave some fallen grain behind for the needy.
It will be noted by Friends of the Loyal Order of the Passive Voice how much better the offending paragraph sounds now:
Ms. Martinez de Luco likes to cite a biblical passage from Leviticus in which farmers are told to leave some fallen grain behind for the needy.
The sourcing is pretty clear in the original, but I still like the way the object is fronted here.
Should the wise editor go after "biblical" as a Needless Word here -- on grounds that anyone who's gotten this far into a Times story about a nun already has a pretty good idea that Leviticus is somewhere in the Bible? Sure. But at least we can be grateful that the Times didn't call it a Gospel passage.
Ms. Martinez de Luco likes to cite a biblical passage from Leviticus in which Jesus tells farmers to leave some fallen grain behind for the needy.
Sunday's correction:
An article in some editions last Sunday about Ana Martinez de Luco, a Catholic nun who runs a can and bottle redemption center in Brooklyn, paraphrased incorrectly from a passage in Leviticus that she likes to cite. It is God, not Jesus, who tells farmers to leave some fallen grain behind for the needy.
It will be noted by Friends of the Loyal Order of the Passive Voice how much better the offending paragraph sounds now:
Ms. Martinez de Luco likes to cite a biblical passage from Leviticus in which farmers are told to leave some fallen grain behind for the needy.
The sourcing is pretty clear in the original, but I still like the way the object is fronted here.
Should the wise editor go after "biblical" as a Needless Word here -- on grounds that anyone who's gotten this far into a Times story about a nun already has a pretty good idea that Leviticus is somewhere in the Bible? Sure. But at least we can be grateful that the Times didn't call it a Gospel passage.
Labels: corrections, NYT
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home