Dogbert the Ungrammatical
Today's Dilbert made me laugh but I found the second panel ungrammatical.
The antecedant of the plural "them" is the singular "every part of your body".
Secondly, when I checked with my sister Jenni she pointed out the use of "would" in that panel doesn't sound right either. It implies the existence of the procedure is hypothetical, which is not how it is presented in the first panel.
The "would" might just be a difference between Australian English and American English but it could also be a subtle slip up because the procedure is, in fact, hypothetical.
The "them" is, however, just plain ungrammatical as far as I can tell.
Comments (7)
Jim on May 24, 2005:
The "them" still seems wrong, though. Call it poetic license.
Jim on May 24, 2005:
The "them" still seems wrong, though. Call it poetic license.
James Tauber on May 24, 2005:
Either that or something like "were this procedure to exist..." would clarify the use of "would".
Without either, it sounds odd to my ears, although it's more stylistic than ungrammatical. "Them", on the other hand, really jumps out at me.
anonymous on May 24, 2005:
Allan on May 25, 2005:
James Tauber on May 25, 2005:
Add a Comment
Last Modified: May 23, 2005
Author: jtauber
sake on May 24, 2005: