Job Discussion Forums

[Chancellor]

This was a recent newspaper article:


A sixth-grader at John F. Kennedy Middle School in Cheektowaga is recovering from scalp lacerations he suffered Monday when he was struck by the mirror of a school bus. The boy was crossing William Street in front of Theodore Roosevelt Elementary School around 4 p.m. Monday when the mirror of the Laidlaw bus struck his head, according to Cheektowaga police. The boy was taken to Women & Children's Hospital.

The school bus mirror struck the boy? The boy was just trying to cross the street: What reason could the mirror possibly have for assaulting this youngster?

I suspect that what really happened was either the boy was crossing the street and he bumped his head on the mirror, or the driver put the bus in motion and struck the boy with the mirror.

Unless there is some new technological advance in school bus mirrors, they're still inanimate objects and, so, are incapable of carrying out any kind of action.

It really does make a difference where you put the verbs.

[VanKen]

[Chancellor]

[rusmeister]

From the story you can't tell if the bus was in motion or not.

If not, you are right, Chancellor, but the article is ambiguous on that.

[Chancellor]

[RyanS]

Im all for having the language follow the rules of the majority rather than the rules on paper! Long live Slang, phrases and expanding usages of words!

[spiral78]

I agree with Chancellor. In this case, I can't understand what the writer meant - so regardless of majority rule, the piece is badly written.
Was the bus moving? Did the kid fall against the mirror? Who knows??
(Well, I suppose, who cares, either, in light of more pressing issues for most of us, but still, it's passingly interesting). You would think that the average journalist would be able to write more clearly.