5 ms·
[...] For three days, dozens of that man’s family members had sat at his bedside in the hospital [...] The next day, the man with all the family visitors died.
by DenisM 7y ago
[...] For three days, dozens of that man’s family members had sat at his bedside in the hospital [...] The next day, the man with all the family visitors died. [...]
So I am not easily impressed, but this freaked me out for a second. Just to be clear - one man had died on that day, not dozens of people. Sheesh.
I suppose there's some valuable comma somewhere in that sentence, or absence thereof, that should have kept me on the even keel? Or did they just did that on purpose?
I would have written it off as just another error, but I am having hard time accepting that The New Yorker would let that slip through by accident.
- NotSammyHagar 7y agoI don't see it as ambiguous but I see what you are referring to.
- uranusjr 7y agoAsking as a non-native speaker, how would you write this sentence instead? I tried but cannot produce any syntactically correct alternative better than this.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago"For three days, dozens of his family members sat at his bedside in the hospital. The next day he died." Still a little awkward but not bending the language to the breaking point. Pretty sad considering New Yorker's editorial prowess.
- maxerickson 7y agoThe next day, when the patient in his 50's died, Reido's thoughts immediately went to the dozens of visitors the man had in the previous days.
- mlyle 7y agoThe man, who had had all the visitors, died. The frequently-visited man died. The day after he'd had all the visitors, he died.
- DenisM 7y ago> The man, who had had all the visitors, died. I think that's just it. I'd add the word "family" in there, to make the connection stronger: The man, who had had all the family visitors, died.