Pedants' Paradise

[LMcD]

In a W H Smith at Euston Station a fortnight ago I noticed that there was a paperback offer which had a sticker on the relevant titles saying 'Buy one get one half price'.

I did one of those quick double takes. Surely that meant that the volume I picked up was half price? It seemed a good offer so I went up to the till and pointed to the sticker. However, the charming young girl behind the counter said I had to buy two books in order to qualify for the offer (as I expected all along, obviously). I reasonably argued that that wasn't what it said on the sticker.

I bought the book anyway as it was beginning to look like a Monty Python or Two Ronnies sketch and anyway I had a train to catch.

I'm surprised she didn't tell you to bog off!

[gurnemanz]

In a W H Smith at Euston Station a fortnight ago I noticed that there was a paperback offer which had a sticker on the relevant titles saying 'Buy one get one half price'.

I did one of those quick double takes. Surely that meant that the volume I picked up was half price? It seemed a good offer so I went up to the till and pointed to the sticker. However, the charming young girl behind the counter said I had to buy two books in order to qualify for the offer (as I expected all along, obviously). I reasonably argued that that wasn't what it said on the sticker.

I bought the book anyway as it was beginning to look like a Monty Python or Two Ronnies sketch and anyway I had a train to catch.

Nice line of argument, even if doomed not to convince, as you acknowledge. Along the same lines, Buy One Get One Free would mean: This Item Is Free.

[oddoneout]

The fact that in both examples "Buy one" appears first seems to me a pretty clear indication that, whatever the subsequent offer, it is dependent on that first monetary transaction. Saying "buy one and get/choose another free/half price" might clarify, but is more words/space on the promo material, and the BOGOF highlight wouldn't work.

[smittims]

I can imagine barristers licking their lips over the amount of time ,and fees, it would take to argue that one out in court if anyone tried it as a test case.

[vinteuil]

.
... in The Times this morning -

" How could Macron work with Jordan Bardella if elected French PM?"

So much wrong with this. The grammatical reading of this wd be that it would be Macron who was to be elected French PM. Even if we grit our teeth and accept that the subeditor who wrote this headline meant that it might be Bardella who wd be elected PM - no : the French Prime Minister is not 'elected' - he or she is 'appointed' by the President.

And to think that the Thunderer used to be the 'newspaper of record'. Under its current editor, a few hours from an election here, it is still having nauseating smear stories about Starmer and the Labour party...

.

[Padraig]

.
... in The Times this morning -

" How could Macron work with Jordan Bardella if elected French PM?"

So much wrong with this. The grammatical reading of this wd be that it would be Macron who was to be elected French PM. Even if we grit our teeth and accept that the subeditor who wrote this headline meant that it might be Bardella who wd be elected PM - no : the French Prime Minister is not 'elected' - he or she is 'appointed' by the President.

And to think that the Thunderer used to be the 'newspaper of record'. Under its current editor, a few hours from an election here, it is still having nauseating smear stories about Starmer and the Labour party...

.

Comprehensive dismissal of that headline and newspaper, M v, and what seems to be your regret for what was once proudly known as The Times of London.
But there might be consolation for you by contemplating a march by John Philip Sousa, The Thunderer. I mistakenly used to think it was in honour of the original Times, being so full of pride and pomp.

[kernelbogey]

'Battles of the Brits await' writes the Guardian of Wimbledon.
Can a thing await? There seems something wrong with this....

[gurnemanz]

'Battles of the Brits await' writes the Guardian of Wimbledon.
Can a thing await? There seems something wrong with this....

Meaning 3 of a dictionary definition I found is:

(transitive) To be in store for; to be ready or in waiting for.
Glorious rewards await the good in heaven; eternal suffering awaits mortal sinners in hell.

By that definition, the sentence would be OK in that the battles await us. The "something wrong" might be that a transitive verb is being used without an object.

[french frank]

By that definition, the sentence would be OK in that the battles await us. The "something wrong" might be that a transitive verb is being used without an object.

Looking through the various examples, I feel the 'something wrong' may be grammatically possible but the usage is archaic.

[kernelbogey]

Looking through the various examples, I feel the 'something wrong' may be grammatically possible but the usage is archaic.

It also seems - for want of a better expression - anthropomorphic, in that the battles, i.e. tennis matches, cannot have thoughts or feelings about the outcomes.

But perhaps FF is right, and 'Battles of the Brits await us' would have been better.

[vinteuil]

'Battles of the Brits await' writes the Guardian of Wimbledon.
..

... not to be confused with the Times of London

.

[kernelbogey]

... not to be confused with the Times of London

.

[french frank]

... not to be confused with the Times of London

Or even the Manchester Guardian???

[Old Grumpy]

Or even the Manchester Guardian???

Reminds me of Brian Redhead - he always used this terminology on the Today programme.

Recently found a nice book by him on National Parks in the second hand stall at Elgar Birthplace Museum

[Pulcinella]

A rather odd headline in the Independent makes it sound as if Starmer and the PM are two different people:

Starmer faces union backlash as PM puts mortgages before public sector pay