In the course of reading Elizabeth Fernea's Guests of the Sheik (a lively account of a year in Iraq which anyone interested in life in the Shiite south should read), I came across the following sentence: "Probably it was a combination of particular circumstances, many of which I remained unaware, plus the fact that people were just becoming used to our presence." I instantly noticed that there was one "of" too few in the clause beginning "many of which...," but I wonder how many readers pass right over it? I suspect that my job as an editor may make me hypersensitive to the inner workings of syntax.
Posted by languagehat at June 24, 2004 10:24 PMI noticed the "missing" "of". I put "missing" in quotes because, had the sentence had that additional "of", I would "of" felt that sentence would have too many "of"'s.
Note: Use of British punctuation sequence by this American is intentional, as I like it better. Still, I'm afraid I've made a mess of the plural.
Posted by: Charles at June 25, 2004 12:14 AMI noticed it too; but then I'm also an editor. If it had read "of many of which I remained unaware" I would have felt it had too many "of"s. On the other hand, "many of which I remained unaware of" would also have left me uncomfortable. If I had been the copy editor, I would probably have suggested "many of which remained outside my awareness" or something of the sort!
Posted by: Jonathan Shaw at June 25, 2004 04:21 AMI didn't notice it at all, in fact, I had to go back over the sentence a couple more times to even see where the 'of' would have gone.
Posted by: emmling at June 25, 2004 05:27 AMI had to check back twice too.
(That's a grand book, you're right!)
Posted by: dale at June 25, 2004 08:53 AMIt jumped out at me, but then I'm a copy editor. It's an awkward sentence, no matter what. If I were editing it, I'd try to suggest something more graceful.
Posted by: Lin B at June 25, 2004 09:35 AMI noticed it right off -- & I'm a poet who hates editing. (Though I have the greatest respect for editors.)
Posted by: joseph duemer at June 25, 2004 07:47 PMI used to be a copywriter and mangler of executive prose into copy, and I noticed it. But I actually like it. It reminds me of poetry where a single word functions as both the end of one phrase and the start of another (unrelated) phrase.
Posted by: Matt at June 25, 2004 09:03 PMI give up, where's the extra "of"?????? Damned if I can spot it, or have you corrected it already?
Posted by: Michael Farris at June 26, 2004 02:04 AMI read the book too many years ago, it's really great.
Posted by: Michael Farris at June 26, 2004 02:05 AMOkay, I misread it's supposed to be too few of's, not too many. I'll shut up now.
Posted by: Michael Farris at June 26, 2004 03:21 AMI saw it instantly, too, and I'm Russian... Strange how they would let that go through, it's really quite an explicit mistake, isn't it? I would think it's the "many of" part which, to the author or the editor, seemed to render the other "of" redundant. :-)
Posted by: Gerard Rukenau at June 26, 2004 05:58 PMThe strength of English comes from the fact that it never cared about formal rules. In Russian, in French, etc... you can easily get lost in the sentence under construction. Fairly unfrequent event in English. The too-many/too-few of's problem would be typical for another language, and would translate an inadequacy of the language, the lack of means. Don't start that in English! Do you remember that ending a sentence with a preposition was a sin not that long time ago?
Posted by: bgmt at July 10, 2004 01:25 PM