# A tricky grammar question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 24, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722 "2006-03-24T15:13:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/21 "2006-03-24T17:36:52Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > No newspaper should ever write that evidence collected by the police would convict somebody. That’s for a jury to decide. Prosecute is the right word. That’s not what the sentence says. It says that 1) the police **believe** it to be the case that the body of evidence (implied) they have regarding Person A’s involvement in Crime X is so strong, that 2) it would convict person A, if he were still alive. They are reporting an opinion held by the police. Of what jounalistic standard does that run afoul? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/22 "2006-03-24T17:47:02Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > But how far do we measure “getting tripped up”? I find it very jarring to read a sentence that begins with a modifier that then doesn’t agree with the subject, rearrange it all in my head, mini-rant about sloppy writing, and then carry on. Yes, I can take a moment to recast what’s written and figure out what is meant, but should I have to go through all that? > > And honestly, I still don’t feel the original sentence in the OP is clear. Fair enough; as I said, I didn’t find it jarring at all, and I had to read it a couple of times to see what anyone would find jarring about it. It required no mental rearrangement for me to understand it. I spent a few years working as a writing tutor, and so I became very familiar with poorly-worded sentences; it may have resulted in a higher tolerance for them :). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/23 "2006-03-24T18:25:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s not what the sentence says. It says that 1) the police **believe** it to be the case that the body of evidence (implied) they have regarding Person A’s involvement in Crime X is so strong, that 2) it would convict person A, if he were still alive. No, what you wrote is not what it says. It plainly says they believe they have **enough** evidence to **prosecute**. The word convict does not appear, nor is mention made of the strength of the evidence. You’re reading a lot into it that is not there at all. Having enough evidence to prosecute is not the same as getting a conviction (not by a long shot, otherwise there would never be a “not guilty” verdict), and believing there is enough evidence to prosecute is not the same as believing there will be a conviction. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/24 "2006-03-24T18:33:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s not what the sentence says. It says that 1) the police **believe** it to be the case that the body of evidence (implied) they have regarding Person A’s involvement in Crime X is so strong, that 2) it would convict person A, if he were still alive. > > They are reporting an opinion held by the police. Of what jounalistic standard does that run afoul? Actually, while **Magellan** is arguing a quite different question here, he’s hit on the solution to the execrable sentence. Transform it from > [@](#): > > “If constable X were alive, police believe they would have enough evidence to prosecute him for [crime X]” To > [@](#): > > Police believe that they have sufficient evidence that constable X could have been successfully prosecuted and convicted, if he were still alive. That remains slightly awkward owing to the need to convey contrary-to-factness in the infinitive, but ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/25 "2006-03-24T18:44:53Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Transform it [to] _Police believe that they have sufficient evidence that constable X could have been successfully prosecuted and convicted, if he were still alive._ ??? Why are you throwing in “successfully” and “convicted?” They don’t affect the clarity or grammatical correctness of the sentence, and they are not part of the original statement. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/26 "2006-03-24T18:55:20Z")
“Inspector Y stated, this morning, ‘We’d have nailed the wanker, but he died on us.’” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/27 "2006-03-24T19:13:59Z")
The sentence is grammatically fine. My only support for that claim is that it does not break any rule of grammar. I’d have to see what rule someone thinks it breaks before I could say any more about htat. The sentence _is_ ambiguous (which is not a grammar problem), but in almost any conversational context I can think of in which the sentence could be uttered, the ambiguity is easily and immediately resolved by reference to that context. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/28 "2006-03-24T19:42:24Z")
Convicted is nowhere in the original sentence. It shouldn’t be used, it shouldn’t be implied. Total red herring. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/29 "2006-03-24T21:26:15Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > “If constable X were alive, police believe they would have enough evidence to prosecute him for [crime X]” > > To me that says the police would only have had enough evidence had constable X lived – but the story makes clear that “enough evidence” has been collected nonetheless. But isn’t part of the evidence that the person to be prosecuted is alive? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/30 "2006-03-24T21:50:01Z")
A more common example of such an ambiguity: Suppose I’m at work on the last day before a vacation, and a co-worker says to me “If I don’t see you before then, have a nice trip”. To which I usually reply “And what if you do see me before then? Am I supposed to have a lousy trip in that case?”. Yes, all of the people I work with already know I’m a smart-alec. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/31 "2006-03-25T01:40:07Z")
> [@Gary T](#): > > Having enough evidence to prosecute is not the same as getting a conviction (not by a long shot, otherwise there would never be a “not guilty” verdict), and believing there is enough evidence to prosecute is not the same as believing there will be a conviction. You are right, I got too caught up in the sentence. I stand corrected. So, I submit: "“If constable X were alive, police believe they would be able to prosecute him for [crime X]” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/32 "2006-03-25T02:08:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > “Inspector Y stated, this morning, ‘We’d have nailed the wanker, but he died on us.’” “…he _up and_ died on us” is much more evocative. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/33 "2006-03-25T05:41:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, I submit: "“If constable X were alive, police believe they would be able to prosecute him for [crime X]” But in this sentence, you lose the information that their belief lies in their already possessing enough evidence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/34 "2006-03-25T06:41:13Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > But in this sentence, you lose the information that their belief lies in their already possessing enough evidence. I think it is safely implied. Why else would they believe they would be able to prosecute him? ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/35 "2006-03-25T11:25:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think it is safely implied. Why else would they believe they would be able to prosecute him? What I mean is that you lose the information the police **already** have the evidence, the alternative being the evidence would have relied on the constable being alive. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722/36 "2006-03-25T17:34:43Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > What I mean is that you lose the information the police **already** have the evidence, the alternative being the evidence would have relied on the constable being alive. But why would they believe such a thing? Obviously because they have some degree of evidence, enough for them to come to such an opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-tricky-grammar-question/349722.md?page=1)