Normally wouldn’t start a thread over something mundane (cough cough wrong thread? cough) as grammar nazi stuff, but considering it’s a question about something where you don’t often see slip-ups in that kinda publication…
Maybe it’s legit and I’m off in calling this a dangling participle?..
From George Saunders’s “Trump Days” article (July 11 & 18, p. 57)…
"I looked over to find Danny shouting at us that Hillary was going to prison, not the White House. I waved to him, but he didn’t seem to see me, hidden there in the crowd of his own adversaries.
I bolded the ending…is “me” inaccurately attributed to “the crowd of his own adversaries”?
Danny didn’t see you. He was looking in your general direction, but you were hidden in a crowd of Danny’s adversaries.
I’m not seeing the problem here. “Hidden there in the crowd of his own adversaries” is an adjectival phrase qualifying “me”, but the pronoun “his” clearly refers back to “he”, not to “me”.
It’s ambiguous (is that not a stylistic fault on the New Yorker anyway?), but the phrase “his own adversaries” suggests that the intention was to indicate that Danny, rather than the speaker, was hidden - in which case the OP is right.
No. Again, the sentence is perfectly correct. The context in which it appears unambiguously establishes the meaning:
Once, after what felt like a transcendent and wide-ranging conversation with a Trump supporter named Danny (a former railroad worker, now on disability), I said a fond goodbye and went to interview some Hillary supporters across the street. A few minutes later, I looked over to find Danny shouting at us that Hillary was going to prison, not the White House. I waved to him, but he didn’t seem to see me, hidden there in the crowd of his adversaries.
The participial phrase “hidden there in the crowd of his adversaries” should logically refer to the immediately preceding noun, “me”, the writer. As indeed it does. The writer, having crossed the street to join the Hillary group, was now amongst Danny’s adversaries. He waved to Danny, but Danny couldn’t see him.
Not just correct, but good, clear writing. It’s the New Yorker.
I’m sorry, I don’t agree. It is, at best, ambiguous. It is certainly bad writing as I misread it and was puzzled why Danny was in a crowd of his adversaries. Only the context makes it make sense.
You are right. “His own” makes me think of reflexive verbs in French (I’m not sure if “reflexive” technically applies here). If the sentence contains the phrase “hidden among his own adversaries”, this must mean, regardless of context, that the (male) person hidden is among his adversaries. Not that the person he didn’t see is hidden among them. Get rid of the “own” and you can argue it, although it is then still ambiguous.
I can see the problem but I’m not sure what it is. If the sentence read “I waved to him, but he didn’t seem to see me, hidden there in the crowd,” it would not present any problems. If the phrase “hidden there in the crowd of his adversaries,” was added to describe the crowd again no problem. But what purpose does the word “own” achieve? Is it to contrast this group with a group of someone else’s adversaries? Even wolfpup in praising the writing leaves the word out.
It’s funny that, when you quote the sentence you say is perfectly correct and clear, you omit the very word that PatrickLondon highlights as the problem.
I agree on what you’ve quoted, but, as I said the OP’s version has “his own”, which is what created ambiguity in my mind. As you quote it, you’re absolutely right.
I even checked the New Yorker archives of the print edition, and it was identical to the online article.
For the reasons cited and in conformance with any possible rational rules of grammar, “hidden there in the crowd of his adversaries” should and does refer to “me”, the writer. “Him” clearly refers to the Trump supporter Danny, and whether you refer to the opposition crowd on the other side of the street as “his adversaries” or “his own adversaries” makes no difference to the meaning. I would use the added “own” if I wanted to emphasize a sort of mild irony in the fact that Danny couldn’t see me because the very people he was so opposed to were so numerous that I was no longer distinguishable in the crowd. Other than this nuance of meaning, there is no difference, and the New Yorker is, as it almost always is, correct and clear in its writing.
Well, the thread title seemed to suggest that the discussion was all about the New Yorker getting it wrong. But besides the OP misquote, I maintain that the addition of the emphasizing adjective makes no difference to the grammatical correctness or the meaning. Both versions are just fine.
Your English skills are severely lacking. There is no substantive difference between “I drove here in my car” versus “I drove here in my own car” except in emphasis. The only thing that would substantively change the meaning of the above-quoted statement is substituting “my” for “his”. To me the New Yorker statement reads naturally and clearly with or without the “own”, though on reflection I would omit the word simply because it doesn’t add anything useful.
Again I think the addition of “own” changes the meaning. “I drove here in my car,” would be an appropriate response to, “How did you get here?” Not so much with the latter construction which would more appropriately answer, “Whose car did you drive here?”
I see that my effort to dig up the actual correct New Yorker text to resolve this stupid argument (you’re welcome) have come to naught, and this will digress into the inevitable bickering on completely unrelated matters. Sigh!
No, you are wrong, and you’re wrong with respect to what “meaning” is as a method of communicating information. “I drove here in my car” and “I drove here in my own car” have the same meaning, and if you doubt that, consider what the meaning of “my” is and ask a judge how he would determine the two sentences to have different meanings if submitted as testimony in a murder trial. There is only a difference in emphasis. “I drove here in my car” emphasizes a means of transportation, “I drove here in my own car” adds emphasis to the ownership aspect, the sort of thing one might expect from a teenager who just acquired his own car and driver’s license and wishes to stress the fact, but the meaning is substantively the same. As opposed, say, to “I drove here in the victim’s car”.
So:
The actual New Yorker text was grammatically correct and clear.
The misquote with “own” mistakenly inserted would still be correct, but the word wouldn’t add any useful meaning.
It sounds fine to me. The “own” just makes it emphatic to me, you’re underscoring your ownership of a car. For example, if you’re a proud new owner of your first automobile, you might respond with an enthusiastic “I drove here in my own car” to the first sentence. Or perhaps if you and your wife share a couple vehicles, but one is really hers and one is yours, you might say “I drove here in my own car” to disambiguate the communal property. The meaning of the two sentences is essentially the same, the “own” just underscores the ownership.
