Is this good grammar?

[jorgemtrevino]

English is not my native language so I'm not sure if the following sentence is all right.

«Flight Sergeant Worthington waited for Lambert. They walked without speaking to the aeroplane.»

In my humble opinion, and to my limited domain of the English language, this phrase seems to indicate that as they walked, they weren't speaking to the aeroplane. I would rephrase it to "They walked to the aeroplane without speaking." Is the other way around confuse just to me?

The author —Len Deighton– is English and when he wrote this novel (Bomber), he had published several books. He also mentions in the prologue that he used a word processor, albeit one of the first, and having a secretary/typist at his service.

So, either the sentence is correct although IMHO it can be improved in clarity or the proofreader simply did not care.

What gives?

Season's greetings!

Jorge (typing from Guadalajara & Uruapan, Mexico).

 

[sparkchaser]

I believe both sentences are correct, but your version looks/reads/sounds better.


Feliz Navidad!

 

[Peder]

I would say that it all depends on what the author wishes to emphasize, whether the fact that they were not speaking, or the fact that they were walking toward the airplane. Either way there would be a way to express the actions with the correct emphasis, either through additional punctuation or with additional wordiness or restructuring. The sentence as given is correct enough, though, not to confuse the reader (the main requirement) but doesn't really indicate the desired emphasis. I would say the fact that they were not talking appears to be the main point of the sentence because it is mentioned first. The fact that there is a humorous possibility buried in the sentence I would simply call graceless writing.

 

[jorgemtrevino]

Many thanks for the comments. It would be folly to misunderstand the sentence; I believe most people (sane people, that is) don't talk to their vehicles. ;-) However, it did sound ambiguous and compelled me to post the question.

English is a positional language, different from Spanish or -more so- German, where the auxiliary particles or correct punctuation can make the placement of the elements a matter of preference, something much recurred to and frequently abused by writers. In English, unless you place the elements carefully, you risk errors like the one posted. I think a comma was in order there but its absence evaded the proofreader attention.

I wonder if this is particular to the "e" version I'm reading or if the printed ones have this too.

Sometimes I've seen horrible mangling of books as they are converted to e-form —some Lee Child "Reacher" books among them– but not in the printed versions, which further puzzle me how come that something that surely was created with a computer and a word processor (nobody uses paper and pencil anymore, or an antique typewriter, do they?) can have such careless proofing.

I hope I'm not sounding fastidious; in real life I'm not, but do enjoy not only a good plot but the good putting of it into words and sentences. In sum, good writing.

Best,

Jorge.

 

[canuck]

I've noticed quite a few odd things in the e-books on my Kindle - words which are hyphenated where it isn't called for and ones which are spelled incorrectly or are totally wrong in the context they are placed. However, the convenience of the Kindle outweighs the odd error for me.

 

[Peder]

I've noticed quite a few odd things in the e-books on my Kindle - words which are hyphenated where it isn't called for and ones which are spelled incorrectly or are totally wrong in the context they are placed. However, the convenience of the Kindle outweighs the odd error for me.

I seem to be seeing more odd errors in published books too. Not many, but one or two per book, where someone was obviously sleeping or some spell/syntax checker made the wrong choice. Quality is going down across the board IMO.

 

[readsalot]

First version sounds like they were mad at the plain and refused to speak to it