[gotostatement]

okay this is amazing. but wtf is this sentence?

"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."

[hn_version_0023]

The NY Times prides itself on its 5th grade reading level.

[freyr]

The problem is that it’s worded in a confusing way, not that it’s “dumbed-down” for a general audience.

[coolso]

Trash talk the Times however you see fit and I'll probably back you up on it (they are laughably liberally/"progressive"ly biased, and continuing to run cover for the current administration as best they can despite it not really working as per the polls), their writing standards are, in my opinion, impeccable and a standout among news organizations, but I suppose not everyone can be perfect always.

[hn_version_0023]

I was joking, of course. I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with their writing standards — but its fun to poke fun! We all make mistakes!

[hackerfromthefu]

Sentence, long

[brimble]

David Foster Wallace loved to repeat the object (edit: or subject, depending on usage) after "which" practically every time he employed that word, which technique is usually overkill, but in this case writing it "[...] which company many union leaders regard [...]" would have helped a lot.

[silicon2401]

is there a name for this grammatical construction? it's one of my favorites in English but I have no idea what it's called. I also wonder if younger readers nowadays would even be familiar with it unless they enjoy reading older literature, as I almost never see it in modern writing.

[brimble]

Lemme see if Garner's Modern English Usage names it...

Well, for one thing, the section on "which" begins: "This word, used immoderately, is possibly responsible for more bad sentences than any other in the language" :-)

Ah, it refers me to a more relevant section for this construction, "Remote Relatives". Checking that.

"Antecedent" and "relative clause" are relevant terms, meaning the word to which "which" refers, and the clause containing "which", respectively, but I can't find a name for specifying the antecedent after "which", in this text. Actually, on a skim, I didn't even see that presented as an option.

[EDIT] Incidentally, it appears the Times usage is correct, anyway, if still ill-advised—the antecedent should be the closest possible candidate before the relative clause, so "[...] Amazon, which [...]" is correct.

[dionidium]

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be suggesting:

"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which Amazon many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."

But that's absolutely terrible, so you must be suggesting something else.

[brimble]

> "[...] which company many union leaders regard [...]"

Ergo:

No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which company many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them

[EDIT] I also intentionally used the construction in my original post: "[...] which technique is usually overkill [...]". The usage there, unlike in the Times sentence, was actually necessary since the antecedent was too far removed. The original Times sentence was correct, but splitting it up or specifying the antecedent would remove the possibility of a reader being confused by thinking the Times writer wasn't, correctly, using "which" to refer to the closest antecedent ("Amazon") but instead to something earlier in the first clause ("first win").

On looking closer, I think it's the construction of that first clause that makes the "which" read like it might have been employed incorrectly, when it was (technically, kind of) not. "first win in the United States at Amazon". The "at" makes "Amazon" seem heavily dependent on "first win in the United States", so it still looks like "which" might point at "first win", not "Amazon".

[dionidium]

That's obviously what you wrote, so I don't know why I replaced "company" with "Amazon" in my head. That's definitely better. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for not biting my head off where I deserved it.

[brimble]

Of course, minor misreading doesn't deserve a head-biting-off! Happens to everyone. And you weren't a dick about it, anyway, so it wasn't a big deal.

[Maximus9000]

That's a textbook run-on sentence.

[bawolff]

I don't think its a run-on at all, let alone a text book one.

[Maximus9000]

It should be broken into two sentences

Original: "No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."

Sentence 1: No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon.

Sentence 2: Many union leaders regard Amazon as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them.

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/run...

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

"Run-on" has an actual textbook definition. This sentence is very long and clunky, and should probably be broken into two sentences for readability, but it's not a run-on.

To illustrate, this would be a run-on:

No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, many union leaders regard Amazon as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them.

[sam0x17]

Pretty sure OP is confused by the concept of "first win" being the object of the first clause. It feels clunky if you don't read your English like you would read algebra.

[brimble]

It's definitely not. People have just gotten used to very short and simple sentences, these days. Some would call a high percentage of all sentences written before, I dunno, 1970, run-on sentences, plus a good deal of the writing in contemporary but non-general-audience publications.

[xmsam]

It's not a run-on, which by definition has two or more independent clauses in the same sentence that are not separated by either (1) punctuation such as a semicolon, colon, or em dash, or (2) a comma plus a coordinating conjunction. The first clause is independent (i.e. it can stand alone as a complete sentence), while the second clause is relative.

[akhmatova]

Then you'd do great writing for the Times.

[scoot]

What seems to be the problem?

[k1t]

I assume it's because you could read it as: the union leaders view this big union victory as an existential threat to labor standards.

(When instead they view Amazon as the existential threat)

[dfxm12]

I disagree that any reasonable person could read it that way. It's totally impossible to come to that conclusion with the context of the article. Even out of context, it makes no sense that union leaders would feel a union victory is an existential threat to labor standards.

[brimble]

There are multiple things in the first part of the sentence that "which" could denote. "Amazon" is what's intended. You could fix this by breaking up the sentence, or by specifying what you mean after "which" ("which company").

[pessimizer]

They're trying to sneak in an opinion that they're ascribing to "many union leaders" for the sake of their narrative, but they couldn't find anyone who actually said it like that. The NYT do it so often and obviously that it must be in the style guide.

Not said by the NYT: "[Amazon is] an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."

The previous was actually said by Mr. Many U. Leaders who I can't locate a phone number for.

[KoftaBob]

They Don't Think It Be Like It Is, But It Do

[stjohnswarts]

That's someone who doesn't want to use short sentences, and an editor who wants to watch the world burn.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Elements of Style says to place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause.

[selfhifive]

It's a feel good sentence. Both pro-union and anti-union people can agree with it.

[htrp]

copy editor fell asleep

[yearly]

That sentence is fine