Properly Worded?

[Ken4155]

In today's Sunday Express, on page 6, above a series of photographs of some of the victims of the downed plane, sits the heading, "Tragic faces of Britons who died on downed jet." Should that not read "Faces of tragic Britons........."?

[bookbinder]

Yes, Ken, it should be worded as you suggest. It's a simple mistake, but it does stand out. You can join my club of newspaper error spotters, if you like!

[Zacs-Master]

Yes.

[boxtops]

Yes, and this sort of things happen a lot. Large ladies' handbag, e.g. - no, a lady's large handbag.....

[Ken4155]

Oh i dunno, boxtops, i've seen quite a few large ladies with handbags:-).

bookbinder; i wouldn't normally have commented on it but, as no-one else had, i had started to wonder if i had got it wrong. Or am i the only one on here who reads the SE:-)

[boxtops]

It might just be that we have got so used to this sloppy order of words, that we don't comment on it any more :-(

[Zacs-Master]

'Become' instead of 'got' surely?

[bookbinder]

You don't have to read only the Sunday Express to see errors. Some papers don't seem to proofread their articles properly. And ... nobody has commented because:
a) nobody cares;
or;
b) nobody knows enough about grammar to spot such errors.

[shoota]

'Gotted'

[ichkeria]

I can't see that it makes much difference either way.
Both expressions are examples of trite journalese.

"Large lady's handbag" is ambiguous, not wrong. i.e. it can equally mean the handbag of a large lady or a lady's handbag that's large.

[Farriercm]

I wish those poor souls were still alive, who is bothered about PC UK ?
I hope the grieving relatives do not read this petty unimportant post

[Baldric]

Ken @ 1514, hardly a subject for humour imo!