Today's Rockford Register Star, "Illinois Roundup" section, featured this headline from Decatur, "Officer injured in foot chase". The article went on to explain that a Decatur police officer ran into a moving squad car while chasing a suspect on foot.
When I first read the headline, my initial thought was that a police officer was injured while being chased by a foot. Realizing that particular scenario was improbable and impossible, I decided to read a bit of the first paragraph, which was not much better written. The first sentence, presented in print layout as the first paragraph, gave details that could lead the reader to believe that a moving squad car was chasing a suspect on foot, when, in reality, a police officer was chasing the suspect on foot and, during the chase, ran into a moving squad car.
These are picayune points, but if I were a foreigner whose knowledge of the very complicated English language was weak, I would have a difficult time understanding the storyline and could be left utterly confused. Foreigner not withstanding, it was still confusingly written and I had to read the story slowly and carefully in order to comprehend what really happened.
Another article, in the same "Illinois Roundup" section, had a headline that could be taken in two ways. From Chicago, the headline read: "Mail carrier unhurt in armed robbery". Well, does the headline indicate that the mail carrier was injured while taking part in an armed robbery, or, does the headline indicate that the mail carrier was the victim of an armed robbery and suffered a subsequent injury?
Maybe I just read too much that "could" fall between the lines. Perhaps, the general public reads these headlines and understands quickly and completely what the gist of the headline means.
Mayhap, I am just too literal. What thinkest thou?
Ancora imparo
