Doesn't anyone read the copy for grammar?
Quote:
|
As we mentioned in our 2014 Corvette Stingray coupe First Look, Chevrolet considered a twin-turbo V-6 because, while it had enough power, it didn’t improve fuel economy.
|
You don't consider a V6 because "while it had enough power, it didn't improve fuel economy". That's a grammatical faux pas big enough to drive a truck through. Competent usage of the English language is fading from the grasp of the masses. ya no wut ahm sayin, boee?
You consider it because it has
enough power, or some other positive attribute.
You could decide
against it because "while it had enough power, it didn't improve fuel economy". You could even "consider it, but then decide against it". Any logic to that effect would be understandable. If this was someone who spoke English as a second language, that would be understandable, but that doesn't seem to be the case, judging by the rest of the article. This is how some native English speakers in the USA formulate concepts these days.
Pidgeon English is just around the corner. It will be a language option in the settings of your see-through, flexible, iPad 12.
"For common English, press 1. For old fashioned English where everyone knew how to read and write competently, press 2"
Evidently, automotive jouranalists today think a document is ok if it passes spell check.
Maybe I'm a bit nerdy, but it's undeniably f'd up to write like that in a national magazine.