Is this grammatically correct?

[Monkeyleg]

There's been radio ads running for quite some time by a company that's been lobbying the state legislature to allow more than one cable company to operate in Wisconsin.

In the ads, the narrator says, "Wisconsin should have a real choice to cable."

Is that sentence correct grammatically? I realize that they probably can't name Time Warner for some legal reasons, so they can't say "Wisconsin should have a real alternative to Time Warner." But the way it's being said right now sounds clunky.

[zahc]

There is no such thing as 'grammatically correct'. Especially not in english.

[Brad Johnson]

It's correct only if they are using cable as a verb.  But why anyone would choose to cable instead of calling or e-mailing is beyond me...

Brad

[cosine]

The question reminds me of something zahc posted once: "English got where it is today by following other languages down dark alleys, hitting them over the head and going through their pockets for loose grammar."

I saved it because for some reason I found it funny.

[K Frame]

No, it's not correct.

While I'm not sure of the context of the sentence, my initial rewrite would be "Wisconsin residents (or Wisconsinites) should have real cable choices"





"There is no such thing as 'grammatically correct'. Especially not in english."

Grammatically correct, but functionally wrong.

[The Rabbi]

There is definitely correct and incorrect grammar in English.
This is grmmatically correct.  The usage is a problem.
The way it is written it sounds like "cable" is a verb (which it can be) and that Wisconsoners (whatever the adj is) are being denied their choice to cable or not to cable.
Better would have been:
Wisconsin should have a real alternative to cable.

[Tallpine]

to cable or not to cable, that is the question 


Wouldn't
"Wisconsin should have a real choice of cable TV providers."
be a clear alternative?

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for the laugh, Cosine. I'll have to remember that.

The sentence from the ad just struck me as weird. What's even weirder is that the company paid a professional copywriter to write that sentence.

Tallpine, I suspect that adding words would mean adding time, which means going over the 30 second limit on the ad, which means going over budget.

[tyme]

Is that grammatical problem a peculiarity mostly confined to Asian ESL (ETL) speakers?  I recall one particular line from Replacement Killers: "I want forged documents... to China."  I'm sure I've heard it elsewhere, although I can't document it.

"To" meaning "for."

[Bob F.]

I've gotta figure out how to use the "quote" thingy! The problem is maybe the "professional copywriters" weren't Anglos!! Hell, half the Anglos can't speak English!

Bob

PS: There's precious little on TV anyway!

[K Frame]

The biggest problem for the sentence, at least in a grammar stand point, is that it's giving the impression that an inanimate object, Wisconsin, is capable of making an informed, intelligent, decision. Wisconsin is a place, it's not a living being. Wisconsinites are people, living in Wisconsin. As such, they CAN make a choice.

That's grammar error number one.

Error number two is "to cable." That's an oppositional statement, contrasting one against the other. But Monkey says that the campaign is to allow other cable providers in the state, so there's no opposition (cable vs. FIOS, cable vs. satellite, etc.).


Rabbi,

Your reconstruct would be correct if it were a campaign to allow other non-cable TV providers into the state, but the campaign isn't asking for an alternative to cable, it's asking for more cable choice.



Tyme,

""I want forged documents... to China."

Well, there's another way of reading that... He could be requesting forged documents (travel statements, tickets, visa, passport, etc.) that would allow him to travel to China.

Somewhat sloppy and quite colloquial (sp?), but I think that most people would understand the context just fine.

[Perd Hapley]

The biggest problem for the sentence, at least in a grammar stand point, is that it's giving the impression that an inanimate object, Wisconsin, is capable of making an informed, intelligent, decision. Wisconsin is a place, it's not a living being. Wisconsinites are people, living in Wisconsin.

Mike,

Is it not a long recognized practice in English (and probably other languages) to use a place name as representative of its inhabitants?


Edited for punctuation.   

[K Frame]

"Is it not a long recognized practice in English (and probably other languages) to use a place name as representative of its inhabitants?"

Maybe in some parts of the country.

But when I hear people around here speaking about the entire populace of the state, it's always Virginians or Pennsylvanias, or Communists.... er... I meant Marylanders...

[Perd Hapley]

So, you never hear people say, "America needs single-payer healthcare," or "Hicksville needs a mayor with integrity," and so forth? 

[K Frame]

So, you never hear people say, "America needs single-payer healthcare," or "Hicksville needs a mayor with integrity," and so forth? 

I didn't say I didn't hear it. I said what I hear around here, hence my statement about "some parts of the country." It's a colloquialism.

I also contend that it is grammatically incorrect.

[The Rabbi]

So, you never hear people say, "America needs single-payer healthcare," or "Hicksville needs a mayor with integrity," and so forth? 

I didn't say I didn't hear it. I said what I hear around here, hence my statement about "some parts of the country." It's a colloquialism.

I also contend that it is grammatically incorrect.

It isn't a question of grammar at all but usage.  And using the name of the region to stand for its inhabitants is universal.  Thus, Germany declared war on the U.S.  Georgia went for Eisenhower, Russia invaded Afghanistan, etc etc ad nauseam.  And that's pretty universal in any English-speaking country.

[Tallpine]

Well, I can tell you that figuring out the pronouns in another language can be quite daunting.  Just because "to" can be translated to do or gu for instance, doesn't mean that you can always use them in the exact same ways that you use "to."

[Len Budney]

There's been radio ads running for quite some time by a company that's been lobbying the state legislature to allow more than one cable company to operate in Wisconsin.

In the ads, the narrator says, "Wisconsin should have a real choice to cable."

Ah, the penny just dropped. They're using "cable" to mean "the cable industry," as in, "The cable industry should have more than one choice to it." That's almost grammatical, but not: for the preposition to work, either "cable" needs to be the subject of the sentence, as in my version, or else the passive voice must be used, as in, "There should be more than one choice to cable." The latter would be confusing but grammatical. In their version, Wisconsin is the subject, and the active voice is used, so it fails to parse.

--Len.

[Sergeant Bob]

I've gotta figure out how to use the "quote" thingy!
Bob

To use the little "quote" thingy, you just click on the little "quote" thingy.
Live dangerously, give it a try!

[longeyes]

There is no such thing as 'grammatically correct'. Especially not in english.

Well, since America became a reality tv program instead of nation able to think and communicate, that may be true.

[Hawkmoon]

There is no such thing as 'grammatically correct'. Especially not in english.

The first period should be inside the quotation marks, not following.

[Modifiedbrowning]

Is that sentence correct grammatically?

No.

[Monkeyleg]

Modifiedbrowning, I think your post was not only the most grammatically correct, but also the most succinct.

[Harold Tuttle]

Slogans are not engineered to be grammatically correct,
they are built and focus group tested to be memorable.

The fact that this chestnut has spawned a forum thread,
proves that the meme is highly functional.