Now we all are aware that either George Bush hasn’t quite mastered the English language yet, or his handlers may at least want to make us think that (just google any of the hundreds of “bushisms” sites ); I spotted a mere grammar mistake (not a whole mangled phrase for once), but an annoying one for the person in charge of the free world in the local (free) "amNewYork" newspaper on Sept. 5, when the President referred to people having “good paying jobs.”
WHY can’t people have good paying jobs?
Because “good” is an adjective and adjectives describe nouns or pronouns. So, yes, you can have a GOOD job. But “paying” is an adjective describing “job,” and “good” is an adjective modifying paying – which you can’t have. Adjectives don’t modify other adjectives: That’s the adverb’s department. So you have to have WELL-paying jobs. Or jobs that pay well. Or, avoiding the whole adjective-adverb quandary, jobs that pay a decent salary.
Question: Is it that Bush, educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard, WANTS to sound less polished so he purposely says stuff like that? Back when Bush went to elementary and prep school, grammar was still part of the curriculum. Is he flaunting his bad grasp of language to get back at his obviously polished parents? Does Bush think a folksy, ungrammatical charm is going to make him look better to the masses?
1 comment:
"Good-paying job," it seems to me, is perfectly good English. It means a job that offers good pay. Structurally, "good" is modifying the noun "pay," not the participial adjective "paying"; that's why it takes a hyphen. Additionally, "well-paying job" just doesn't sound idiomatic to me. Of course, for all the reasons you state, a person who holds a good-paying job is well paid...but that's a different story.
Post a Comment