It's an epidemic. And we're not immune here in the Beehive State.
Check out this double-whammy from the Deseret News. It wasn't enough that the photo caption read "For the second year in a year..." - which is a feat of chronological contortionism - but the lead sentence begins with a construction that's nearly as bad: "For the second year in a row..."
Sorry to break this to you, Deseret News, but two items do not make a "row." Three in a row, yes. Two in a row? Nope. That would be, "For the second year running..." or "For the second consecutive year.." or even "For the second straight year..." But...NO ROWS FOR YOU! Not until you have three items or more.
UPDATE: And......they did it again!
How in the world could two items not constitute a 'row'?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking, Tyler!
ReplyDeleteIf you check the dictionary, "row" is defined as "a number of items in a line." Dig a little deeper and you'll find "a number of" defined as "several." Nobody correctly defines "two" as "several." Two things are simply not enough to constitute a row.
In review: "row" equals "a number of things in a line;" "a number of" equals "several;" "several" does not equal "two." And that is how in the world two items do not constitute a row.
If you don't like that logical way of defining it, take my word for it instead: after a quarter century of professional communication experience in a variety of writing fields, I can attest that "two in a row" is simply wrong.