Sentence with meaning to be guessed by Readers

Some two weeks ago, I was driving along Jalan Maharajalela when two men dressed in yellow t-shirts with the logo of an oil company on a motorcycle shouted at me to stop while pointing to my front left tyre.

The above sentence is taken from a reader's letter published by a national English daily.

The logo of an oil company is on t-shirts or on the motorcycle?

If it is the former (and it appears so), the sentence should be clearer when recast as "Some two weeks ago, I was driving along Jalan Maharajalela when two men on a motorcycle and dressed in yellow t-shirts with the logo of an oil company shouted at me to stop while pointing to my front left tyre. "

Sentences conveying the wrong sense

A powerful 6.4-magnitude earthquake rocked southern Taiwan on Thursday morning causing buildings to sway hundreds of kilometres to the north.

Buildings swayed as far north as the capital Taipei where the temblor has caused power outages.

The above are two sentences taken from two different reports of a recent earthquake in Taiwan by a same news agency as reported in an English daily.

Both the phrases (intended as adjective phrases) hundreds of kilometres to the north in the first sentence and as far north as the capital Taipei in the second appear to have been used as adverb phrases to modify the action verb sway. Any careful reader will know that this cannot be the case.

The two sentences should have been "A powerful 6.4-magnitude earthquake rocked southern Taiwan on Thursday morning causing buildings hundreds of kilometres to the north to sway." and "Buildings as far north as the capital Taipei where the temblor has caused power outages swayed." respectively.

Redundant words in sentences

Below are sentences taken from two model answers to an English test paper published by an English daily.

All in all, this novel has provided useful lessons for the benefit of readers.

One will see that if the words in bold are taken away, the meaning to the sentence will remain the same - All in all, this novel has provided useful lessons for readers.

From another model answer:

Bravery is shown when Robinson Crusoe fights and gets rid of the cannibals that comes to the island. He is indeed brave when he fought the cannibals to ensure his own safety.

One will realise that the singular verb 'comes' should be replaced by its plural equivalent and that there will be no change in meaning if the two sentences are combined into one with the words in bold left out: Bravery is shown when Robinson Crusoe fights and gets rid of the cannibals that come to the island to ensure his own safety.

Misplaced Modifier and Wrong Tense

Below is the first paragraph extracted from a full-page advertisement in an English daily.

15th Edition Le Tour de Langkawi 2010, Asia's premier cycling event, is back. With a new look inspiring change and a better future, Ministry of Youth and Sports promises Le Tour de Langkawi 2010 is going to be the best ever event been held.

Is the part highlighted in bold referring to/modifying the Ministry or the event? One will realise that the answer is the latter for all intents and purposes. The been is the past participle of 'be', the use of which must be accompanied by the auxillary verb 'have/having'. As such, the use of the present particle 'being' is more appropriate there.

Consequently to be grammatically correct, the sentence in question should be "15th Edition Le Tour de Langkawi 2010, Asia's premier cycling event, is back. With a new look inspiring change and a better future, Le Tour de Langkawi 2010 is promised by Ministry of Youth and Sports to be the best ever event being held." The dropping of 'going' (which is considered redundant) is to provide smooth reading to the sentence, the meaning of which remains the same despite such drop.

Ambiguity arises from the use of a possessive pronoun

Below is the first paragraph of a news item in an English daily.

A 3-year-old boy suffered burns on his left shoulder and right thigh when a neighbour allegedly threw hot water on him for playing behind his house in Taman Pasir Besar here.

The sentence is laden with ambiguity because of the use of the possessive pronoun (highlighted in bold) in the sentence. Is it referring to the boy or the neighbour (who is not known to be male or female up to this point)?

After reading the news fully, one is able to know that the neighbour is a man but it can only be logically inferred or assumed that the possessive pronoun in question is referring to the man.

The ambiguity could have been prevented if such first paragraph was written as " A 3-year-old boy suffered burns on his left shoulder and right thigh when a neighbour allegedly threw hot water on him for playing behind the neighbour's house in Taman Pasir Besar here."