More on the quotative inversion conjecture
Mark Liberman is looking for a scientifically sound way to test
my conjecture that
The New Yorker
has a misguided editorial policy against quotative inversion.
The New Yorker's online archives are too meager to permit firm conclusions as yet (though Mark's found no counterexamples yet either). All I can do at present is support my case with two more tortured examples, which I found in a nearly forgotten corner of my personal collection of oddities:
"I would hope that, based on the President's judicial nominations so far,
you will see him appoint Justices more in line with a conservative
judicial philosophy," Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel to the American
Center for Law and Justice, an advocacy group funded the Reverend Pat
Robertson, says.
(Jeffrey Toobin. Advice and dissent. The New Yorker, May 26, 2003 (p. 48, column 1))
"It will be easier to defeat a right-wing, lower-court nomination,''
Ralph Neas, the president of the People for the American Way, the liberal
advocacy group, said.
(Jeffrey Toobin. Advice and dissent. The New Yorker, May 26, 2003 (p. 48, column 1))
These are from the same article, the product of the same author (or editor).
But my previous example was by Larissa MacFarquhar.
Posted by Christopher Potts at September 23, 2003 07:01 PM