horizon wrote: ↑26 Sep 2022, 3:29pm
This is the page reporting on the Italian election today:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... -far-right
The headlines refer to the Italy Election, the text to the Italian election. Sub-editors obviously make it up as they go along.
BTW, I am genuinely puzzled. My guess is that if both the BBC and the Guardian are attempting to develop a transatlantic, anglo-spheric readership then they will be keen to adopt common usages, mainly American.
My take is that with many readers in the US, they're trying to write in a style which does not feel too British to their American readership, perhaps a mid-Atlantic feel as you say? Trying to 'lever' changes in grammar from within a professional sphere like this is, I feel, a little disingenuous with the faint whiff of a delusions of grandeur in the air.
There are occasions when potential misunderstandings may be reduced for a foreign (US) reader, as with "The Italy Election" in that there will be those who may not fully grasp the meaning of 'Italian' in this context, however bizarre this may seem, in part because of the most common use of the word to describe commodities, food etc coupled with a lack of knowledge of what's going on outside the US. In other situations confusion will be added, not reduced. Some will be confused with this unconventional use of grammar.
The comprehension of grammar improves with rules (overall, not always) so when describing something pertaining to a geographical area or country, we tend to use the adjectival word rather than replacing with a noun and using what we'd consider a grammatically correct phrase. Here, words are being left out of this, possibly in an attempt to create a generic style or feel which the authors feel could be adopted by a mainstream,