Why the comma? That use of a comma is weird, right? Is it just me? They used one adjective. This wasn’t a drug-infested, cum-covered sex den. This was merely a drug-infested sex den.
The problem with that interpretation is that you can’t have “libraries turning into drug-infested, libraries turning into sex dens.” because “drug-infested” is not a noun phrase a library can turn into like “sex dens” is. I also tried misinterpreting this comma as a comma between two adjectives, which doesn’t work because “sex” is not an adjective.
Maybe “Libraries turning drug-infested, into sex dens” fits your interpretation better. Does it?
I suppose, yes. The library is turning drug infested and into a sex den. The comma is replacing all the words “and into a.” Which is essentially what you wrote.
I guess i was trying to point out they were two separate situations and that drug infested is not describing the sex den. I was also trying to establish that commas can replace words and phrases. Although the example I gave above only replaced one word, it would make sense they would replace other words, as well, to shorten the headline.
I guess there are actual headline specific grammatical rules that are followed. While not a comprehensive list, some of these rules include leaving out auxiliary and some joining verbs, articles, conjunctions, etc, and replacing some words with various punctuation. Apparently, the list goes on.
You’re right because the hyphantion of “drug-infested” causes it to act as an adjective to describe “sex dens”. But there’s only one adjective so the comma is not necessary
Why the comma? That use of a comma is weird, right? Is it just me? They used one adjective. This wasn’t a drug-infested, cum-covered sex den. This was merely a drug-infested sex den.
Whoever writes their captions apparently doesn’t spend enough time at their local drug-infested sex den.
Or spend way too much time at it.
This is what happens when you hire editors based on who has the reddest hat.
I think they’re presenting it as two separate problems. Drug infested is not describing the sex den. It is drug infested. It is a sex den.
Edit: Here’s a good explanation: "A comma performs another kind of abbreviation in a headline, connecting two ideas without a linking word or phrase (often and)
The problem with that interpretation is that you can’t have “libraries turning into drug-infested, libraries turning into sex dens.” because “drug-infested” is not a noun phrase a library can turn into like “sex dens” is. I also tried misinterpreting this comma as a comma between two adjectives, which doesn’t work because “sex” is not an adjective. Maybe “Libraries turning drug-infested, into sex dens” fits your interpretation better. Does it?
I suppose, yes. The library is turning drug infested and into a sex den. The comma is replacing all the words “and into a.” Which is essentially what you wrote. I guess i was trying to point out they were two separate situations and that drug infested is not describing the sex den. I was also trying to establish that commas can replace words and phrases. Although the example I gave above only replaced one word, it would make sense they would replace other words, as well, to shorten the headline.
I guess there are actual headline specific grammatical rules that are followed. While not a comprehensive list, some of these rules include leaving out auxiliary and some joining verbs, articles, conjunctions, etc, and replacing some words with various punctuation. Apparently, the list goes on.
As a side-note to your helpful link, I really dislike it when headlines use a comma in place of an “and”. Like, use “&” if you really must.
Print is not exactly the main way people read the news now anyway, I think they can spare the pixels!
semicolon
You’re right because the hyphantion of “drug-infested” causes it to act as an adjective to describe “sex dens”. But there’s only one adjective so the comma is not necessary
or drug-infested, sex-ridden den
sex is not an adjective