… if you’re the New York Times editorial page, we expect better of you.
If Pakistan has a future, it is embodied in Malala Yousafzai. Yet the Taliban so feared this 14-year-old girl that they tried to assassinate her. Her supposed offense? Her want of an education and her public advocation for it.
As La Kid (UD‘s daughter, if you’re new to this site) would say, AWKward.
Here’s what you do.
You drop supposed.
You sit down and think about how confused your use of the phrase “want of an education” makes your reader. Do you mean desire for? Do you mean lack of?
You change advocation – which is certainly a word, and it means what you want it to mean, but it’s seldom used – to advocacy.
You think some more about how the way you’ve written the sentence makes it sound as though Malala is advocating for an education that’s wanting.
October 11th, 2012 at 8:30AM
No one edited that sentence because it was written by an editor. Next question?
October 19th, 2012 at 5:32PM
They could also try writing a less ideological and dishonest opening sentence. Like it or not, the future of Pakistan belongs to its men.