the missing word bothers me, too. It also got killed in an intersection on its way to work, to show up in this meme.
You should read “Where the Trains Turn” by Pasi Ilmari Jääskeläinen if you think trains are so bloody great. Might wake you up.
(Kidding, it’s actually a wildly unique cosmic horror novella.)
The missing word is so annoying.
Jeez. At least do rails-to-trails with them.
I can revegetate her
Seriously though, as much as I hate that we’ve abandoned so many railroads in this country, even the urban ones should at least be turned into walking/biking trails once they stop being used. It’s ridiculous to drive past overgrown train tracks and think, “I wouldn’t even need a car if those things were in use, but as it is right now it isn’t even safe to use them as a footpath.”
A former switchyard in the town where I grew up got turned into a beautiful park and there are trails going through town where the railroad tracks went. Obviously a trolley or some other sort of passenger rail would be better, but at least make that otherwise useless land some sort of public good.
This is my cup of tea; though not in an urban setting. I write at very long lengths about reclaiming developments into something useful (though usually that’s just forest).
The thing, I suspect, with abandoned rail lines, is that they are still owned by the rail company, and just not used. They don’t plan to use them, but they’re still holding onto the property or lease because that’s cheaper than actually cleaning/rehabilitating the rail line. Just another product of our capitalistic system. The free hand is all well and good, but if you don’t have any regulation on industry, this is exactly what you end up with. This is what happened in the mining industry for years. Welp! we’re done. Pack 'er up boys, and turn off the mill on the way out.
Rails-to-trails does seem to be happening more and more though. Even a small town near us is turning the railroad tracks into a walking trail.
I am guessing even if the railroad owns it, they can use eminent domain to claim it.
To everyone who can’t figure out the missing word, it’s “the people once tied to them ‘WERE’ killed in crosswalks…”
It’s correct without the were. If you added it, the previous comma would need to be a period or semicolon instead.
I think it’s correct as-is. Inserting a “were” would make that clause read as independent. With how the sentence is currently structured, that doesn’t work.
That’s not to say you couldn’t have
The tracks are now unruley [sic] and wild—the people once tied to them were killed in crosswalks by giant trucks
if you want, but the comma needs to change to something like a dash or a semicolon. With a comma (i.e., as a subordinate clause), “were” doesn’t make sense.
Hey now, I cheated on my English final, don’t reveal my shame
Everybody moved on to autonomous car dillemas
I’ve read it 3 times, and I can’t find a missing word. It makes sense to me. What word is missing?
sometimes you come
topull the lever…I don’t think that word is required. If anything, I think
sometimes you come and pull the lever
sounds more natural, if you have to add a word. They’re speaking more colloquially, rather than formally, but I don’t think the original is grammatically incorrect.
sometimes you come
when youpull the lever
So many lives destroyed and still being destroyed. No end in sight.
I don’t see a missing word.
You can add the word “fucking” pretty much anywhere.
And it’s rarely wrong to do so!
You don’t see it because it’s missing
I answered the comment below you but I couldn’t resist this stupid joke
A comma maybe, then.
‘the people once tied to them killed in a crosswalk’ really sounds weird to me.
Heck, my phone agrees.
Seems like a stylistic choice to me. Leaving out the “have been” makes it sound more poetic, but I don’t think it’s wrong per se
I think a colon would be the most apt punctuation here.
The tracks are now unruly and wild, the people tied to them: killed in crosswalks
But to be honest I was fine with no punctuation. The bit that most bothers me is the choice of preposition. You don’t go in a crosswalk. You go on it. Or maybe you’re at the crosswalk when you’re killed. But certainly not in.
In (the area of) a crosswalk would make sense?
That said, not English native speaker.
Not a native speaker but for me it sounds fine. The “are now” is left out because it would be repeated if that makes sense.
“The people, [who were] tied to them, [are now] killed in a crosswalk.”
You’re missing “once”
So that’s the missing word everyone is bothered by. It wasn’t in the post but in a low level comment. What an unexpected but well executed pay-off!
Grammar has so many “technically correct” yet odd sentence structures.
The sentence definitely has a weird flow and could absolutely contain reader assistance via punctuation.
I see a lot of other problems, but not a missing word…
More fun with trolleys:
https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
