The phrase 'in charge of'

[141 Squadron]

Quite often in railway book and magazine captions, the phrase 'in charge of' appears. For example: 'The 'Tees-Tyne Freighter' seen at Doncaster in charge of A1 Pacific No. 60140.'
Is this correct, or should it be 'in the charge of', as surely a humble goods train cannot be in charge of the powerful locomotive that's hauling it? It seems as though it should be the other way round.
I have seen both forms of the phrase used in publications, but just wondered if there was a definitive answer and, if so, what the reason is for it.

 

[Freightmaster]

It's just lazy english, like American's saying "I could care less"
when they really mean I couldn't care less...

As you say, the correct usage should be:

- {train} in the charge of {loco number}

- {loco number} in charge of {train}


But "in the charge of" sounds a bit pretentious anyway,
so just "worked by" or "hauled by" would probably be
more suitable in an enthusiasts magazine!


MARK

 

[43021HST]

I do believe we have the RUK pedants of the year, what a pity we've peaked so early.

 

[najaB]

It's just lazy english...

It's more an archaic usage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do believe we have the RUK pedants of the year, what a pity we've peaked so early.

Oh, there's a lot of year left to go and some very pedantic members.

 

[43021HST]

It's more an archaic usage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, there's a lot of year left to go and some very pedantic members.

Now that's something I don't doubt, I'm always on the look out for it.

I don't understand why people get so funny about a grammatical error when it doesn't detract from the context, as in the example used by the OP above.

 

[rebmcr]

I don't understand why people get so funny about a grammatical error when it doesn't detract from the context, as in the example used by the OP above.

To be fair, the omission does make the phrase mean the exact opposite -- and when researching for historic information, context isn't always available.

I wouldn't actually put this one down to pendantry.

 

[GatwickDepress]

To be fair, the omission does make the phrase mean the exact opposite -- and when researching for historic information, context isn't always available.

I wouldn't actually put this one down to pendantry.

Pedantry, surely?

 

[Dolive22]

I do believe we have the RUK pedants of the year, what a pity we've peaked so early.

Perhaps we should just think of it as setting a high standard for the rest of the year.

 

[J-2739]

Everyone must understand the context, surely?

 

[rebmcr]

Pedantry, surely?

Wink, wink

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Pedantry, surely?

My understanding of the word "pendantry" gives a visual image of a personage, either male or female, with a penchant for wearing precious metal necklaces and other associated jewellery items.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, there's a lot of year left to go and some very pedantic members.

To cite the words used in a song by Lionel Richie...
"Hello, is it me you're looking for"...

 

[Deepgreen]

To be fair, the omission does make the phrase mean the exact opposite -- and when researching for historic information, context isn't always available.

I wouldn't actually put this one down to pendantry.

Agreed - an objection to omitting words that define a phrase's meaning is hardly pedantic; it is simply wanting the language to be used properly to avoid misinterpretation.

 

[Strat-tastic]

Look you lot, the driver's in charge of the train, ok?

 

[rebmcr]

Look you lot, the driver's in charge of the train, ok?

Guard's train, signaller's railway.

 

[Busaholic]

'Grow the business' is another one.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

'Grow the business' is another one.

Odd one that: I am happy with the verb "to grow" being transitive when used literally eg. "I grow herbs in my garden" but rather less so for metaphorical use as in the example above. I much prefer an intransitive usage such as "This business is expected to grow in the next few years."

On Pendantry - surely it's not a hanging matter to have a concern for accuracy?

 

[450.emu]

Odd one that: I am happy with the verb "to grow" being transitive when used literally eg. "I grow herbs in my garden" but rather less so for metaphorical use as in the example above. I much prefer an intransitive usage such as "This business is expected to grow in the next few years."

On Pendantry - surely it's not a hanging matter to have a concern for accuracy?

Not too sure who is in charge of this thread :roll: English can change meaning if sentence structure is not used properly. For instance the sentence "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse" can be quite rude if you don't use capitals or commas properly :roll:

 

[141 Squadron]

Many thanks for helping me out on this. It may at first glance seem pedantic but it's surprising how many times the two (opposite meaning!) versions have cropped up in publications over the years. I think Deepgreen has summed it up nicely.

 

[Strat-tastic]

Guard's train, signaller's railway.

Touché

 

[KTHV]

I do believe we have the RUK pedants of the year, what a pity we've peaked so early.

No doubt they'll turn up on the latest Virgin Pedantlino.

 

[Deepgreen]

I do believe we have the RUK pedants of the year, what a pity we've peaked so early.

I prefer to think of it as setting the bar high!

 

[D60]

Quite often in railway book and magazine captions, the phrase 'in charge of' appears. For example: 'The 'Tees-Tyne Freighter' seen at Doncaster in charge of A1 Pacific No. 60140.'
Is this correct, or should it be 'in the charge of', as surely a humble goods train cannot be in charge of the powerful locomotive that's hauling it? It seems as though it should be the other way round.
I have seen both forms of the phrase used in publications, but just wondered if there was a definitive answer and, if so, what the reason is for it.

Yes, the usage you describe did seem to become weirdly persistent, noticably so during the '70s and early '80s... or maybe it was just down to one or two particular writers/editors of the period... And yes, it turned the intended meaning on its head...

I recall one particular magazine editor of the time, routinely missed out the definite article from captions and descriptions... seemed it was just his particular style, and quite idiosyncratic..!

Does it still go on in any publications nowadays..?

 

[kentuckytony]

American reply -"I could care less, but I won't."

 

[AndrewE]

Guard's train, signaller's railway.

That's what I understood (and would prefer to continue)... The Driver drives and stops the train (rather more difficult) but the guard is in charge of it.