Et tu, New Yorker?
I hate seeing a booboo in this magazine, because it's usually so well copy-edited. But today I was reading a Talk of the Town piece about Zimbabwe, and they mentioned how an opposition leader had been injured, and had received a severe laceration to his skull. Is this some everyday usage I'm not aware of? Did my early inclinations toward medicine as a career forever make me unable to deal with this kind of inexactitude? Wouldn't it have been better and more colloquial to say he'd received a laceration to his head? And better and more exact to say he's received a laceration to his scalp? Is it just me?