I don’t know what a cup cozy is, but I do know this isn’t its plural on Yahoo! DIY:
Seriously. What is wrong with the writers at DIY? They can’t seem to form a plural without an apostrophe and an S. The plural of cozy is cozies. No apostrophe.
Could the writer of this module on the Yahoo! front page be a college graduate? I’m not sure. I’d expect a college graduate to know that an apostrophe is required in “Parents‘ college debt nightmare”:
I’d expect that a college graduate could read an article and summarize it accurately. And that’s when I realized that perhaps this writer is still in high school, struggling with understanding text written for a tenth grader. That’s how I’d explain the allegation that these parents owe a huge sum “nearly a decade after the graduation.” Since the parents have more than one daughter, I wanted to know whose graduation was a decade ago. So I read the article and learned that these folks borrowed the money a decade ago — not that their daughters graduated a decade ago.
To the writer, I’d say, stay in school and get that high school diploma. To readers of yahoo.com, I say don’t believe what you read.
That seems to be the editorial mantra at Yahoo! Style: Any word that ends in an S, even a name, must include an apostrophe before the S:
There is no other way to explain something like that. Unless it’s an acute case of carelessness, ignorance, and/or idiocy. While I’m at it, maybe someone will explain to me what “Love, Rosie” is doing in the middle of that sentence. Is it the title of a movie? If so, it needs quotation marks or italics — something to make it distinct from the rest of the text. It’s not a showstopping error, but spelling showstopping as two words is.
After reading the scribblings of Yahoo! writers and editors for years, few mistakes surprise me. But here are two that I’ve never seen before and hope to never see again:
From Yahoo! DIY we get the nonsense that should be no-nonsense and the inscrutable themself. Really? The writer couldn’t figure out the plural themselves? In all the horrible, terrible, no good writing I’ve come across, I’ve never, ever seen a themself. Never.
In a never-ending search to find an article on Yahoo! DIY that doesn’t contain multiple errors, I came across this 2-sentence paragraph:
It’s hard to imagine that this was written by someone who advanced beyond fourth grade. It’s written by someone described as “Cinematographer/Editor.” After reading this, I can only presume the editing is of videos — and not text.
There’s just so much wrong in so little space: There’s the “never search,” which I take to mean “never-ending search.” There’s the mysterious “to do pumpkins a new way,” which sounds particularly lewd. There’s the claim that you need a sand bag, which you don’t; you’ll just fill a trash bag with sand. You gotta wonder about a writer who uses wonder instead of wander. And who the heck calls Halloween “the Halloween Eve.” And don’t get me started on the five periods, which might be an attempt at ellipsis (which is three periods).
So, I just checked that article and it looks like someone attempted to edit that mess. Unfortunately, the editor isn’t much better than the writer when it comes to writing:
Now it looks like there’s just one word missing in what should be “pumpkins in a new way,” though the sand bag is still there. But what’s really surprising is that the editor doesn’t know any more about Halloween than the writer. It’s also known as All Hallows’ Eve.
I shouldn’t have read more than this headline on Yahoo! Style:
I should have known that if the headline contains one humongous goof, the article itself is going to be a disaster. The huge mistake in the headline? The article is about a retailer called & Other Stories. How bad is that? Bad. But it gets worse.
At least in the opening paragraph, the writer manages to use the correct words for the retailer, though she does close up the space after the ampersand:
But she drops the the in what should be “in the U.S.” and the hyphen that’s required in brand-new. Maybe the writer is a recent arrival to the States and doesn’t realize that it’s capitalized when referring to the United States.
When it’s a noun or an adjective, must-have must have a hyphen:
This could be a simple typo (names instead of named), but the use of the pronoun their without any known antecedent is just wrong:
How do you explain the misspelling of a product when it appears below a picture of the product?
The final sentence of the article doesn’t disappoint: One hardly ever sees the use of a plural verb with the singular everything:
That was not good. I knew when I read the headline I should have stopped reading. My bad.
You’d expect to find something like this at a small, local market: avocado’s, banana’s, and more product signs all sporting an apostrophe as if it were part of forming a plural noun. It isn’t. It’s wrong, and you know that. But I didn’t expect to find it on a presumably professionally written site like Yahoo! Style. But I should have:
How does something like that happen? Is it ignorance? Carelessness? Or an arrogant disregard for language?
Ah, geez. This writer came up with one stinking little paragraph and she can’t even get the name of the product right? She’s not even trying:
The bag is called the Peekaboo — without any of those hyphens. It’s downright (notice it’s one word?) crazy that the writer would insert them. I can forgive her for referring to an object as she, although it strikes me as both amateurish and juvenile. But then she tries to construct a sentence that is pure nonsense and seems to think navy is a synonym for midnight blue. It isn’t and the claim that “her navy is also .. midnight blue” just makes no sense.