If only there were some way for the Yahoo! News writers to see how to spell Tim Hortons, the Canadian eatery. Like a picture or something. Something, anything that would show them that there’s no apostrophe in the name:
Every day Yahoo! brings us a new and amusing spelling, punctuation, factual, or grammatical error. Today, it’s on the Yahoo! front page (as many of them are) and it’s a misspelling of lo and behold that I’ve never seen before:
Yahoo! staffers have spelled that expression as low and behold here and here. But the inclusion of an apostrophe — as if lo were a contraction — is one I’ve not seen before. The interjection lo is “used to attract attention or to show surprise” (American Heritage Dictionary). It’s not a contraction of a longer word; it is a word.
There are two hyphens and two apostrophes missing in this paragraph from Yahoo! Finance. Do you know where they go?
Correct! The hyphens belong in three-month (it’s a compound adjective modifying search) and 55-year-old. The apostrophes belong in what the Associated Press calls quasi possessives: ten years’ and three years’.
So, how did Yahoo! Answers get its name? Is it the result of consumer research? I really don’t know, but I do know that it’s not the best-written site on Yahoo!. Check out the mistakes in this one little paragraph, which include a contraction (it’s) instead of a possessive pronoun (its) and a noun (checkout) instead of a phrasal verb (check out):
Sometimes, when I read something on Yahoo! Celebrity, I can’t help wondering if the writer is familiar with basic English idioms, like this:
Actually, the Kardashians have been renting a home; the owner of the home has been renting out the home.
There are some mistakes I can overlook. Still, I can’t help noticing the typos:
and the missing apostrophe in what should be Kardashians’:
and at least one word too many here:
Can you overlook errors like these?
The Yahoo! Health site has been completely redesigned. But it brings with it more articles written by Yahoo! staffers and hence, more and more errors.
Here’s an example; it’s not the worst writing you’ll see on Yahoo!. It’s just bad enough to make me skeptical of the accuracy of the content.
Are there less opportunities to exercise outside? No, there are fewer opportunities to exercise outside, so people are getting less exercise and doing fewer exercises:
Actually, wrecking havoc would be a good thing. Better to wreck havoc than to wreak havoc (which means “to bring about” havoc):
I can’t begin to fathom why the writer thought this apostrophe was necessary:
Yahoo! Health has gotten a makeover! This is supposed to be an improvement, I suppose, over its previous incarnation. But is the content any better? If you’re seeking accurate information about health that’s also well-written, I suggest you look elsewhere. Here’s what I found in just the first article I tried to read:
The verb fess, derived from the verb confess, is not considered a contraction of confess. It’s just fess; no apostrophe required.
I thought the name of this journal was a little odd; that’s because the real name is the “Journal of Medical Internet Research.” And that claim that 90 percent of medical information on Wikipedia is inaccurate? That’s wrong, too.
The truth is that a study of Wikipedia information on ten common medical issues revealed that nine of the ten articles contained an error. NOT 90 percent of all medical information. That’s a huge difference and one that illustrates the writer’s inability to grasp a simple fact.
If the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which for some strange reason is italicized) is a government website, that’s news to me. I’m sure it’s also news to ACOG:
Looking for accurate health and medical information? Follow the writer’s advice and try WebMD.