This is not the first time either a writer or an editor for Yahoo! Celebrity has made a grammatical error:
When the subject is two nouns joined by either…or, the verb must agree with the noun closer to it.
Long-time readers of Terribly Write know all too well that many Yahoo! writers are grammatically challenged. Here’s more proof from Yahoo! TV:
Oy! When it comes to words based on Italian, they’re even more challenged. The word paparazzi is plural; its singular is paparazzo. A paparazzo is “a freelance photographer who doggedly pursues celebrities to take candid pictures for sale to magazines and newspapers” (American Heritage Dictionary). The word is taken from the name Paparazzo, a character who was a photographer in Federico Fellini’s 1960 film La Dolce Vita.
As for the end of that paragraph: I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. None.
If you’re a conscientious writer who strives to be grammatically correct 100 percent of the time, but you still struggle with choosing between who and whom, take my advice: Choose who. If you’re wrong, 90 percent of your readers won’t know it and the rest won’t care. If you choose whom, you might be correct, but your writing will sound pretentious and stilted. And if you’re wrong, you might be mistaken for a writer for Yahoo! Shine:
Could that sound any uglier? The correct word happens to be who, because the pronoun is the subject of the verb had. The pronoun who is the subjective case (and hence, the subject of verbs); whom is the objective case (and the object of verbs or prepositions).
Whoever wrote this for the Yahoo! front page has a problem with grammar:
The pronouns whoever and whomever signal a dependent clause; the choice of pronoun to use depends on its function in the dependent clause. In this case, it is the subject of the verb shot; therefore, the correct word is whoever.
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?
Here’s an unusual mistake on the Yahoo! front page:
It’s unusual because everyone I know would use the reflexive pronoun herself in that sentence: She took a photo of herself. Most people have no idea why the reflexive is correct; they just know when to use it.
The reflexive pronouns all end in self or selves: myself, yourself, herself, ourselves and so on. You use it when someone does something to himself or herself (see what I did there?).
The only other time I’ve seen a non-reflexive pronoun used instead of the correct reflexive pronoun has been on … Wait for it… The Yahoo! front page:
I wonder if the same person wrote both those sentences. And I wonder if that person’s native language is English. I’m guessin’ it isn’t.
When Mitt Romney claimed during his bid for the presidency that “corporations are people, too,” he was met with derision. But he may have been right, if you believe what you read on the Yahoo! front page:
The pronoun who is reserved for human beings. Is yahoo.com alleging that companies are people? Or did the writer fail to realize that the correct pronoun is that?