Whenever I see a grammatical goof this blatant, I wonder what the heck the writer was thinking:
Then I remember I’m reading Yahoo! Style and there probably was no thinking involved.
Molly Goddard, a fashion designer, went to the same school as others with the same name. They are all alumni of Central Saint Martins:
It’s either an amazing coincidence or an alternative fact perpetrated by Yahoo! Style. Or maybe it’s just an example of the writer’s and her editor’s ignorance. Perhaps they don’t know that alumni is a plural; its singular, when referring to a female is alumna. If they cared about such things, but were not inclined to use a dictionary, they could have used the gender-neutral alum or graduate.
I’m supposin’ that they don’t care, just as they don’t care that a dollar sign and the word dollars is a tad redundant. Or that placed should be place. Not only did they get the verb wrong, but they also forgot the other half of the correlative conjunction not only…but also in a sentence that resembles the word salad that could have been uttered by the current occupier of the Oval Office.
It took me less than 2 seconds to spot this error on Yahoo! Style:
Lots of people know that when you’re talking about countable things, you use fewer and not less: We’d like to see fewer grammatical errors and less pretentious writing. But fewer people know there are exceptions to that rule. If you’re writing about time, money, distance, or weight, the correct word is less, not fewer: less than $100, less than 3 miles, less than 20 pounds, and less than 15 minutes.
This little excerpt from Yahoo! Style could use a little oomph. A pick-me-up and some hyphens are in order:
The writer could probably use a little pick-me-up too, or at least a little pick-me-up-and-take-me-to-a-dictionary. There she might learn that umph, when it does appear in a dictionary, is an expression of disgust or skepticism.
If the current Mrs. Trump is like the first ladies to come before her, does that mean that in the future there will be first ladies who were first ladies in the past before the current first lady of the present?
I’m so confused. Why didn’t the Yahoo! Style writer just say, “Like the first ladies who came before her”? Or just, “Like the first ladies before her”? Or, “Like other first ladies” since all other first ladies came before the current Mrs. Trump? Unless she means the future first ladies from the past. That would involve a DeLorean and Doc Brown.
You know the old saying “it’s better to write fast than to write well”? No? That’s because I made it up after reading this on Yahoo! Style:
I’m trying to come up with a reason for so many errors, like the missing punctuation in what should be ’70s, and the use of its for the contraction it’s. And more missing punctuation and the misspelling of granddad. And why the writer would call this sweater a “sleeves sweater”:
It’s a sleeveless sweater or a vest or even a sweater vest.
But why so many errors? I can only surmise that the writer was under an incredible time crunch, that she’s not a great typist and that she hasn’t completely mastered English. And the company she works for has very, very low standards for content. Maybe even no standards.