From the the Yahoo! front page:
In this photo caption on Yahoo! Movies made an amazing announcement: Garcelle Beauvais has an identical twin, Gabrielle:
Don’t you think she looks exactly like Garcelle?
I’ve searched and searched this sentence on Yahoo! Shine and just can’t find the plural noun that is the antecedent of the pronoun them:
The only thing I could come up with is the plural styles. So, the writer meant “each locale had a set of styles to accompany the styles.” Yeah, that’s it!
Now if I could just figure out what niow means:
I think there’s some punctuation missing; it’s probably quotation marks to set off the messy style called “Influenced by Tahiti.”
This is a weird redundancy on Yahoo! omg!. No, better make that weird redundancy.
Frankly, I’m unable to distinguish between Clive Owen as “a serious actor” and Clive Owen, “serious actor.” What am I overlooking?
If you’re eating salads and you’re loading them up with the wrong things, then you’ve matched the pronoun correctly with its antecedent. If you’re using the wrong pronoun, then you probably write for Yahoo! Shine:
Don’t try typing this URL into your browser’s Address bar. Yahoo! Shine‘s The Thread dropped a letter in this creatively spelled Web site:
It must have been quite a show at Fashion Week, if you’re to believe the writer of this article on Yahoo! Shine. Lots of interesting things to see at the Chris Benz show, like patterns sequins:
Patterns sequins sound intriguing, though I suspect they were actually patterned sequins or patterns and sequins.
What’s more fun than a talking lipstick? Especially when it pays a compliment to a designer’s spring collection:
It’s a common word (at least it should be for anyone writing about fashion), so why did the writer split hair style? Perchance it is just a sloppy slip-up, like the use of where for were and the missing hyphen in the compound adjective low-cut:
God, I’m sorry I wasn’t in New York this week. But reading about the shows on Shine makes up for it. I always get a chuckle from this writer’s coverage. Very entertaining, but not in a good way.