Can a dress hold up a leg? I know that’s a stupid question — almost as stupid as this homophonic error on Yahoo! Style:
These eras halve two bee scene too bee believed.
Due ewe no the difference between bite and byte? The writer four Yahoo! News doesn’t:
Eye think an editor is kneaded to rain inn the gaffs on Yahoo! Sports‘ “Prep Rally”:
and on Yahoo! omg!:
This whirred on Yahoo! Shine has a hole different meaning from the write whirred:
and sew does this won:
In an article about former astronaut Mae Jemison, the Yahoo! Shine writer manages to misspell her name. But that’s not the only word she has trouble spelling:
Jemison served in the Peace Corps (corp is an abbreviation for corporation). She is an African American (which is spelled — this time — sans hyphen). She was a science mission specialist (which doesn’t require capital letters) on the Endeavour (a spelling that is more common in Great Britain than in the U.S.).
Apparently the writer thinks she knows how to spell the name of the shuttle, because she misspelled it again. I guess we shouldn’t expect her to notice a missing word, or to be consistent about writing African American (this time she’s hyphenated it), or realize that astronaut program isn’t a proper noun:
Perhaps that’s the best she can do. Perhaps she brought all her talents to bear and still produced content that would embarrass the editor of a high school newspaper:
So, she doesn’t know when to use bare and when to use bear. No biggie. A lot of people have that problem (especially if they write for Yahoo!). But couldn’t she see the double will? Couldn’t she try to be consistent? (Now astronaut program is devoid of capitals.) The rest of that paragraph is a real mystery to me. Grammatically speaking, she doesn’t seem able to match a verb (which should be exist) with its subject (which is capabilities). And most house styles would recommend that a number greater than nine be written in numerals. But I quibble.
Sandra Bullock’s dress, with its sexy back that supports her skin, is featured on Yahoo! Movies:
I just can’t see how a nearly bare back can be supported by that dress.
We’ve all suspected it, and now Yahoo! Shine confirms it: Kim Kardashian has no brain.
Bear in mind that we have no documented proof, like an MRI, but I know we can trust Shine for accuracy.
This is what happens when you let the “senior fashion and beauty editor” for Yahoo! Shine write about movies: You can grammatical gaffes and movie mistakes.
It starts with the very first photo caption in an article about films at the Sundance Film Festival. There’s the misspelled Elizabeth Olsen, who plays a character who made a pact to lose her virginity:
If you have any idea what a “former valedictorian reporter” is, please let me know. And if you’re certain that the character had only one parent, then you’re probably certain that the placement of this apostrophe is correct:
This gal is writing about a movie and she can’t even get the title right; it’s “Don Jon’s Addiction.” You might want to steer clear of her in the future — at least until someone schools her in common English idioms.
So, this is where the formatting for the photo captions get a little wonky and appear twice, giving us two times as many mistakes to point at and laugh — mistakes like using “aside from” and “also” in this sentence:
“Aside from” means “except for,” not “in addition to.” Aside from that and the undercapitalzed Vincent D’Onofrio, the sentence is okie-dokie.
And aside from the missing hyphen in hard-partying and the misspelled Shailene Woodley, this sentence is OK, too:
There’s no mistaking this grotesque spelling of Daniel Radcliffe:
And finally, the senior editor, who is more experienced writing about nail polish than motion pictures, gives us this bit o’ nonsense:
I’m thinking she means “since her mom died in child birth” (or maybe “during child birth”), unless the mother died during her own birth, which would make for a very short movie. Anyhoo, the woman died and some character played by Jessica Biel uncovered her. Or uncovered herself.
Sometimes I can’t bear the mistakes on Yahoo! This homophonic horror from Yahoo! Screen bears a striking resemblance to quite a few other embarrassments from the Internet giant: