This isn’t baseball

Well, at least the editors at Yahoo! Movies managed to get one possessive form right in this headline:

neesons mov

If this were baseball they’d be batting .500.

Chickens’ hit

Why was the Yahoo! Style writer confused about how to form the possessive of a plural noun like chickens?

chickenss prom sty

Maybe she couldn’t decide if the apostrophe went before or after the S. So, she put it before and after the S. That’s actually quite a clever solution. Totally wrong, though.

How many models?

Can anyone explain to me why Yahoo! Style writers don’t know how to form the possessive of a common noun?  Why would anyone think models’s could possibly be correct?

modelss bones sty

Maybe the writer didn’t know if she was writing about one model (and the possessive model’s) or more than one (and the possessive models’). So she covered both possibilities with models’s.

But how do you explain her ignorance of using single quotation marks within a quote? Maybe she played hooky the day that was taught in seventh grade.

So, if she was writing about two or more models, she should have written: the models’ “‘bones’ weren’t visible…

Colin Madsen is not possessive

Whatever possessed the editors at to turn Colin Madsen into a possessive?

fp madsens

Readers and English are the victims here

Who are the real victims of the carelessness of the editors at The readers:

fp victims

The victims’ injuries may not be visible, but readers and their language suffer when professional scribes fail to adhere to common rules of grammar and punctuation.

Belt and suspenders. Again

It seems writers at Yahoo! Celebrity still haven’t figured out how to form the possessive of a plural noun:

actorss apos cel

What this writer has managed to do was create the possessive of a noun that is both singular and plural. Very creative.

Bring those jobs back to the U.S.!

I’m kinda appalled by this on the Yahoo! front page:

fp womens apos

Is this really the best Yahoo! can do? Has the company outsourced all writing to a non-English-speaking country? Or are these errors the result of a public school education in the U.S.? How do you explain the fact that a professional writer or editor doesn’t know the possessive of women is women’s and that in the United States, Congress is a proper noun?

Rubio, Cruz join forces in Nevada

You read it here first. Well, actually not here, but on Yahoo! News:

rubio and cruz news

Senators Rubio and Cruz now have a single, joined “ground game battle” in Nevada for the presidential nomination. I guess they’ve joined forces to fight Trump’s, Kasich’s, and Carson’s run for the nomination.

It seems odd, doesn’t it? Why would they do that? Is it possible that Rubio and Cruz each have their own “ground game battle”? And is it possible that the Yahoo! editors don’t know that would be Rubio’s and Cruz’s ground game battles? Is it possible they don’t know that if something is owned by two people, only the last name gets the ‘S (like Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and Mom and Dad’s wedding)? But if it’s owned separately, each name must get the ‘S?

How many couples were there?

Either there were a lot of names etched inside a heart or the Yahoo! Celebrity writer has no idea where to place an apostrophe when forming a possessive:

couples apos cel

I’m going with the latter. There was one couple, so the apostrophe goes before the S. How hard is that to remember?

Belt and suspenders?

Not sure how to form the possessive of a plural? Can’t decide if the apostrophe goes before or after the S? Just do what this Yahoo! Celebrity writer did! Put it before and after the apostrophe:

kardashianss cel

Just in case the writer (or editor) is reading this, here’s the rule: To form the possessive of a singular name, add an apostrophe followed by an S. To form the possessive of a plural name, add an apostrophe after the S: Kardashians’.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,123 other followers

%d bloggers like this: