Take a picture of yourself

You don’t take a picture of you, you take a picture of yourself. Why? Because in a grammatically correct sentence, we use a reflexive pronoun (like yourself, herself, ourselves) when the pronoun refers to the subject of the sentence. In a grammatically incorrect sentence, such as this from the Yahoo! front page, anything goes:

fp photo of her

The editors should chastise themselves for not correcting that sentence: The “Glee” star paired a photo of herself and Ryan Dorsey with a graphic.

Did you do any research?

How much research do you think this Yahoo! Style writer did before publishing this?

his own sty

I’d say none. If she had considered that the subject’s name was Bianca, she might have verified that the Milan fashion design graduate was a female, deserving of the pronoun her, not his. She might even have gotten her surname correct as well; it’s Luini. I have no idea why she thought it was anything else.

Imagine finding you

Imagine finding yourself reading this error-filled sentence on Yahoo! Makers:

finding you to

Is it just me or is this a new high in the number of egregious errors in a single sentence? The writer doesn’t know to use the reflexive yourself when the subject and the object of the verb are the same person?

So, I’m imagining myself sitting (and not sat) at a table, but the table I see isn’t “decked in” the ingredients for the meal I’m about to have. Where would the waiter put the place setting? I have no idea what word the writer actually meant; I can’t think of a single one that would turn that from nonsense to a sentence.

Kim Kardashian and she snapshots

What is with the writers at Yahoo!? How could the Yahoo! Style writer make a boneheaded grammatical mistake like this:

she snapshots sty

I mean, really, doesn’t it just sound wrong when you read that? You don’t need a degree in English to know that it’s really, really wrong to say “she and her husband’s snapshots.” You just need an ear for English.

I’d prefer a photo of him

When did schools stop teaching grammar? It must have been before this writer for Yahoo! Celebrity attended first grade:

photo of he

Why would anyone with a high school education think that the object of the preposition of could possibly be he, and not him?

Go take a nap

I was thinking of taking the gloves off when writing about the mistakes in a recent article on Yahoo! Style. But then I took pity on the writer, who is probably just tired and overworked and still learning English. That’s the only explanation I could come up with when I read the very first paragraph:

accessory who

Who doesn’t know that who is used exclusively for human beings? Oh, this writer. The correct word is which. And who doesn’t know that it’s is short for it is or it has. This tired, overworked writer.

But the blunder that had me feeling really, really sorry for the writer was this:

accessory who husband

That’s gotta be the result of a muddled head, unable to think clearly due to stress, long hours, and short deadlines. Yeah, that’s the reason.

What every man can incorporate into his writing

You know what would be great? If all writers at Yahoo! Style used correct grammar in their writing. Like, if this writer used the correct pronoun in his article:

their for his style

I suppose it was going to happen eventually: When it became acceptable to use they, them, and their to refer a single person of unknown gender, those pronouns would be used even when the gender of the antecedent is apparent. But it’s wrong here: The antecedent is man; it’s singular and the pronoun should be, too.

Where else can you read something like this?

If Yahoo! Style ever hired real editors or writers familiar with basic English grammar, I’d have nothing to write about. Not really. There’s still lots of instructive errors popping up every day on Yahoo!. But the mistakes on Yahoo! Style are the best. Where else could you find this grammatical goof, made by a so-called professional writer?

both her and kanye style

It takes up way too much gray matter

Matching a pronoun to the word it refers to uses too much gray matter for the writer for Yahoo! DIY:

hammocks it diy

The pronoun it can only refer to a singular noun, like, oh, say, maybe hammock. The careful writer (which is not the person who wrote this article), would have used they (and changed the verbs takes and makes to agree with it), or would have changed Hammocks to A hammock.

Take a peek at this

Take a peek at this capitalization (or rather, lack of capitalization) of Christmas on Yahoo! DIY:

blogs 1

Who doesn’t know to capitalize the holiday? The same person who doesn’t know that using that to refer to human beings is considered impolite. The pronoun who would be more to Emily Post’s liking.

blogs 2

Just one peek into this paragraph reminds us that the writer isn’t fond of capitalizing holidays like Valentine’s Day:

blogs 3

Or Mother Nature:

blogs 4

Reading that, you feel like you are really peeking into the mind of the writer, who has trouble picking the right homophone and who forgets to use an apostrophe to show that it’s kids’ art.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 891 other followers

%d bloggers like this: