Why not me?

Does this sound right to you? It obviously sounds right to the Yahoo! Makers writer:

for i diy

But it’s wrong. No, not the “for Meredith and” part; just the use of the pronoun I. The correct pronoun is me, the objective case of the pronoun I and the object of the preposition for.

How many can you spot?

This is like Find Waldo, except you’re looking for the errors committed by one writer for Yahoo! Makers. How many can you find?

bike stor

I’m going with these:

  • an invisible storage? Shouldn’t that be just invisible storage?
  • If it’s like invisible storage, then you wouldn’t see it, would you? Then how could you hardly ever see it?
  • Misspelling! That misspelled allows was just too easy.
  • Your bike themselves? Really? Does the writer really not understand the concept of matching a pronoun with the noun it refers to? And why include themselves (or even the correct itself)?

Your turn. What did I miss?

Gambling on it

I’ll bet anyone dollars to donuts that the editors for the Yahoo! front page have no idea what an antecedent is and why a pronoun must agree with it:

fp gambling on it

An antecedent is the noun that a pronoun refers to. The pronoun must agree with its antecedent, meaning that they both must be the same number (singular or plural). A plural noun (like oh, say, maybe fights) requires a plural pronoun (like them).

I cry sometimes, too

I admit that I cry sometimes, especially when I read something as stupid as this sentence from Yahoo! Answers:

yamster

There is no rational explanation possible for using they to refer to a Yamster, which appears to be a hamster mascot for the Yahoo! site. Unless the Yamster is a collective name for conjoined twins, and Yahoo! is hiding the other twin out of our view. As for the rest of the text, just be thankful that I obscured some words with my red circle. You really don’t want to read that juvenile, amateurishly written tripe.

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 958 other followers

%d bloggers like this: