Show your respect for the language by using the correct word every time you write. The Yahoo! Travel writer could pay her respects by using respects, and not respect, in this common expression:
Based on her word choice, I’d say the writer for Yahoo! Style is grammatically challenged:
The first clue was the use of the singular pronoun it to refer to a plural antecedent (images). The correct pronoun is they. The second clue was the expression based off of, which is just wrong. The correct expression is based on.
If you read this on the Yahoo! front page, you might be wondering how Blake Lively could wear 256 outfits in one week:
That would require a lot of changes of clothes; in fact, she’d have to average 36 outfits a day. She’d have to change outfits not just between engagements, but during engagements and in the limo driving to engagements.
So, why did the writer publish such a dumb statement? Because Ms. Lively asked designers for 256 outfits prior to her press tour. During the weeklong tour, she wore a total of 18 outfits. That’s just a tad different from what you read here.
Oh, and the use of was? If making grammatical errors were a sport, this writer would be considered an Olympian. A statement contrary to fact requires a verb in the subjunctive mood; in this case that’s were, not was.
This episode of Dumbest Statement of the Day comes to you from Yahoo! Makers, where makers make dumb mistakes:
What does “watercooler cookies” have to do with Monet, who was known for his paintings of water lilies? Uh, nothing. You might notice that the cookies look like they were painted with watercolors, and they are indeed called “Watercolor Cookies.” And what does that have to do with Monet? Uh, nothing. Monet didn’t paint with watercolors. So this writer screwed up the name of the cookies and screwed up with the reference to “Monet in the Bank.” Maybe that’s the dumbest statement of the week.
Why? Why do some writers (and apparently their editors, too) think that you have to include a registered trademark symbol ® on registered trademarks? I’m at a complete loss to explain this on Yahoo! Makers:
This is just ludicrous. Can you imagine if I had to include the symbol every time I wrote about Yahoo® on my Lenovo® Think Pad®? Stop it now!
Is anyone surprised that Harvard University accepted only a fraction of its 37,000 applicants?
Geez, I would have thought it accepted all of them. Good to know that it was only a fraction, but what fraction? Perhaps the writer meant only a small or tiny fraction. We’re left to guess. I’m thinking maybe 99%.