Whenever I see a grammatical goof this blatant, I wonder what the heck the writer was thinking:
Then I remember I’m reading Yahoo! Style and there probably was no thinking involved.
If the current Mrs. Trump is like the first ladies to come before her, does that mean that in the future there will be first ladies who were first ladies in the past before the current first lady of the present?
I’m so confused. Why didn’t the Yahoo! Style writer just say, “Like the first ladies who came before her”? Or just, “Like the first ladies before her”? Or, “Like other first ladies” since all other first ladies came before the current Mrs. Trump? Unless she means the future first ladies from the past. That would involve a DeLorean and Doc Brown.
Yesterday we learned that the folks at Yahoo! Style have trouble spelling Lea Michele’s name. You might think the misspelling was a mere typo, but you would be wrong. In the article about Ms. Michele, the writer gets her name wrong twice in the opening paragraph:
Not content to abuse Ms. Michele’s name, the writer took a sledgehammer to the English language with has sang (does anyone think that’s correct?), followed by a misplaced apostrophe in what should be Kohl’s, followed by a bit of nonsense that I think should be get to see which workout kicked and the ridiculous ideal of a perfect night (which I think is supposed to be idea of a perfect night).
The rest of the article doesn’t get any better. It contains more misspellings, more misplaced and missing punctuation, and a whole lot of unintelligible word salad. I’ve seen better writing in a high school newspaper. Maybe I should stick to reading that.
Am I the only one who thinks that an editor who uses a noun as a verb is guilty of an inability to think of an appropriate word?
The genius editors at Yahoo! TV couldn’t come up with remembered, lauded, honored, extolled, admired, celebrated, or adored. So they made tribute, which is strictly a noun, a verb.
According to a certain Yahoo! Style writer, George Michael’s influence on fashion and style are not to be overlooked:
Apparently to the writer (and her editor), though, think it’s OK to overlook grammar — like matching a subject (say, influence) with a correct verb (let’s just say it ain’t are). In its stead, the writer should have used is. And in staid‘s stead, she should have used stead.