How many Molly Goddards are there?

Molly Goddard, a fashion designer, went to the same school as others with the same name. They are all alumni of Central Saint Martins:

alumni-sty

It’s either an amazing coincidence or an alternative fact perpetrated by Yahoo! Style.  Or maybe it’s just an example of the writer’s and her editor’s ignorance. Perhaps they don’t know that alumni is a plural; its singular, when referring to a female is alumna. If they cared about such things, but were not inclined to use a dictionary, they could have used the gender-neutral alum or graduate.

I’m supposin’ that they don’t care, just as they don’t care that a dollar sign and the word dollars is a tad redundant. Or that placed should be place. Not only did they get the verb wrong, but they also forgot the other half of the correlative conjunction not only…but also in a sentence that resembles the word salad that could have been uttered by the current occupier of the Oval Office.

It took me less than 2 seconds…

It took me less than 2 seconds to spot this error on Yahoo! Style:

fewer-minutes

Lots of people know that when you’re talking about countable things, you use fewer and not less: We’d like to see fewer grammatical errors and less pretentious writing. But fewer people know there are exceptions to that rule. If you’re writing about time, money, distance, or weight, the correct word is less, not fewer: less than $100, less than 3 miles, less than 20 pounds, and less than 15 minutes.

Maybe a pick-me-up would give it some oomph

This little excerpt from Yahoo! Style could use a little oomph. A pick-me-up and some hyphens are in order:

umph-sty

The writer could probably use a little pick-me-up too, or at least a little pick-me-up-and-take-me-to-a-dictionary. There she might learn that umph, when it does appear in a dictionary, is an expression of disgust or skepticism.

Does it involve a time machine?

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?

to-come-before-sty

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.

You know the old saying?

You know the old saying “it’s better to write fast than to write well”? No? That’s because I made it up after reading this on Yahoo! Style:

sleeves-sweater

I’m trying to come up with a reason for so many errors, like the missing punctuation in what should be ’70s, and the use of its for the  contraction it’s. And more missing punctuation and the misspelling of granddad. And why the writer would call this sweater a “sleeves sweater”:

sleeveless

It’s a sleeveless sweater or a vest or even a sweater vest.

But why so many errors? I can only surmise that the writer was under an incredible time crunch, that she’s not a great typist and that she hasn’t completely mastered English. And the company she works for has very, very low standards for content. Maybe even no standards.

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire…

If there’s a raging war about writing, you can bet I’ll be adding fuel to the fire, fighting for grammar, spelling, and the genitive case. I will not be adding fumes because that makes no sense. And neither does this gem from Yahoo! Beauty:

fumes-ablaze-sty

Maybe we should ask for a translation

I’m thinkin’ that this caption on Yahoo! Style is probably in English, but I’m not sure. I’m going to ask Google to give me a translation (and maybe add some punctuation).

large-should

Ultimately choose the wrong word

I was going to hold a contest for the worst word usage on Yahoo! Style and ultimately choose the winner via a social media vote.

ultimately-choice

But how in the world could I narrow the list of wrong words to a manageable number of nominees? There are just too many.

Nice try. But wrong

Looks like this Yahoo! Style writer was trying to be excruciatingly correct, but wound up being completely wrong:

whomever-wears-sty

The word she should have used is whoever, because it’s the subject of the verb wears.

If you’re unsure if you should use who or whom (or whoever or whomever), go with who (or whoever). You’ve got a 50-50 chance of being correct. If you use whom or whomever and you’re wrong, you look like a pretentious high school dropout.

I was stopped in my tracks

This little sentence from Yahoo! Style stopped me in my tracks:

stopped-tracks-sty

What the heck did the writer really mean? Stopped traffic? Stopped trucks? Stopped tricks?

%d bloggers like this: