No clue. No clue at all

I know this teaser on the home page of Yahoo! Finance is wrong, but I have no clue how to make it right:

Donald Trump lead makes no sense to me, even if the editor had used the correct past tense of lead, which is led. Is there a word or two missing? Should this be: Donald Trump’s election led …? Who knows!?

Also, who knows why the editor chose to use data as a plural noun. Although data can be used with either a singular or a plural verb, except in the most technical cases, it’s treated as a singular noun denoting a mass quantity. Anyone Googling the word would see that recent data shows it’s most often used with a singular verb.

It took my breath away

Reading this from Yahoo! Finance practically took my breath away:

Maybe someone could breathe some life back into this article with a different word choice.

This is altogether wrong

This use of all together on Yahoo! Finance is altogether wrong:

The expression all together indicates a group performing some action collectively. The word that means “completely, entirely” is altogether.

I just can’t go on

I tried reading an article on Yahoo! Style, but I just can’t force myself to read beyond the first paragraph. It is so stunningly awful in its grammatical mistakes and ignorance of basic English, that I gave up. Here’s what I found with just a cursory examination of the ‘graph; I’m sure I missed a few things that merit attention:

My experience tells me that this writer is not a native English-speaker. Her mistakes are ones that are common with people who did not grow up speaking and writing English. But there’s no excuse for not providing her with a competent editor, if only to save her from embarrassments like these:

  • 18 years old should be 18-year-old. He is 18 years old, but he is an 18-year-old model.
  • instagram follower should be Instagram followers.
  • on first name term seems to be a bastardization of on a first name basis.
  • to loose his cherries for the first time is not just a vulgar expression, it’s kind of a stupid metaphor. First, she means lose, not loose. And one can only lose one’s cherry (which is singular) once. So I’m really confused as to what this is purported to mean. Maybe it just means the writer is both careless and ignorant.
  • There’s a missing the in at Coachella music festival.
  • will also be is redundant when one ends a sentence with too.
  • been to famous music festival needs a the.

I’m sure I missed something, and I didn’t even touch on the run-on sentences. Please, Yahoo!, get this gal an editor!

Everyday error appears every day

It’s a common, ordinary, everyday-type of error that appears nearly every day on Yahoo! Style:

It’s seems that the editors just can’t remember that as one word, everyday means “common, ordinary”; as two words it means “each and every day.”

Alter that word

The writer for Yahoo! Style altered the meaning of this sentence when she used alter instead of altar:

You’re so vain, you probably think this blog is about you

Ever wonder if the Yahoo! Style writers think this blog is all about them? Well, it practically is, since they make so many errors they seemed to be featured every day. In the same vein, there are lots more errors in other Yahoo! sites, but the ones on Style are the easiest to find, like this one:

in-the-same-vain-sty

Does this strike a chord?

This strikes a chord with me, and not in a good way. It’s an example from Yahoo! Style of a writer confusing a group of three notes (which is a chord) and  a string or rope (called a cord):

chords-sty

Where did that come from?

What do you call an accessory that goes with everything you have on? A wherewithal!

Ha-ha. That riddle just popped into my teensy brain when I read this on Yaoo! Style:

where-sty-gaga

If this homophonic horror happened in a nineteenth century classroom, the writer would be sitting on a stool in the corner where she would be forced to wear a dunce cap.

 

I’m loath to say this, but I loathe this mistake

This is mistake is on my list of top 10 most loathed errors:

are-loathe-sty

If you mean reluctant or fearful (which is what I think the writer was going for), use loath. Reserve loathe for times when you really, really hate something. Like this writing.

%d bloggers like this: