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!

Removing your mistakes has never been exciting

Yahoo! Style staff seems to include a writer who is still learning English. That’s OK. There’s nothing wrong with hiring ESL students, especially if they’re working for a trade school, where on-the-job training is part of the experience. If they’re employed by a for-profit company, then they need a competent editor to avoid publishing an embarrassing statement like this:

Try to ignore the obvious grammatical gaffe and focus on the allegation that removing layers [of clothing] has never been exciting. You won’t get an argument from me.

Thanks for the clothes!

Thanks to Yahoo! Style I am now the proud owner of the “fashion trends to know for fall 2017.” Some generous person just bought them for me!

That’s an excellent example of why you can’t rely solely on a spell-checker to do your proofreading.

Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and manmade errors

Maybe the writer for Yahoo! Style is dealing with a funky keyboard with an occasionally inoperable Shift key and a space bar that’s kinda jacked:

Just in case the writer actually made these mistakes intentionally, let’s school her: Big Bird and Cookie Monster are Muppets deserving of being treated as proper nouns. And manmade is one word according to the American Heritage Dictionary, though it allows the hyphenated man-made.

A screaming cape, a ladylike error, and sometimes grey

It’s probably not ladylike to point out writing errors by professional writers, but I’ve never been mistaken for a lady. When I saw three errors in a single sentence on Yahoo! Style, I knew I had to say something:

What did the writer think “a lady like pink” means? That there’s a lady who likes pink? Uh, no. She meant “a ladylike pink.” That’s something completely different. Also different is the spelling of grey. Although it’s not technically wrong, some U.S. authorities consider it a chiefly British spelling, and all suggest that gray is the preferred spelling.

That sound you hear is me screaming: Seeing mistakes like that makes me literally scream. But can a cape literally scream? No, but it can figuratively scream.

Throw it back

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph from Yahoo! Style that if I were writer’s editor, I’d throw it back at her and say, “Try again, honey. It’s not worth my time to try to fix this.”

throw-back

Is it really that bad? Yes. Yes, it is. An editor could change the pronouns their and they to its and it, since they seem to refer to Milan. And an editor could add the word the before Milanese’s and change that to the plural possessive Milaneses’. But the sentence still wouldn’t make any sense. It’s a straight-up (notice the hyphen?) mess. It’s a throwback (notice it’s one word?) to the days of our youth, before we knew about grammar and spelling and punctuation and sentences with actual verbs.

But that’s not all. The Cure should be The Cure’s and the random capitalization of some of those song titles has me scratching my head and dusting the dandruff off my keyboard. And the noun throwback is still one word.

Not even trying

There are times when I read something on Yahoo! Style and think, the writer isn’t even trying to be accurate. This is one of those times:

lisa-rena

The writer didn’t bother to do a little research into Lisa Rinna’s name. She couldn’t be bothered to find out the name of Ms. Rinna’s husband. Her husband is not Mark Hamlin; he’s Harry Hamlin. She’s just not tryin’.

Now appearing Knightley

How bad is it when a professional writer screws up a celebrity’s first and last name? Pretty bad, but not surprising since the misspelling of Keira Knightley appears on Yahoo! Style:

kiera-knightly-sty

It’s not the only misspelling in the article, but what really made this one a standout was the fact that it could have been avoided with about 2 nanoseconds of effort. Oh, with another 2 nanoseconds of Googling, the writer might have learned that as a noun, standout is one word.

Her subject and verb aren’t perfect

Whenever I see a grammatical goof this blatant, I wonder what the heck the writer was thinking:

silhouettes-and-palette-is

Then I remember I’m reading Yahoo! Style and there probably was no thinking involved.

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.

%d bloggers like this: