Gender identify confusion

It seems that the Yahoo! Parenting writer has a little confusion about the gender of a woman’s betrothed:

fiancee par

A fiancée (with two E’s) is a female. This stay-at-home mother is engaged to a man; he is her fiancé.

Going through a phase

Is the writer for Yahoo! Parenting going through a phase? She doesn’t seem fazed by this homophonic horror:

phased parent

It’s the principle of the thing

If you read something on a site about a subject as important as health, you’d expect it to be accurate. But would you trust the credibility of a site like Yahoo! Health, if the writer made a mistake like this?

meditation principals

The writer, of course, meant principles (the basic elements, rules, or standards) of meditation. I wonder how many other homophonic errors this writer has made. Can we except that Yahoo! Health will feature an article on staff infections or the heartbreak of AIDES?

Whom just seems wrong

If you’re a conscientious writer who strives to be grammatically correct 100 percent of the time, but you still struggle with choosing between who and whom, take my advice: Choose who. If you’re wrong, 90 percent of your readers won’t know it and the rest won’t care. If you choose whom, you might be correct, but your writing will sound pretentious and stilted. And if you’re wrong, you might be mistaken for a writer for Yahoo! Shine:

whom had work shine

Could that sound any uglier? The correct word happens to be who, because the pronoun is the subject of the verb had. The pronoun who is the subjective case (and hence, the subject of verbs); whom is the objective case (and the object of verbs or prepositions).

New isn’t always better

The Yahoo! Health site has been completely redesigned. But it brings with it more articles written by Yahoo! staffers and hence, more and more errors.

Here’s an example; it’s not the worst writing you’ll see on Yahoo!. It’s just bad enough to make me skeptical of the accuracy of the content.

Are there less opportunities to exercise outside? No, there are fewer opportunities to exercise outside, so people are getting less exercise and doing fewer exercises:

overeat health 1

Actually, wrecking havoc would be a good thing. Better to wreck havoc than to wreak havoc (which means “to bring about” havoc):

overeat health 2

I can’t begin to fathom why the writer thought this apostrophe was necessary:

overeat health 3

Don’t look here for medical info

Yahoo! Health has gotten a makeover! This is supposed to be an improvement, I suppose, over its previous incarnation. But is the content any better? If you’re seeking accurate information about health that’s also well-written, I suggest you look elsewhere. Here’s what I found in just the first article I tried to read:

wiki health 1

The verb fess, derived from the verb confess, is not considered a contraction of confess. It’s just fess; no apostrophe required.

I thought the name of this journal was a little odd; that’s because the real name is the “Journal of Medical Internet Research.” And that claim that 90 percent of medical information on Wikipedia is inaccurate? That’s wrong, too.

wiki health 2

The truth is that a study of Wikipedia information on ten common medical issues revealed that nine of the ten articles contained an error. NOT 90 percent of all medical information. That’s a huge difference and one that illustrates the writer’s inability to grasp a simple fact.

If the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which for some strange reason is italicized) is a government website, that’s news to me. I’m sure it’s also news to ACOG:

wiki health 3

Looking for accurate health and medical information? Follow the writer’s advice and try WebMD.

Wording for which to avoid

Oh, sweet Jesus. What happened to the writer for Yahoo! Beauty? Did she get caught up in the whole “never end a sentence with a preposition” myth? Is that the cause for this tortured and twisted statement?

choc beauty 1

Not that she couldn’t have written it without ending with a preposition: …sweet to reach for after dinner. Maybe she was trying to avoid two prepositions together. That might be a grammar myth I’ve never heard of.

Sigh. What can you expect from a writer who has interviewed Patricia Bannan and can’t get her name right here:

choc beauty 2

or here:

choc beauty 3

or here:

choc beauty 4

That kinda puts the kibosh on the credibility of the whole article, doesn’t it?

How many fashion shows?

If you believe what you read on Yahoo! Shine, then you’d think that Burberry and designer Tom Ford had a joint fashion show in London:

hats 1

Well, that’s a lie. They didn’t join up in London. The fashion show that the author refers to is strictly a Burberry affair. I have no idea why the writer dragged Mr. Ford into the mix. Just like I have no idea why she dragged a hyphen into this adverb and adjective mix:

hats 2

Or why she dragged an apostrophe into this plural:

hats 3

Perhaps she was confused about the location of the apostrophe (does it go before or after the S?), so she put it before and after the S, even though it doesn’t belong in 1990s:

hats 4

Were the “mall rats” buying droves of hats? It’s kinda hard to picture that since droves means “a large mass of people.”

Not a high school grad?

You might think that you’d have to be a high school graduate to write for Yahoo! Shine. And you’d think that a high school graduate would know that you can’t get a degree from high school, wouldn’t you? But you would be wrong:

degree shine

You can’t get a degree from a high school. You can get a diploma, you can complete high school, you can graduate from high school. But the degree has to wait until college.

Ack! It’s Auckland!

Ack! Someone at Yahoo! Shine misspelled Auckland. And that’s not all! There’s the incorrect whom. It should be who because it’s the subject of the verb, which is either was or wasn’t.

ackland whom

As for the abbreviation a.k.a (for “also known as”), the Associated Press style is without periods (aka), while the American Heritage Dictionary’s style is AKA.

%d bloggers like this: