When did schools stop teaching grammar? It must have been before this writer for Yahoo! Celebrity attended first grade:
Why would anyone with a high school education think that the object of the preposition of could possibly be he, and not him?
I’m appalled. It apparently took an entire team of “Yahoo Style Editors” to come up with one of the most ridiculously ignorant statements I’ve read this week. Let’s skip over the arbitrary and totally incorrect comma, the mismatch of a subject and verb (which should be ranges), and focus on the B.C/A.D times:
It took the entire brain trust of editors to declare that ancient artifacts date back to “B.C/A.D times.” WTF? Are they really that ignorant? Do they not know that AD means all the time from the birth of Christ to the present day and beyond? (It seems like overkill to mention that they think that one period is enough for an abbreviation of two words.)
After that disaster, I suggest readers imagine a website with educated adults at the keyboards. And that ain’t Yahoo! Style.
You know what would be great? If all writers at Yahoo! Style used correct grammar in their writing. Like, if this writer used the correct pronoun in his article:
I suppose it was going to happen eventually: When it became acceptable to use they, them, and their to refer a single person of unknown gender, those pronouns would be used even when the gender of the antecedent is apparent. But it’s wrong here: The antecedent is man; it’s singular and the pronoun should be, too.
If Yahoo! Style ever hired real editors or writers familiar with basic English grammar, I’d have nothing to write about. Not really. There’s still lots of instructive errors popping up every day on Yahoo!. But the mistakes on Yahoo! Style are the best. Where else could you find this grammatical goof, made by a so-called professional writer?
If there were a prize for really embarrassing writing mistakes, this writer from Yahoo! Style would be in contention. There are few errors more embarrassing than misspelling the topic of your article. Like Lilly Pulitzer:
It’s possible to overlook the missing apostrophe in what should be the possessive brand’s. But no one with a basic knowledge of grammar can overlook this mismatch of subject and verb:
This writer’s style lacks a certain cachet — literally. She chose cache (which is pronounced cash and refers to concealed valuables or a type of computer storage) instead of the correct cachet.
Finally, convinced she knows how to spell Pulitzer and proving herself wrong again, she provides more evidence that she’s not going to be winning any prizes anytime soon:
Matching a pronoun to the word it refers to uses too much gray matter for the writer for Yahoo! DIY:
The pronoun it can only refer to a singular noun, like, oh, say, maybe hammock. The careful writer (which is not the person who wrote this article), would have used they (and changed the verbs takes and makes to agree with it), or would have changed Hammocks to A hammock.
The number of errors that you’ll find in this sentence from Yahoo! Celebrity is close to one:
It’s so close to one, that it is one. And it’s a common subject-verb disagreement when the subject is number. Here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary says about number as a collective noun:
As a collective noun number may take either a singular or a plural verb. It takes a singular verb when it is preceded by the definite article the: The number of skilled workers is increasing. It takes a plural verb when preceded by the indefinite article a: A number of the workers have learned new skills.