Some really flaky spelling

Everybody loves a well-written article, but don’t go looking for one on Yahoo! Makers. This writer must have had loaves on the brain when she wrote this:

loaves diy

She manages to use the preferred spelling flaky once, but chooses an alternate spelling just a few words later. But she goes completely off the rails with her use of the plural pronouns them and they, which are lacking an antecedent. If she had written about biscuits, and not a biscuit, they’d be okie-dokie. But she didn’t. Boo.

We are appalled

We lovers of all things grammatical are appalled by this gaffe on Yahoo! Makers, made by someone with the title of editor:

us lovers

Editors head to dictionary

Ha-ha. Not really. The editors at didn’t head to a dictionary when they wrote and approved this:

fp mem heads

Maybe if they had they would have learned that memorabilia is a plural noun requiring the plural verb head.

Missed that grammar class?

Did you miss any classes in grammar? Just know it comes at a price. Without basic knowledge of grammar, you could look as ignorant as the Yahoo! Style editors, who can’t match a pronoun (which should be it) to its antecedent (fashion):

they sty hp

Uncovering the quote

Holy moley. In what universe is the pronoun its correct in this sentence from Yahoo! Style?

its baring sty

What does it refer to? newbie? tools? I think the writer meant tools and just didn’t recognize it as a plural noun requiring the plural pronoun their. It’s a careless oversight, just like using the wrong closing quotation mark.

I’m calling T-shirts baring a quote total BS. T-shirts don’t bare quotes, though they’ve been known to bear them.

This is so different

This little paragraph from Yahoo! Style is so different from what you’d expect from a senior editor:

us mortals sty

Wouldn’t you expect that someone with that title would know to use different from us and not different than us? Maybe that’s asking too much of someone who thinks that us can be the subject of a verb. It can’t. The fact is, we mere mortals who read Yahoo! know more about grammar than its “senior editors.”

A couple errors

It’s not a couple of errors on the Yahoo! front page; it’s one error and it involves a missing word:

fp couple people

As the American Heritage Dictionary notes:

The of in the phrase a couple of is often dropped in speech, but this omission is usually considered a mistake. In 2013, 80 percent of the Usage Panel found the sentence A couple friends came over to watch the game to be unacceptable.

Whoever decided this was correct…

Whoever decided that whomever was correct in this excerpt from Yahoo! Style was wrong:

whomever decided sty

The pronoun whomever is the objective case of whoever, meaning that it can be the object of a preposition, but not the subject of a verb like, oh, say decided.

Sometimes I think writers use whom and whomever because they think it sounds more sophisticated or erudite. When used correctly, it might.

To each his own

Each time I read something like this from Yahoo! Sports, I cringe:

each have spo mlb

As a pronoun, each is generally singular, but there are exceptions. Here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary says:

…the subject of a sentence beginning with each is grammatically singular, and so the verb and following pronouns must be singular: Each of the apartments has (not have) its (not their) own private entrance (not entrances). When each follows a plural subject, however, the verb and subsequent pronouns remain plural: The apartments each have their own private entrances (not has its own private entrance). When each follows the verb, it has been traditionally considered acceptable to say either The boys have each their own bike or The boys have each his own bike, though both of these (and especially the latter) are likely to seem stilted in comparison to The boys each have their own bike or The boys each have their own bikes. ·

Casting about for the right word

Ugh. Did the writer of this headline on Yahoo! Style really write that? Is there a professional writer or editor who really thinks that the past tense of cast is casted? Yes. And it’s appalling.

casted sty hp

Just in case the writer or editor is reading this, let me explain: The past tense of cast is cast. It’s just that simple. Now go find someone to explain what a past tense is.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,041 other followers

%d bloggers like this: