Not a good place for a typo

Let’s take the charitable view and call this a typo on Yahoo! News:


Typo or egregious grammatical error? Doesn’t matter when it’s in a headline that big. It looks really bad.

Here’s 1 standout grammatical error

Here’s one standout grammatical error on the home page of Yahoo! Style:


Here are five common errors you’ll find on Yahoo!:

  • Mismatch of a subject (like moments) and its verb (which should be are, not is)

OK, that’s only one common error, but you get the point.

It was bound to happen

When it became acceptable (at least in some circles) to use the pronouns they, their, and them to refer to an individual of unknown gender, it was bound to happen: Those same plural pronouns would be used when a singular pronoun is required. It happened on


The pronoun their refers to one of two candidates, both of whom are purported to be male. The correct pronoun is the singular his.

Are those letters to legislators?

While I’m pondering what “capitol letters” are (could they be missives to representatives on Capitol Hill?), you can ponder the mystery that is a mismatched subject and verb on Yahoo! Finance:


The word capitol means only one thing: A building or buildings where legislatures meet. If you mean something else (including uppercase letters), use capital. Maybe someone at Yahoo! can explain why using incorrect words does not matter to the Internet giant.

Women and her lifetime

Will Yahoo! Style writers make the same mistakes throughout their lifetime? Will they fail to understand that a plural noun (like women) requires a plural pronoun (like their)?


Maybe this wasn’t written in this country

While reading this photo caption on Yahoo! Style, I was struck by the writer’s use of the British whilst:


Perhaps Yahoo! outsourced the writing to an almost-English-speaking country. Maybe this was written for a UK site, and not for the American market. Maybe that’s why the writer capitalized queen; in some countries that are not the United States, that might actually be correct. And maybe that Lady Fag she writes of isn’t related to Ladyfag, the writer from New York City. The typo of that for than might be okie-dokie in the land where she lives. But in no English-speaking country is is what makes an acceptable substitute for the correct are what make.

An editor needed for he

A Yahoo! TV writer demonstrates the need for an editor with a single word:


A competent editor for him might point out that the objective case, not the subjective case, is correct for the object of a preposition like for.

Someone could use a grammar book

It looks like this Yahoo! Finance writer didn’t bother buying a grammar book. Perhaps she was concerned that the cost of books has soared. Perhaps she thought that she mastered grammar in fifth grade. Perhaps she can’t identify a singular subject (like cost) and match the correct verb to it (like has soared):


It was bound to happen

Ever since the grammar gods choose to look the over way when writers used the plural pronouns they and their to refer to a single person of unknown gender, it was bound to have unintended and ungrammatical consequences. And here’s the proof from Yahoo! Style:


The pronouns their refer to one male and both should be his.

Each of these is wrong

What do these sentences have in common?

  • No misspelling ever appears on Yahoo!.
  • Articles written by Yahoo! staffers are grammatically correct.
  • Yahoo! articles are always accurate.

Each one of these sentences is wrong — just like this excerpt from Yahoo! Sports, where the writer can’t match the verb (which should be is) to the singular subject:

each are spo

%d bloggers like this: