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:

capitol-letters-fin

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)?

women-her-sty

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:

whilst-sty

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:

for-he-tv

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):

cost-have-fin

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:

their-sty

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

In-house editor needed

If ever there was a site that needed a competent in-house editor, it’s Yahoo! Style. Someone who knows that in-house needs a hyphen would be a start:

pedigree style

Someone who knows that “designed in house from a pedigree of experienced industry personnel” makes absolutely no sense could be helpful. It would be great if that person knew to shorten that to “designed in-house by experienced industry personnel.” Someone who knew that “boasts their apparel to be” also is nonsense and should be something like “boasts their apparel is.” An in-house editor would be great. Heck, even an outhouse editor could be great.

It’s so unclear

After reading this on yahoo.com, I can’t figure out which players were fined:

fp its players

Were all WNBA players fined? It seems unlikely, but I’m hard-pressed to find any other singular noun that could be the antecedent for its. It’s more likely that the players on three teams were fined. If that’s the case, it’s clear that the writer should have referred to their players.

After reading this…

After reading this on Yahoo! Beauty, I don’t feel good:

selfies makes bea

Let’s hope that was just a typo; I’d hate to think the writer thought it was correct.

%d bloggers like this: