A blend of old and new

Here’s a blend of old and new on Yahoo! Style:

Using the wrong word is an old error on Yahoo!, but using the expression blend between instead of blend of is a new error.

What makes this different from correct

If I could, I’d ask the Yahoo! Style writer if she knows what makes this wording different from, say, the correct wording:

The American Heritage Dictionary covers the use of different than and different from. Here’s the part that’s relevant, though you may want to read the full discussion:

Traditionally, from is used when the comparison is between two persons or things: My book is different from [not than] yours. Note that noun phrases, including ones that have clauses in them, also fall into this category: The campus is different from the way it was the last time you were here.

Something smells a little ripe

Yahoo! Style is rife with grammatical gaffes, terrible typos, and massive misspellings. But of all the mistakes I find on on the site, my favorite is the incorrect word:

ripe-with

You’re so vain, you probably think this blog is about you

Ever wonder if the Yahoo! Style writers think this blog is all about them? Well, it practically is, since they make so many errors they seemed to be featured every day. In the same vein, there are lots more errors in other Yahoo! sites, but the ones on Style are the easiest to find, like this one:

in-the-same-vain-sty

Does this strike a chord?

This strikes a chord with me, and not in a good way. It’s an example from Yahoo! Style of a writer confusing a group of three notes (which is a chord) and  a string or rope (called a cord):

chords-sty

How much more does it take?

If crop tops, chokers, neon everything and more trends aren’t enough to merit a plural verb, what more does it take? You’d have to ask the Yahoo! Style writer who can’t seem to match a verb to its (very plural) subject:

wasnt-enough-sty

It’s unbelievably bad writing

This is possibly the worst writing by a professional that I have read in a long, long time. It’s not because of the grammatical errors and wacky word use (though they are factors). It’s because the Yahoo! Style writer made no attempt to state actual facts. It seems she made up most of the information in the article and there was no oversight to stop her.

It starts with this little lie, which alleges that Martha Washington was a great hostess at the White House:

fl-1

Martha Washington never lived in the White House, since it wasn’t even built when her husband was president. In fact, Mrs. Washington never even lived in Washington, DC. But this writer’s imagination isn’t confined by facts.

Moving on to Eleanor Roosevelt, the writer decided her life needed some enhancements, so she alleges that Mrs. Roosevelt helped serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy:

fl-2

I don’t know how one does that, but I do know that it was her husband who was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. But, let’s just pooh-pooh facts.

Why would a writer make up a name for a first lady? I have no idea, but I have evidence that this writer did:

fl-3

Pat Nixon’s real name is not and never was Patricia; it was Thelma. Why couldn’t the writer just Google that? Because facts are not important at Yahoo!.

Then there’s the “fact” that Rosalynn Carter’s father helped support her family after he died:

fl-4

I guess that’s possible, if there’s an inheritance involved.

Nancy Reagan gets a little better treatment: The writer claims that Mrs. Reagan’s  “Just Say No” campaign was jaw-droppingly successful, while the rest of the country considered it an embarrassment:

fl-5

Wasn’t it just two months ago that Mrs. Clinton was running for the presidency, and not the “Presidential office”?

fl-6

She wasn’t “the U.S. Senator of New York” (which makes no sense); she was a U.S. senator from New York. That’s a tad different.

What else is a tad different? This claim that Barbara Bush is Laura Bush’s mother:

fl-7

Barbara Bush is George W. Bush’s mother; it would be an incestuous scandal if she was also Laura Bush’s mother. She is Laura Bush’s mother-in-law. Laura Bush didn’t create a “literary program,” but a literacy program. But I quibble. After all, it’s only words.

That’s altogether different

This Yahoo! Style writer should get a jump-start on her high school diploma and head over to a dictionary. She might learn that jump-start has a hyphen, workout is one word when it’s a noun and this sentence is altogether different from correct:

jumpstart-work-out-altogether-sty

Let’s say this all together: If you mean “totally, entirely, completely,” use altogether. Use all together when you mean “together, as a unit or whole.”

Where did you get that idea?

Where did the Yahoo! Style writer get the idea that this wear — and not that where — is correct?

wear-to-shop-sty

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

%d bloggers like this: