Bad Santas

From Yahoo! Style we get bad Santas — spelled with an unnecessary (and incorrect) apostrophe:

santas-apos-sty

Readers’ confusion

The writer of this article on Yahoo! Style is obviously confused. Very confused:

voterss-sty

Maybe she didn’t know if there was one voter’s ensembles or many voters’ ensembles, so she mashed them together and created voters’s ensembles. And readers’ confusion.

 

Your apostrophe

Someday the writers and editors at Yahoo! Style might actually display some knowledge of English grammar. This is not that day:

trump-apos-s-sty

The plural of a name that doesn’t end in S is just the name with an added S, like this: the Clintons, the Obamas. (Adding an apostrophe makes the name a possessive, not a plural.) If the name ends in S, make it plural by adding an ES. But under no circumstances does the plural involve an apostrophe. Unless you’re writing about Mr. and Mrs. Apostrophe; then they’re the Apostrophes.

It’s a democratic process, but the Democratic party

Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for the presidency, but you wouldn’t know it if you read this on Yahoo! Style:

democratic-clintonss-sty

As a common noun, democratic refers to a democracy or people in general. But if you’re referring to the political party in the U.S., it’s Democratic, with a big D.

Speaking of a big D, that’s the grade I’d give this writer for coming up with Clintons’s.  I’d be appalled if I hadn’t seen that error so often on Yahoo!. It seems Yahoo! writers (and their editors, if they have them) don’t know that the plural of Clinton is Clintons and the possessive of  Clintons is Clintons‘.

Hard to beat this

It’s hard to beat this for the number of errors in a single sentence:

velcro-flys-sty

I can’t explain why the Yahoo! Style writer included a registered trademark symbol with a product name, unless she’s under the illusion that she has to protect a trademark. Which brings me to the question: Why didn’t she recognize Velcro as a registered trademark, too? Because that would be as wrong as not capitalizing Velcro.

Don’t you wish we could all be flies on the wall when the writer discusses this with her editor? What would her argument be? Oh, never mind. I forgot: Yahoo! doesn’t believe in editors.

All writing serves a purpose

All writing serves a purpose. And the purpose of this article from Yahoo! Style may be to illustrate what not to do. First lesson: If you’re including names in your article, spell them correctly. It’s not enough to just misspell them in the same way. If you’re writing about Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Google her name.

huntingdon-1

Second, if you’re writing about editors-in-chief, don’t capitalize the title and don’t look like an idiot by forming the plural incorrectly. And make sure you’re confident enough in your English to include the article the in “in the second row” and “in the third row.”

Don’t follow the example of this gal. She’s nothing if not consistent. When she misspells a name like Stella Tennant, she sticks with it. None of this silly Googling a name to check the spelling:

huntingdon-2

Finally we encounter this gem, a sterling example of what not to do:

huntingdon-3

The takeaway: Read everything you write before you publish it. Read everything you write before you publish it.

All by one photographer

I know that paparazzi can seem to be everywhere, but is it really possible that one photographer took all the pictures for this article on Yahoo! Movies?

paparazzo mov

It’s possible, but not likely. What is likely: The writer thinks that paparazzo is a plural, meaning photographers. It is not. It is the singular of paparazzi.

The Kardashians aren’t possessive

The Kardashians might have a lot of possessions, but they’re not possessive. The plural is Kardashians, without an apostrophe. Please ignore what you read on Yahoo! Beauty:

kar

Chickens’ hit

Why was the Yahoo! Style writer confused about how to form the possessive of a plural noun like chickens?

chickenss prom sty

Maybe she couldn’t decide if the apostrophe went before or after the S. So, she put it before and after the S. That’s actually quite a clever solution. Totally wrong, though.

If it ends in S, add an apostrophe

It seems that the writer for Yahoo! Style thinks that a word ending in S requires an apostrophe, even if it’s a simple plural:

models apos sty

%d bloggers like this: