Do you remember anything?

Do you remember anything from third grade? If you’re this Yahoo! Makers writer, the answer would be, “not so much.” She apparently forgot how to form the plural of a noun (hint: it generally doesn’t include an apostrophe) and she forgot that valentine is not capitalized when you’re referring to a card:

valentines apo diy

It’s not an old wives’ tale

It’s not an old wives’ tale: People judge you when you make grammatical, spelling, or other mistakes in your writing. Just look at what the editors at Yahoo! Makers did:

wives tale diy hp

Did the writer actually think that wive was a noun and therefore, its possessive form must be wive’s? Somebody needs to go back to third grade for a refresher: When the plural of a word ends in S (like, say, oh, maybe wives), its possessive just gets an apostrophe.

Totally random, totally wrong

It’s no wonder that the byline for this article is simply “Yahoo! Style staff.” If I wrote that poorly, I wouldn’t want my name attached to the article, either. Among the many, many mistakes is this totally random use of an apostrophe and a couple of apostrophes that go missing:

subjects sty

Why didn’t anyone notice that subjects is missing its apostrophe and the plural of bathroom doesn’t have an apostrophe? Didn’t someone spot the misspelling of Ashley? Doesn’t anyone at Yahoo! know that it’s (and not its) is a contraction for it is? Did it really take the entire “staff” to make that many gaffes in one sentence?

Don’t be silly

This has got to be the silliest plural noun I’ve ever seen. No surprise that it’s from Yahoo! Makers:

fillys diy

Didn’t we learn in third grade that to form the plural of a word ending in Y “change the Y to I and add ES”? Well, at least some of us learned that.

How many car manufacturers are there?

You probably thought that there was more than one car manufacturer in the world. You would be wrong. Or the editors at yahoo.com would be wrong:

fp manufacturers

If they’re referring to a single manufacturer, then the placement of the apostrophe is correct. If they’re referring to more than one maker — and we know they are — the apostrophe belongs after the S: manufacturers’.

How many antipastos do you need?

Reading this on the home page of Yahoo! Makers, I was sure that the writer was talking about two or more antipastos — which didn’t make a lot of sense:

antipasti diy hp

I wanted to see just why two or more antipasti were needed to a wreath, so I read the article and noticed something disturbing:

antipasti diy

The instructions are not for multiple antipastos, but for a single antipasto. And this poor dear writer decided that although the rest of the world calls it an antipasto, she knows better and calls it an antipasti. Which is the Italian plural of antipasto, and an acceptable alternate plural in English.

Worried about your job?

Let’s take the charitable view of this article by the Yahoo! Style news “editor” and assume that she’s worried about keeping her job and the anxiety is affecting her writing. With recent headlines about Yahoo! selling off parts of the company, she may be concerned about her future. Of course, it’s also possible that she has a tenuous grasp of English and a third-grader’s vocabulary.

The article is filled with typos and misspellings, but they’re not nearly as bad as her misuse of common words, like betrothed. She apparently thinks it means married, and not engaged:

betrothed sty

She has trouble with the plural of some words, like aircraft:

aircrafts style

The plural of aircraft is aircraft. If she wanted to emphasize the fact that there were multiple planes, she should have used the word planes.

Homophones are another problem for this gal, who can’t seem to remember that palate is the roof of her mouth (or her sense of taste) and palette refers to a color scheme:

color palate sty

Why were the folks at Sofia Vergara’s wedding glowering? We’ll have to ask the “editor” for an explanation:

glower-filled sty

Proving again that plurals are too difficult for her to master, she comes up with lilys instead of lilies. (Didn’t we all learn “change the Y to I and add ES” when we were 8?) And her limited vocabulary is again on display. I wonder what fauna (deer? gorillas? wildebeests?) was lurking among the flora:

lilys fauna sty

Finally, she’s just a tad confused about matching a verb to a subject:

each were sty

When the subject is each the verb is singular (was, not were, in this case).

Poor thing. This “editor” is worried about her job. And with good reason.

Won followed by another

Here’s one major gaffe from Yahoo! Style, followed by a complete headscratcher:

won sty

Why do Yahoo! writers and editors have so much trouble with forming the possessive of a plural noun? It’s simple: coworkers is the plural; coworkers‘ is the possessive.

It takes a team

It took a team Yahoo! Style staffers to come up with this ridiculously wrong possessive of the plural noun models:

modelss sty

Apparently there was some disagreement in this brain trust as to where the apostrophe goes — before or after the S. So that put it before and after an S. (Just in case someone on the Style staff is reading this, here’s the scoop: the possessive of models is models’.)

SEALs the deal

Nice try. But wrong. The plural of SEAL (a member of the U.S. Navy’s special forces) is SEALs. Don’t believe what you read on the Yahoo! front page:

fp seals cap

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,083 other followers

%d bloggers like this: