I’m just cury-ous

I’m cury-ous: How does a mistake like this on Yahoo! Style get past the editor and the spell-checker?

Removing your mistakes has never been exciting

Yahoo! Style staff seems to include a writer who is still learning English. That’s OK. There’s nothing wrong with hiring ESL students, especially if they’re working for a trade school, where on-the-job training is part of the experience. If they’re employed by a for-profit company, then they need a competent editor to avoid publishing an embarrassing statement like this:

Try to ignore the obvious grammatical gaffe and focus on the allegation that removing layers [of clothing] has never been exciting. You won’t get an argument from me.

A message to whoever wrote this

This is a message to whoever wrote this for Yahoo! Finance: You used the wrong pronoun.

Although it looks like you’re dealing with the object of the preposition to, you’re not. The entire clause starting with whomever lasts… is the object of the preposition. The writer should have used whoever, which is the subject of the verb lasts.

Here’s a good rule from grammarbook.com:

The presence of whoever or whomever indicates a dependent clause. Use whoever or whomever to agree with the verb in that dependent clause, regardless of the rest of the sentence.

Linda Farrow makes sandals, too?

If you’re familiar with Linda Farrow, you know it’s a brand of luxury sunglasses. Did you know that Linda Farrow offers sandals? Me neither. But that’s what I read on Yahoo! Style:

Of course, those sandals don’t look like gold, do they? You’d think the writer was actually describing aviator sunglasses.

Thanks for the clothes!

Thanks to Yahoo! Style I am now the proud owner of the “fashion trends to know for fall 2017.” Some generous person just bought them for me!

That’s an excellent example of why you can’t rely solely on a spell-checker to do your proofreading.

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.

Illiterate in two languages

When the editors at Yahoo! Style aren’t mangling the English language, they’re destroying French, or now-English phrases derived from French. Like this:

I can only assume the editors meant prêt-à-porter, which means “ready-to-wear,” and is a widely understood term in fashion. Except at Yahoo!.

Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and manmade errors

Maybe the writer for Yahoo! Style is dealing with a funky keyboard with an occasionally inoperable Shift key and a space bar that’s kinda jacked:

Just in case the writer actually made these mistakes intentionally, let’s school her: Big Bird and Cookie Monster are Muppets deserving of being treated as proper nouns. And manmade is one word according to the American Heritage Dictionary, though it allows the hyphenated man-made.

You have no idea what to do with it, do you?

The Yahoo! Beauty writer responsible for this has no idea when to use an apostrophe:

Here’s a hint, don’t use it in a plural noun and put it in a possessive noun. Now ask a colleague to explain what a noun is.

Everyday error appears every day

It’s a common, ordinary, everyday-type of error that appears nearly every day on Yahoo! Style:

It’s seems that the editors just can’t remember that as one word, everyday means “common, ordinary”; as two words it means “each and every day.”

%d bloggers like this: