After reading this on Yahoo! Beauty, I don’t feel good:
Let’s hope that was just a typo; I’d hate to think the writer thought it was correct.
So, the editor for Yahoo! Sports was going to check this headline — you know, for grammatical errors, spelling, that sort of thing — but took a detour at the latte station and totally forgot about this:
Ha! I made that up. I really don’t know why that headline contains that error. It seems pretty obvious that there’s a plural subject, but a singular verb.
It looks like we’ve got a problem with a verb over at Yahoo! TV:
If you mean “To make (a path or way) by winding in and out or from side to side,” then the past tense of the verb is weaved: The Uber driver weaved in and out of traffic. We weaved our way through the crowded marketplace.
If the meaning you’re after is “to combine elements into a complex whole,” then the correct word is wove or woven: He wove a fascinating story. One of the most prevalent themes woven…
I wish there were some way to roll back misspellings. I’m thinkin’ it would be great if the Yahoo! Finance editors could correct a mistake after a story is published. Of course, that would require that (1) Yahoo! Finance have actual editors, (2) the editors recognize that a noun (like rollback) is different from a verb (like roll back), and (3) they cared enough about the quality of the content on their site to correct errors.
Folks looking for clear information about the effects of Brexit on the US should steer clear of Yahoo! Finance, which offers this prediction:
Can you overlook the obvious disconnect between the plural subject (economy and market) and the singular verb (has)? I should have stopped reading at that point, because the next sentence is a mess of pronouns with no antecedents, except maybe in the mind of the writer. What does “it does have one… exposure” refer to? Does the pronoun it refer to the US economy or the US stock market or the UK economy? And what does its refer to? Some country? I have no freakin’ idea. What I did learn from this? I won’t be reading the accompanying article.