An Olympic size error

On one of the most visited sites in the world, an Olympic error:

fp-olympic

The subjects and verb was wrong

Let’s take the charitable view and call this grammatical gaffe on Yahoo! Style a typo:

walls-runway-was

The writer meant to type were but her fingers slipped and she typed was. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Blogger’s says goodbye

I wish we could all say goodbye to typos over at Yahoo! Style. But, alas, they persist:

proenza-schoulers-sty-hp

Does it involve a time machine?

If the current Mrs. Trump is like the first ladies to come before her, does that mean that in the future there will be first ladies who were first ladies in the past before the current first lady of the present?

to-come-before-sty

I’m so confused. Why didn’t the Yahoo! Style writer just say, “Like the first ladies who came before her”? Or just, “Like the first ladies before her”? Or, “Like other first ladies” since all other first ladies came before the current Mrs. Trump? Unless she means the future first ladies from the past. That would involve a DeLorean and Doc Brown.

Maybe we should ask for a translation

I’m thinkin’ that this caption on Yahoo! Style is probably in English, but I’m not sure. I’m going to ask Google to give me a translation (and maybe add some punctuation).

large-should

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

Where did that come from?

What do you call an accessory that goes with everything you have on? A wherewithal!

Ha-ha. That riddle just popped into my teensy brain when I read this on Yaoo! Style:

where-sty-gaga

If this homophonic horror happened in a nineteenth century classroom, the writer would be sitting on a stool in the corner where she would be forced to wear a dunce cap.

 

As spellings go, this is bad

I don’t know that I’ve seen a plural quite like this one from Yahoo! Style:

actresss-sty

Is it possible that a professional writer doesn’t know that the plural of actress is actresses? Yes. Yes, it is.

I’m loath to say this, but I loathe this mistake

This is mistake is on my list of top 10 most loathed errors:

are-loathe-sty

If you mean reluctant or fearful (which is what I think the writer was going for), use loath. Reserve loathe for times when you really, really hate something. Like this writing.

Nice try. But wrong

Looks like this Yahoo! Style writer was trying to be excruciatingly correct, but wound up being completely wrong:

whomever-wears-sty

The word she should have used is whoever, because it’s the subject of the verb wears.

If you’re unsure if you should use who or whom (or whoever or whomever), go with who (or whoever). You’ve got a 50-50 chance of being correct. If you use whom or whomever and you’re wrong, you look like a pretentious high school dropout.

%d bloggers like this: