Neither writer nor editor saw this

Did anyone over at notice that there’s a messed-up correlative conjunction:

fp neither or

Dumbest Statement of the Day

I’m not going to mince my words: This little sentence on Yahoo! Style is the dumbest thing I’ve read today:

minced sty

The writer (and her editor, if she has one) must be complete morons. This is from an article about Mr. Bublé “fat shaming” (yes, that is apparently a real thing) a stranger. The writer thinks “mincing words” means that he was somehow insulting or chewing out the stranger. It is the exact opposite. The American Heritage Dictionary says that “to mince” means “to moderate, restrain, or euphemize (words) for the sake of politeness and decorum: Don’t mince words: say what you mean.

That’s not where it goes

Where did she get that idea? Where did the writer for Yahoo! Style get the idea that dust (from hanging out in a desert) would be caked between cracks in one’s skin?

dust sty

It would be caked in cracks. It’s just one more example of throwing out words without regard to their appropriateness. But this is Yahoo!. What should we expect?

A new Words with Friends?

Has Yahoo! News announced a new game: Word War Two?

word war news

It sounds like a variation of Words with Friends, except with enemies.

Are you bored?

Are you bored by the daily misuse of words by the writers at Yahoo!? Me, too! Here’s just the latest from Yahoo! Makers:

bored of diy

The American Heritage Dictionary says that bored with and bored by are preferred expressions when you’re bored:

If an activity or experience starts to bore you, are you bored by it, bored of it, or bored with it? All three constructions are common in informal writing and speech, but they enjoy different degrees of acceptance. The most widely approved wordings are bored with and bored by. In our 2012 survey, the sentences I’m getting bored with this lecture series and I’m getting bored by this lecture series were accepted by 93 percent and 88 percent of our Usage Panel, respectively. By contrast, only 24 percent of the Panelists found I’m getting bored of this lecture series at least somewhat acceptable.

Is that correct? Not by a long shot

Is this idiom used correctly on Yahoo! Style? Not by a long shot. And by that I mean, “NO!” Jeez, doesn’t the writer know that a long shot is a horse, person, or occurrence that has little or no chance of succeeding?

long shot

This writer also is a long shot for succeeding at writing. If she’s not the worst writer at Yahoo!, she’s at least a runner-up.

Cutting a wide swath in English

The writers for Yahoo! Style don’t exactly cut a wide swath through the English language. They’ve barely mastered a basic vocabulary:

swath sty

They might swathe themselves in the pages of a good dictionary. Perhaps they’d learn the difference between swath (which is a noun meaning “a wide path” or “a great impression or display”) and swathe (a verb meaning “to wrap or bind.”)

Reader’s no-holds-barred reaction

Here’s my no-holds-barred reaction to this teaser on Yahoo! Celebrity: It sucks.

no-holds cel

It sucks, but it doesn’t suck as hard as this writer’s attempt at the common expression.

You should have kept it under wraps

The writer for Yahoo! Style should have kept this sad attempt at a common idiom under wraps:

on the under wraps sty

Neither confirming nor denying that she’s responsible for the incorrect correlative conjunction won’t absolve her of responsibility for the mistakes she makes.

Is that a step stool for a hair dresser?

What the heck is a “stylist step up”? A stool for a hair dresser? Or just a stylish typo on Yahoo! Makers?

stylist diy


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 929 other followers

%d bloggers like this: