Fans watch out

I’m probably one of the few grammar fans who always watch out for mismatched subject-verb pairs. It stems from childhood when my friends and I would each pick a subject and then try to find the correct verb. I would have been thrilled to read this on Yahoo! Sports, with its mismatch of subject (fans) and verb (which should be watch) and where instead of when:

watches spo


I admit it: Sometimes I’m just really nitpicky. I read a sentence like this one on Yahoo! Makers and say (sometimes out loud): What the heck does the writer mean?

picnic 1

Is she saying that sitting down at a dinner table (as opposed to preparing that dinner) requires no thought, but a “picnic situation” (which I presume is different from a picnic) requires thought and planning? I don’t get the comparison. I also don’t get why logisics and differnt passed through the spell-checker unchecked. Oh, yeah, I forgot: Yahoo! writers don’t use spell-checkers.   They also don’t believe in proofreading for missing words. But I quibble.

And and I don’t understand how a writer can misspell separately, since separate appears on every list of the 100 most commonly misspelled words. Shouldn’t a professional writer know that?

picnic seperately

Is it nitpicky to expect that a writer would know that picnicing, if it were a real word, would be pronounced pick-nice-ing?

picnic ing

In order to maintain the hard C sound at the end of picnic, the writer should have added a K: picnicking. But I pick nits.

Where can you find C-suit executives?

Have you heard of C-suite executives? They’re the men and women at the C-level of a corporation: chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief operations officer and others. What do they wear? C-suits? That’s a new term just coined by a Yahoo! Finance writer, though I suspect she inadvertently dropped a letter:


I do not think it means what you think it means

Mysterious words have proliferated throughout Yahoo! Style as a result of one writer’s ignorance of basic English:

proliferated sty

I do not think proliferated means what she thinks it means. She probably thinks it means infiltrated. It does not.

Tennis skirt, anyone?

It wouldn’t be a proper Yahoo! Style article without an incorrect word changing the meaning of a sentence:

tennis skirt

Prime ministers on the English channel?

Huh? I have no idea what prime ministers (AKA premiers) on a channel have to do with Caitlyn Jenner. Those editors at Yahoo! Style always manage to confuse me:

premiers channel

I think I’ll just give up trying to figure out what that means. I’m going to watch a little TV. Maybe I’ll catch Ms. Jenner’s show, which premieres on the E! network.

Don’t rub it in

Just because the writer for Yahoo! Style doesn’t know that a masseuse is a female, don’t rub it in. Maybe she’s still learning the language:

masseuse sty

I’d be exasperated, too

Wouldn’t you be exasperated if you read this on an allegedly professionally written site like Yahoo! Style?

exasperated sty

I suppose if you’d exhausted all your other options for reading, then maybe you could overlook this erroneous word choice.

One benefit of proofreading

One benefit of proofreading what you’ve written before you publish it: You won’t look like an idiot by misusing a word, like this Yahoo! Style writer:

benefits outweigh sty

Better to omit a wrong word

You might think that omitting a word (or two or three) is a horrible mistake, but if you read Yahoo! Style, you know there are worse errors — like not omitting a word:

scion sty

The writers (who claim to be Yahoo Style Editors) left out something after who’s also. I have no idea what. But they should have omitted the word scion, since they have no idea what the word means. A scion is the descendant of a prominent or wealthy family. Not a word that has ever been applied to Keith Richards.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 991 other followers

%d bloggers like this: