Her subject and verb aren’t perfect

Whenever I see a grammatical goof this blatant, I wonder what the heck the writer was thinking:

silhouettes-and-palette-is

Then I remember I’m reading Yahoo! Style and there probably was no thinking involved.

Readers protest tyop

Readers protest this attempt at ageism on Yahoo! Style:

agesim-sty-fp

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.

It took me less than 2 seconds…

It took me less than 2 seconds to spot this error on Yahoo! Style:

fewer-minutes

Lots of people know that when you’re talking about countable things, you use fewer and not less: We’d like to see fewer grammatical errors and less pretentious writing. But fewer people know there are exceptions to that rule. If you’re writing about time, money, distance, or weight, the correct word is less, not fewer: less than $100, less than 3 miles, less than 20 pounds, and less than 15 minutes.

Maybe a pick-me-up would give it some oomph

This little excerpt from Yahoo! Style could use a little oomph. A pick-me-up and some hyphens are in order:

umph-sty

The writer could probably use a little pick-me-up too, or at least a little pick-me-up-and-take-me-to-a-dictionary. There she might learn that umph, when it does appear in a dictionary, is an expression of disgust or skepticism.

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.

You know the old saying?

You know the old saying “it’s better to write fast than to write well”? No? That’s because I made it up after reading this on Yahoo! Style:

sleeves-sweater

I’m trying to come up with a reason for so many errors, like the missing punctuation in what should be ’70s, and the use of its for the  contraction it’s. And more missing punctuation and the misspelling of granddad. And why the writer would call this sweater a “sleeves sweater”:

sleeveless

It’s a sleeveless sweater or a vest or even a sweater vest.

But why so many errors? I can only surmise that the writer was under an incredible time crunch, that she’s not a great typist and that she hasn’t completely mastered English. And the company she works for has very, very low standards for content. Maybe even no standards.

Maybe we should ask for a translation, part deux

I was going to ask Google for  simultaneous translation of this caption from Yahoo! Style, but I’m rethinking that decision. I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know what the writer was saying:

short-shorts

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

%d bloggers like this: