Am I the only one who thinks that an editor who uses a noun as a verb is guilty of an inability to think of an appropriate word?
The genius editors at Yahoo! TV couldn’t come up with remembered, lauded, honored, extolled, admired, celebrated, or adored. So they made tribute, which is strictly a noun, a verb.
A Yahoo! TV writer demonstrates the need for an editor with a single word:
A competent editor for him might point out that the objective case, not the subjective case, is correct for the object of a preposition like for.
Perhaps if the writer for Yahoo! TV had the services of an editor, he would have known that Rolodex is a trademark meriting a capital letter:
File that away for future reference.
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…
Guess what’s not a question. It’s this headline on the home page of Yahoo! TV:
That’s an imperative sentence starting with guess, which is a command to the reader, not a question.
The editor-in-chief for Yahoo! TV went a little light when tapping out what should be Little Leaguers:
Little League and Little Leaguer are trademarks of Little League Baseball, Incorporated.
It seems that the Yahoo! TV writers can’t count, or they think sharpness and foresight are a single entity:
This grammatical gaffe on Yahoo! TV will never sit right with me:
I just don’t understand this: Yahoo! writers continue to use the subjective case following a preposition. Does it really even sound right to them? Do they talk that way? Do they say, “With he in a tight spot”? And if they do, isn’t there anyone within earshot to say, “No, dummy. It’s with him.”
Does a music steaming service entertain someone pressing pants or preparing vegetables?
Thanks to Yahoo! TV for the first laugh of the day.
I have no clue what the heck this means:
According to the Yahoo! TV writer, you no longer have to imagine a world without Kardashians on TV because there are Kardashians on TV. Does this make sense to anyone? Anyone?
Terribly Write 