I hate the verbification of nouns

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.

An editor needed for he

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.

Does your Rolodex include an editor?

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.

Weave got a problem

It looks like we’ve got a problem with a verb over at Yahoo! TV:

weaved tv otnb

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

Guess what’s not a question. It’s this headline on the home page of Yahoo! TV:

guess ques tv

That’s an imperative sentence starting with guess, which is a command to the reader, not a question.

They’re too little

The editor-in-chief for Yahoo! TV went a little light when tapping out what should be Little Leaguers:

little leaguers tv

Little League and Little Leaguer are trademarks of Little League Baseball, Incorporated.

Sharpness and foresight are two traits

It seems that the Yahoo! TV writers can’t count, or they think sharpness and foresight are a single entity:

sharpness foresight is cel

You think him was in a tight spot?

This grammatical gaffe on Yahoo! TV will never sit right with me:

with he tv

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.”

Pants or asparagus?

Does a music steaming service entertain someone pressing pants or preparing vegetables?

steaming tv

Thanks to Yahoo! TV for the first laugh of the day.

No clue. No clue at all

I have no clue what the heck this means:

lacking k tv

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?

%d bloggers like this: