We exist because the world of professional writing/editing, particularly the online world, is either shamefully understaffed or worse, underqualified. We do not exist to snark on the grammar of amateur individuals. However, if you get paid to write or revise writing for a living, you're fair game. Let the hunting begin!
We won't even touch the question of whether such an item would be palatable to the taste buds; it's unpalatable to the discriminating mind, and that's enough for us. We beg you, do the world a favor and find another low-guilt ice cream to satisfy your craving.
Now that the Christmas shopping gorge has concluded, we would like to take this opportunity to introduce a new category that is particularly product-related. Unpardonable Products are those whose product names involve such outrageous assaults on the English language that they ought never to be purchased by a grammar-loving individual, as a matter of principle if nothing else. Help us send a message to the companies producing these products that such egregious violations of grammatical taste will not be tolerated!
We are grateful to be able to do our part in encouraging responsible consumption.
"The Web site cited an unidentifried source close to the trainer."
We confess, we are not exerting ourselves very strenuously to keep from laughing; we are mostly just laughing inappropriately and getting some strange looks from the gentleman refilling the vending machine. We are aware that this error is likely due to the fact that the writer was rushing to break a story about baseball steroid use (snore); nonetheless, um, spell check? Anyone?
The AP earns a Totally Giggleworthy, C for Creative Spelling, an Oops! Is my lazy showing? and the following Drunken Proofreading rating:
**** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish water bottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.
We came across the following error in an otherwise excellent piece in The American Interest titled, "On Forgetting the Obvious":
"A non-warrior democracy with a limited appetite for casualties is probably a good thing in terms of putting the breaks on a directionless war strategy."
This homographic hiccup is almost cute, really. Breaks, brakes--tee hee*. We would almost rather consider it as an invitation to The Grammar Wall of Shame - a private challenge between The American Interest and us. Well done, mesdames et messieurs. Challenge accepted and met.
Nevertheless, The American Interest has earned itself an Oops! Is my Lazy Showing? and the following Drunken Proofreading Rating:
*** (three stars) - I needed a shot just to look myself in the mirror this morning.
*It must be stated that in the interest of accuracy, and recognizing that we too can err in these matters, we did some research to make certain that this usage was indeed incorrect. While there are many and varied uses of the word break, we have now satisfied ourselves that this usage is improper, although we must confess that, after reading 122 definitions and uses, the word break no longer looks like a word at all. We invite you to read for yourself.
"Auto makers contend tougher regulations won't necessarily get Americans to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles, and point to American's love for their trucks."
The Wall Street Journal might be a new dog in these parts, but this is an old trick: noun-possessive pronoun disagreement. The responsible parties got it right with Americans in the first clause, but it appears that the challenge of making a plural noun possessive was their undoing in the second clause. All of a sudden, we're thrown into confusion. Are we talking about a number of Americans or one person named American? If only one person, whose trucks does he or she love? The auto makers' trucks? The trucks of the Americans referred to in the first clause? (Not to be confused with our friend, American.) And why does this have such an effect on the lobbying policies of the auto makers? With the misplacement of one little apostrophe before an s instead of after it, witness the resulting chaos.
With this apocalyptic mis-apostrophe, the Wall Street Journal earns an Oops! Is My Lazy Showing? and the following Drunken Proofreading rating:
*** (three stars) - I needed a shot just to look myself in the mirror this morning.
Although we have a particular fondness for the University of Southern California due to a familial connection, our unwavering sense of justice impels us to publish this item. In addition, we cannot resist the irony of a sign welcoming scholarship recipients that prominently features a spelling error. We have little more to say on this matter; we believe it speaks for itself. Spend a few moments pondering and we believe you'll see what we mean. 'Fess up. You've got a smile on your face.
This error merits the following awards:
- What's Wrong With This Picture? - C for Creative Spelling - Oops! Is My Lazy Showing?
This error also earns the following Drunken Proofreading rating:
**** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish water bottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.
In honor of Thanksgiving, which is less than a week away, we invite you to feast yourselves on the following delicious headline, which we found on MSNBC.com: "Where did all the Zune's go?"
We know that you, discriminating reader, are easily able to identify the error in this headline. It is not you, but the simpleton sitting next to you, that we address. Dear simpleton, dear charming dolt; you, who cannot remember that a word is pluralized in English with the addition of an s (and in some cases es) and made possessive with the addition of 's--and never the other way around--you give the American character its particular tang. You, and whoever is responsible for the publication of this headline.
It should be noted that this is an AP article; however, the headline appears to have been created by the good folks at MSNBC.com. (For example, the articles on the AP and Yahoo websites are both titled, "Zune 80 in short supply.") Thus, we declare the AP to be fully absolved in this matter; further, in the spirit of goodwill and charity inspired by Thanksgiving, we hereby grant the AP one (1) Get Out of Snark Free card. The next time we catch the AP napping (which will likely be next Thursday, about 30 minutes after dinner concludes), we will keep it to ourselves. However, we feel obliged to make an example of MSNBC.com (Thanksgiving is after all a sort of Puritan holiday), so we will award them with an Oops! Is My Lazy Showing? and the following Drunken Proofreading rating:
Here's a special video edition of What's Wrong with this Picture, brought to you by Mexicana Airlines. This commercial was shown on Saturday, October 27, 2007, on Fox Sports West in the mid-afternoon time slot.
**3:25 p.m. Note - we are currently experiencing technical difficulties with the video. Please be patient. We have been informed by YouTube that some monkeys are working on the problem.**
**3:49 p.m. Problem fixed! We believe. Thank you, monkeys.**
**Saturday, November 17, 2007, Update: Apparently YouTube was highly offended by Mexicana's error and has pulled the video content from its site. We say apparently because they did not offer us any explanation at all, so we are forced to draw our own conclusions. They do not seem to have the same sense of humor about these things that we do.**
Here's a still photo too, just for laughs:
Resisting the urge to rant and rave about all the problems in the world a simple spell-check can prevent, we have spent some time trying to dream up how this special spelling error occurred. Here are some of our ideas:
- "Fligth" is a new term created by Mexicana's promotions department to reward passengers taking their eighth flight this year. It is pronounced flyd-th (like heighth).
- The commercial is in actuality a secret message being sent from Max to 99 in conjunction with the search for the Tequila Mockingbird.
- Those crafty ad folks at Mexicana were trying to garner a spot on The Grammar Wall of Shame in the misguided belief that all publicity is good publicity. (To clarify, this belief is misguided only because they fail to realize that a spot on The Grammar Wall of Shame is actually equivalent to no publicity at all.)
While any of these options is a possibility, this spelling screw-up is most likely the result of an astonishing lack of effort and initiative on the part of a member or members of the professional writing world. Thus, you witness the birth of a new designation for this type of error: Phoning It In. In addition to being the first recipient of this designation, Mexicana Airlines has earned a C for Creative Spelling, an Oops! Is My Lazy Showing, and the following Drunken Proofreading rating:
**** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish waterbottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.
As you can see, astute reader, we didn't get very far before we found something alarming. We would like to believe that this titular trip-up is a tribute to the dialect of the citizens of fair Cambridge; we would like to believe it, but we don't.
Our dear friends at the AP can add to their many accolades and accomplishments the following awards from The Grammar Wall of Shame: C for Creative Spelling Oops! Is My Lazy Showing?
They have also earned the following Drunken Proofreading rating: **** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish water bottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.
"Bush has said he's basing his plan on the advise of the nation's military leaders." (emphasis ours)
Advise, the verb, is not technically a homograph for advice, the noun, but it looks like one, and failure to detect the difference can be the source of much confusion.
This Golden Oldie earns the following Drunken Proofreading rating: *** (three stars) - I needed a shot just to look myself in the mirror this morning.
We are also pleased to announce that we have inspired our very first piece of ad hominem criticism from a total stranger who somehow found us online. We have been accused of pedantry, which we dispute only in the sense that part of a pedant's offensiveness has to do with a seeming lack of self-awareness. We, on the other hand, are aware of our tendency to hairsplit, and believe it to be part of our charm.
"She would also face a charge of concealing a Madeleine’s body." (emphasis ours)
As a proper noun, Madeleine does not require an article. If the sentence were talking about Madeleine cookies, the singular article a might be appropriate; however, it is not yet a crime to hide a cookie, so the sentence would be illogical. This mistake is doubly shameful because it takes a subject that is grim and awful and makes it...silly. We trust that the good folks at The Times will be more vigilant in the future.
This gaffe merits an "Oops! Is my lazy showing?" and earns the following Drunken Proofreading rating: **** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish waterbottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.
Many thanks to Christina W, who submitted this photograph for our review.
It's almost a shame to pick on this sign as it seems so clearly to be the product of a non-native English speaker. In that spirit, we're introducing a kinder, gentler subcategory: Totally Giggleworthy. We're not going to pick on the glaring spelling mistake or the AutoCorrect Syndrome-type error. However, we can't resist posting the photograph because it's so completely, well, giggleworthy.
If the stress of your work day gets to be too much for you, we suggest bookmarking this page. Please, take a mental vacation on us to a world where only the people who help rock stars into and out of their clothes between songs can use the facilities.
In our regular readings on philosophy, art, beauty, and other high-minded, intellectual subjects, we found the following error in this AP article titled, "Disney Backs 'High School Musical' Star":
"The films' wholesome nature — for a company that has made its name on family-friendly fare for generations — is a big part of its success." (emphasis ours)
This one is perhaps the most tricky of the disagreement examples we have found thus far because it all hinges on the placement of one tiny but significant piece of punctuation: the apostrophe. How many films are we talking about? If the subject is one film, the sentence should read: "The film's wholesome nature [snip] is a big part of its success." If the subject is plural, the sentence should read: "The films' wholesome nature [snip] is a big part of their success." If that still sounds awkward to you, it's because with the proper plural subjects, the non-count noun "nature" seems out of place. However, flip-flop the noun phrases on either side of the verb and you'll see what we mean: "A big part of the films' success [snip] is their wholesome nature." Isn't that better?
Because this is such a tricky situation, we're going to go easy on them and only give them the following Drunken Proofreading rating: *** (three stars) - I needed a shot just to look myself in the mirror this morning.
"The Beavers opened their season last Thursday night with a 24-7 victory at home against Utah, testing the arms of a competing sophomore QBs Sean Canfield and Lyle Moevao." (emphasis ours)
The indefinite article a does not belong here because a) the sentence refers to more than one quarterback, and b) both quarterbacks are sophomores. (It should also be noted that it is unlikely that both arms of either quarterback were tested. We admit, the very thought makes us giggle.) In short, there is no excuse for the presence of this a.
At first glance, this appears to be a simple case of Oops! Is my lazy showing? However, we noticed that a line at the end of the article indicates, "Information from The Associated Press was used in this report." Out of what some might call a morbid curiosity, we did a little digging and found the original AP story, and what to our wondering eyes should appear? No, not what you might think - but we did find the errant sentence, identical to the one found in the ESPN article.
Dear reader, we wonder if you fully understand the implications of this discovery. We are only beginning to grasp it ourselves. Here is what evidently occurred: the AP writer wrote the original sentence, which his/her editor failed to notice. ESPN got the story from the AP wire and assigned their own writer to the story. He or she then (it is to be assumed) did their own research. Please hold on--it's about to get really ugly: the hapless ESPN writer excerpted chunks of the AP article (which we know is done all the time), including the questionable sentence, but apparently did not read it carefully enough to detect the error. This means that at least four people (and possibly more) looked at this sentence and found it acceptable for publication.
We probably don't need to tell you that an error of this magnitude is in a category all its own: We Are (Almost) Speechless. It is now 11:30 a.m. We will be hysterical until 11:45 a.m.
Well, our friends at the AP are at it again. When perusing an article titled, "Charges reduced for 2 Jena suspects," the following sentence grabbed our attention:
"Shaw himself has dreams of attending Gramling State University." (emphasis ours)
We have never heard of Gramling State University, but the article's author assures us it has a strong writhing program and an outsanding marching band.
This blooper earns a C for Creative Spelling and the following Drunken Proofreading rating: **** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish waterbottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.
We came across this spectacular grammar gaffe in a Netiquette article on MSNBC.com titled, "OMG! YR still on MySpace? Loser!" (We can barely bring ourselves to type that title):
"It’s not they’re fault. They’re at work, where they’re supposed to be working, not surfing the Web." (emphasis ours)
This falls under the category of Oldies But Goodies. If you undo the contraction, it reads, "It's not they are fault," which makes no sense. The proper usage would be the word that reflects possession, their. An understandable mistake for someone who is entering junior high this week; it is not so understandable a mistake for a professional writer.
Oldies But Goodies are defined as the sort of proverbial grammar mistakes involving homonyms, homophones, and homographs*: than vs. then, affect vs. effect, they're/their/there, you're/your, two/too/to, etc. The abundance of word wonkiness is just one of the quirks that makes the English language so darn magical. These classics will never go out of style; they are the golden oldies on The Grammar Wall of Shame's playlist.
It should be noted that these violations merit a much higher punishment because they involve absolute fundamentals; anyone calling herself a professional writer/editor should have these rules long since memorized.
*For a good explanation of the difference between homonyms, homophones, and homographs, click here.
Note - this post has been corrected. The Oldies But Goodies were originally grouped together as homonyms, the generally accepted categorization for these types of words; however, in the interest of precision, we have included the more specific categorizations, homophone and homograph.
"The facts are different this time around, and neither the U.S. government nor the Cuban-exile community, burned by its negative portrayal during the Elian case, have a desire to repeat the past." (emphasis ours)
Like the previous entry, this is a tricky case of subject-verb disagreement where the language would seem to indicate that the verb should reflect plural subjects. However, the tip-off is the use of neither/nor. The use of these words indicates that we are talking about neither one subject nor another - these are singular. If you need further proof, the sentence could be rephrased, using clearly singular subjects, to read, "...neither one has a desire..." or "...neither party has a desire..." without changing the meaning. On the other hand, you would never write, "...neither party have a desire..." (Just lie to us, ok?)
As this is the second time today we've found the AP to be guilty of this infraction, we feel compelled to give them an Oops! Is My Lazy Showing? In addition, they have earned the following Drunken Proofreading rating:
**** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish waterbottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.
We will be happy to consider any items you would like to submit for publication. If you come across something you'd like included, please let us know (even if you can't exactly pinpoint what's wrong).
Send your submissions to grammarsnark@gmail.com.
Please include a linkable source, if possible. Your first name and last initial may be included unless otherwise specified; however, we will never publish your contact information. Compensation may include personal satisfaction and/or counterfeit money.
"The couple feel that due to repeated mistakes in the media, an 'incorrect version of events has arisen,' he said." (emphasis ours)
This is a nice example of a tricky subject-verb disagreement problem. Many people feel that because a couple involves two people, the verb ought to reflect multiple subjects. However, the subject of the sentence is one couple; thus, the verb should be conjugated "feels." If it helps, substitute a similar group noun like team in the sentence. You would not (it is to be hoped) write, "The team feel that the uniforms are ugly and the coach is incompetent." And if you would have before, we hope you will not in the future.
Having said that, we're going to cut this AP writer/editor some slack and not award them the Oops! Is My Lazy Showing? designation. What can we say? We're feeling charitable tonight. They have, however, earned the following Drunken Proofreading rating: *** (three stars) - I needed a shot just to look myself in the mirror this morning.
We ticketed 710ESPN's website late this morning for a Fake ID Patrol violation. The following is an exclusive obtained from the Fake ID Patrol's files:
Location of Violation: (censored)
Text of Violation: "710 ESPN is your headquarters for all things USC Football. From our Trojan Blog to more than 14 hours of game day coverage." (emphasis ours)
Arresting Officer Notes: Subject was clearly a dependent clause masquerading as a sentence. When subject was asked if it knew why it had been flagged, it replied, "Huh?" Subject is clearly underqualified and/or understaffed.
Drunken Proofreading rating: Does not qualify as clearly no proofreading occurred.
You'll be ticketed by the Fake ID Patrol if we catch you trying to masquerade as something you're clearly not.
Specific examples of Fake ID violations include the following: - a dependent clause caught attempting to pass for a full-grown sentence - an adjective caught attempting to pass for an adverb - Notre Dame caught attempting to pass for a national title-contending football team
What's wrong with this picture? This is a serious gaffe, especially for a worldwide company like Disney that trades so heavily on its reputation. We wonder whose head ought to roll for this mistake. (As we have recently watched the rerun of The Office with the watermarked paper recall, we suggest Michael Scott.)
This entry onto the Wall of Shame can be classified under multiple categories: C for Creative Spelling (self-explanatory), and Incompetence Starts at the Top - it represents gross grammatical negligence at every step of the creative process: concept, design, manufacturing, approval, etc. It is particularly egregious because it could have been such a simple fix. Missle is not a recorded word. Any spell-checking program would have easily identified this problem.
This entry also qualifies for the following Drunken Proofreading rating: ***** (five stars) - Whaaahhaa? Whodrankshaaallllthershcotch?
Yahoo Sports and foxsports.com both show this error in an AP story, which is titled "South Carolina's Mitchell suspended for first game" and "Mitchell suspended for season opener," respectively:
"The suspension also were announced on Spurrier's Web site for Gamecock fans, www.spurrierhbc.com." (emphasis ours)
A simple case of subject-verb disagreement in the passive voice. Subject-verb disagreement is a very common and completely understandable error for writers/speakers whose first language is not English*. It is far less understandable for native speakers, who generally have an intuitive grasp of the strange subtleties of our language culled from years of speaking/listening/reading. Regardless of their tongues of origin, we expect a higher standard from professional writers/copy editors working in the English language.
This error falls under the category of "Oops! Is my lazy showing?" and earns the following Drunken Proofreading rating: *** (three stars) - I needed a shot just to look myself in the mirror this morning.
*It should be noted, we give a resounding bravo! to those who learn English as a second language. We have the utmost respect and admiration for you. It is not for the faint of heart!
Drunken Proofreading is a pretty simple concept. Pretty much every item that qualifies for this blog involves some degree of Drunken Proofreading because every one of these grammar mistakes should have been caught by a proofreader/editor before the copy went out. But they're not, so we get to have fun. Drunken Proofreading items can run the gamut from a simple spelling mistake to what we call AutoCorrect Syndrome (where the word that appears is an actual word but is clearly not the word that the author intended to appear), or it can be something as dramatic as the egregious violation of several grammar rules simultaneously. Here's the rating guide:
Drunken Proofreading rating guide: * (one star) - Taking a little nip now and then. What? It's been a stressful day! ** (two stars) - Had one too many beers at lunch! What? You say I'm not supposed to drink on my lunch break? *** (three stars) - I needed a shot just to look myself in the mirror this morning. **** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish waterbottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any. ***** (five stars) - Whaaahhaa? Whodrankshaaallllthershcotch?
* Individual, non-professional writers do not qualify for The Grammar Wall of Shame. However, if you recognize yourself in any of these examples, take heed! "A wise man will hear and increase learning." (Proverbs 1:3)
* Sometimes a writer may choose to use improper grammar as a stylistic device (i.e. for humor, for emphasis). This stylistic choice does not count for our purposes. We will do our best to give you the benefit of the doubt.
* There is no personal animus involved against any of the writers who appear on The Grammar Wall of Shame. This blog was created purely because we criticize writing for a living, and it can be very difficult to turn off the editing impulse. It's like defragging our hard drives at the end of the day - it helps to clear out the brain.
* We are not out actively searching for these items (at least not at this stage). The items that appear here are ones we run across in our online/real world peregrinations.
* There are many sports writers we love. Having said that...sports news websites have a much higher volume of grammatical errors than your typical news website. You may see a disproportionate number of examples from sports websites. There, we said it.
We exist because the world of professional writing/editing, particularly the online world, is either shamefully understaffed or worse, underqualified. We do not exist to snark on the grammar of amateur individuals. However, if you get paid to write or revise writing for a living, you're fair game. Let the hunting begin!
