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.
Drunken Proofreading rating:
***** (five stars) - Whaaahhaa? Whodrankshaaallllthershcotch?
Friday, August 31, 2007
Introducing: Oldies But Goodies
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.
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.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Why mess with something that's obviously working?
Right on the heels of the previous entry, we've found the following item in an article titled, "Another Cuban custody fight simmers":
"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.
(Repeat offenses merit stiffer penalties.)
"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.
(Repeat offenses merit stiffer penalties.)
Now Accepting Submissions
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.
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 AP strikes again!
Well, all we can say is at least it's not a sports story.
We found this gem in a story titled, "Dutch royals caught revising Wikipedia":
"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 found this gem in a story titled, "Dutch royals caught revising Wikipedia":
"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.
Fake ID Patrol violation at 710 ESPN radio's website
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.
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.
Introducing: Fake ID Patrol
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
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
Friday, August 24, 2007
What's Wrong With This Picture at Disneyland
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?
More AP tomfoolery...
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!
"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!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Drunken Proofreading at the AP
We found this item on foxsports.com in an article titled "In book, Bettis says he faked injury in 2000" by *gasp* the AP:
"Bettis' recollection may be more anecdotal than fast-based." (emphasis ours)
This is a pretty good example of AutoCorrect Syndrome. What is a fast-based recollection?
An interesting note: the AP story that appears on Yahoo's sports page correctly reads "fact-based." Do the AP and foxsports.com split the blame?
DP rating:
** (two stars) - Had one too many beers at lunch! What? You say I'm not supposed to drink on my lunch break?
"Bettis' recollection may be more anecdotal than fast-based." (emphasis ours)
This is a pretty good example of AutoCorrect Syndrome. What is a fast-based recollection?
An interesting note: the AP story that appears on Yahoo's sports page correctly reads "fact-based." Do the AP and foxsports.com split the blame?
DP rating:
** (two stars) - Had one too many beers at lunch! What? You say I'm not supposed to drink on my lunch break?
Introducing: Drunken Proofreading
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?
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?
Some Ground Rules
* 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.
* 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
