We discovered this flat-out faceplant on foxsports.com in an AP article titled, um, "After 104 years, Havard sheds light on football." (emphasis ours)
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.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Our inbox is overflowing today!
This next item was submitted by Tynitra W, who found this Oldie But Goodie in an AP article titled, "Obama: Dems Lack Votes for Timetable":
"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.
"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.
In which we take a short break from flogging the AP
We'd like to thank Grady W. for bringing this article-noun disagreement to our attention.
Grady found this error in a Times Online (UK) article titled, "Police push for charges against Madeleine McCann's mother as case goes to prosecutor":
"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.
Grady found this error in a Times Online (UK) article titled, "Police push for charges against Madeleine McCann's mother as case goes to prosecutor":
"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.
What's wrong with this picture?
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.
Friday, September 7, 2007
The AP soldiers on...
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 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.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
This one's a dilly!
Let's just say we've seen ESPN.com's lazy, and it's not pretty.
We found this article-subject disagreement snafu in an article titled, "Oregon State's Stroughter expects to play at Cincy":
"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.
We found this article-subject disagreement snafu in an article titled, "Oregon State's Stroughter expects to play at Cincy":
"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.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Oh AP, whatever shall we do with you?
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
