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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
