Double-take, # 25

ASDA copywriters seem to be having trouble understanding the name of the second product listed here, though it isn’t the verbal or grammatical confusion that has brought about its recall:

Source: The Daily Telegraph, 12/10/13, p. 8

It’s not clear whether this is intended to be a ‘Wondrous Witches’ hat (part of a ‘Wondrous Witches’ range, perhaps) or a ‘Wondrous’ witch’s hat (from a ‘Wondrous’ range), or the hat of a witch who is wondrous, or simply a witch’s hat that is itself wondrous. The variant on ASDA’s website is capitalized in such a way as to make the whole construction appear to be the product’s name, though the intended meaning still isn’t clear:

Link: ASDA, Press Centre, ‘Product Recall: George Wicked Witch Kit and Asda Wondrous Witches Hat’

Later, the press release states:

The subordinate clause fails to achieve an agreement in number between the verb (is) and the nouns (care and safety, thus requiring are). This cavalier approach to grammar is echoed in the statement’s content. If customers’ care and safety really were ASDA’s ‘priority’, how could these two items have been passed as fit for sale? (On the same day, The Telegraph published another ASDA recall notice, for a hairdryer, on p. 20, and there is quite a list of live recalls on the retailer’s website, the majority being food products or items for children.)

Perhaps the company would benefit from greater care and precision all round…