Double-take, # 137

Ugly grammar:

Link: The Guardian, ‘Police from several UK forces seek details of Charlie Hebdo readers’

Since the customer is deemed human (‘who’), why not the newsagent? (Compare butcher, baker, candlestick-maker &c.) The relative pronoun ‘that’ would be correct were the writer referring to the business, but in that case ‘newsagent’ would need to take the possessive form — ‘a newsagent’s that’ — in which the possession, ‘shop’, is idiomatically omitted.

a newsagent that

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 165

A mangle found on the National Portrait Gallery website proves, on further investigation, to be heinously widespread:

Link: National Portrait Gallery, ‘Hon. Julian Henry Francis Grenfell’

A Google search for ‘solider-poet’ returned 1,510 results, as well as asking ‘Do you mean: “soldier-poet”’ (without a question mark). These examples from the results come from academic books:

Link: Google, search "solider-poet"

solider for soldier

Mangling Meaning, # 26

Another strange verbal construction and some less than smooth punctuation from Sky’s on-screen television guide:

sold 250 millions

Double-take, # 136

Today’s example provides both a verbal mangle and one of those odd mismatches between text and illustration that sometimes occur on Amazon:

Link: Amazon.co.uk, ‘Handles & Ironmongery Double Coat Hook […]’

I can’t definitely tell that the chrome coat hooks aren’t Polish, of course… Perhaps the model is.

Polish chrome; [wrong illustration]

Double-take, # 135

I’m guessing this has not been written by a native English speaker, though I’m not familiar with the particular grammatical oddities here from my own experience of mangles in international/second-language English. In addition, Bart’s surname — a key element of the whole website — is spelt correctly only when in the form of a link (copied and pasted?), although its mangled form is flagged as incorrect by standard spell-checking dictionaries:

Link: Wikisimpsons, ‘Bart Simpon [sic] Comic Book Kon’

Bart Simpon (++); was a the; found out at Bart; has a own comic book; also an own action figures

Double-take, # 134

Another from John Holloway, who found this in Sainsbury’s at Swindon:

There’s an explanation — of sorts. John comments: ‘The free-with-a-£37-bottle-of-scotch scarves are available for £10 if bought separately. According to Sainsbury’s, that means the scarves cost £10/litre!’

scarves £10/litre

Not Washed or Cooked, # 208

A mangle found by Des Pond of Slough on ASDA’s online shopping portal:

fro for for

You Cannot Be Serious, # 39

As well as visiting Staples in Coventry (see yesterday’s post), John Holloway has also been shopping at the Co-operative in Walton on the Naze:

Anrdex for Andrex

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 72

John Holloway sends this mangle found in the Coventry branch of Staples, and comments: ‘This is a line that’s not moving!’

stationary for stationery

Not Washed or Cooked, # 207

An illustrative screenshot for a calorie database application:

Link: Google Play, ‘Simple Calorie Count’

buscuit

Multimangle, # 14

Dr Faustus has sent this well-mangled paragraph from an Irish website, appropriately called Balls, announcing a competition to win Six Nations tickets ‘with some very special extras’. These extras include an erroneous homophone, and confusion about whether the pronoun representing a company should be in the neuter singular form or — conflicting with the singular verb used — made plural:

Link: Balls, ‘Win 4 Tickets To Ireland v England With Some Very Special Extras’

bank as its & their; there for their

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 71

I was invited to sign this petition some time ago:

Link: UK Government, e-petition, ‘Introduce mandatory noise complaint waivers […]’

The main mangle is innumerate for innumerable, which I’d not come upon before.

Note: the petition attained over 43,000 signatures. The government’s detailed response concludes that adequate legislation is in place to safeguard both venues and residents. The issue will be reconsidered should the number of petitioners reach 100,000.
innumerate for innumberable

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 75

Mo Juste went to Corby the other week, and this is what he found:

As he says, ‘If you’re going to get it wrong, make sure everyone can see it.’
carer’s wanted

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 164

Just Nick found this mangle on ITV’s website:

you’re for your

Not Washed or Cooked, # 206

A mangle from Ryan McCarthy:

Source: The Independent, Section 2/Features, ‘Seven Things You Didn’t Know About Me’ (3 February, 2015), p. 37

The error has been faithfully reproduced in the online version:

Link: The Independent, ‘Seven Things You Didn’t Know About Me’

lates

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 74

Contributed by Mo Juste, who said rather sadly, ‘I despair…’ — as well he might.

Link: Northampton Chronicle & Echo, ‘Artwork commemorate’s [sic] Northampton’s shoe history’

commemorate’s

Multimangle, # 13

John Holloway has sent in these extracts from an invitation to an interview for a job — as an English teacher!

syntax, punctuation, grammar, apostrophes, If you are planning on bring with a USB devise

You Cannot Be Serious, # 38

Grammatical contradiction:

Link: The Guardian, ‘Police from several UK forces seek details of Charlie Hebdo readers’

The variation of relative pronouns here is nonsensical. Traditionally, who is used for human beings and that for inanimate objects. Although this distinction is not always maintained, the needs of clarity demand that there should be consistency in the usage chosen; but there isn’t here. Why is the customer’s humanity allowed, but not the newsagent’s? Perhaps the authors — there are two — meant to write newsagent’s, thus referring not to the person, but to the business, which would, of course, take that not who.

newsagent that, customer who

Not Washed or Cooked, # 205

An Internet quiz link, lifted from Facebook:

populare for popular

Double-take, # 133

Seems improbable:

Link: The Guardian, ‘IPCC investigates alleged student assaults […]’

The journalist’s determination to be pithy has undermined logic: the mismatched syntax in the final section of the sentence results in a statement that exactly reverses the true state of affairs. To avoid such ambiguity, relative clauses should immediately follow the noun they qualify. The reader should not be expected to work out the logic from external knowledge or additional research.

a university that called for the scrapping of tuition fees

Not Washed or Cooked, # 204

Contributor pleaseproofread has spotted a mangle in a student union press release:

Link: Warwick for Free Education, ‘Press Release: Warwick Students’ Union Votes No Confidence in VC Sir Nigel Thrift’

Febuary

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 73

Hypercorrection by the BBC — but however many times it’s repeated, it’s still wrong:

Link: BBC, BBC One, Watchdog (6 November, 2014), ‘Owner’s [sic] Direct’

The company’s name is shown correctly in the logo on the videoclip (shown above) and again, twice, in its response, which is reproduced on the BBC’s webpage. So why all the apostrophes?

Owner’s Direct [for Owners Direct]

You Cannot Be Serious, # 37

Mo Juste justly finds fault with this:

Link: YourNewsWire.com, ‘Man Who Predicted Swiss Euro Collapse Issues Dire Warning’

Mo comments: ‘An impressive triple variant on the spelling of predict. I especially like “predication”. Obviously the longer a word is the more intelligent the user.’ The writer also seems to be challenged by punctuation…

predication, predits [for prediction, predicts]; random hyphen; missing punctuation

You Cannot Be Serious, # 36

It’s unclear whether Daniel Radcliffe is the originator of the mangle reproduced here, but the editors should have checked both the text and the index of first lines more carefully prior to publication. Unfortunately their failure is not confined to this book, but has been widely reproduced, so that Tony Harrison is now misrepresented as a grammatical incompetent and/or appalling proofreader all over the Internet:

Poems That Make Grown Men Cry: 100 Men on the Words That Move Them, ed. by Anthony Holden and Ben Holden (New York: SImon & Schuster, 2014), p. 169. Link: Google Books

Poems That Make Grown Men Cry, p. 301

you for your

Mangling Meaning, # 25

This is another example of yesterday’s mangle, this time preceded by some confusing syntax:

Link: Coventry Telegraph, ‘Coventry pensioner conned out of cash in bogus lottery scam’

Ambiguity results from the omission of the conjunction that, which would indicate both the start of the subordinate clause and its relation to the main clause, and its replacement with inaccurate and inadequate punctuation. These errors mean that the ground is not prepared for the rest of the sentence, and indeed make it seem at first that the Trading Standards spokeswoman is replying to the correspondence. The omission of the conjunction also means that it is unclear whether the section beginning ‘victims’ is correctly shown as reported speech (Morgan said [that] victims), or actually direct speech that lacks quotation marks (Morgan said: ‘Victims’), which is underlined by the use of the same term, said, to introduce both direct and indirect speech. The whole is nonsensically laid out in paragraphs made of short, single sentences, producing a disjointed style that does not aid comprehension.

syntax [missing that = ambiguity]; paragraphing; sucker’s list

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 72

Here is one of many examples of this mangle. It may be a hypercorrection; it’s certainly nonsensical:

Link: Manchester Evening News, ‘Don’t add your name to the “sucker’s list”’

sucker’s list

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 71

Spotted at a car show last summer. The first line dealt correctly with its apostrophe, but then it all went wrong:

my minis the dogs bollocks

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 163

Another from John Holloway:

John comments: ‘I didn't know I had an email dress!’
email dress