Showing posts with label verb-noun agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label verb-noun agreement. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 June 2016

Double-take, # 240

A noun-verb mismatch in the headline is supported by an odd turn of phrase in the subheading, plus a possible eggcorn:

Link: WalesOnline
Box of retro Wales shirts […] are discovered; youth shirts; packages for packaging

Monday, 23 May 2016

Not Washed or Cooked, # 309

From Just Liam comes this mind-boggling mangle. As is isn’t possible to determine how vacancies are uploaded and by whom, the perpetrator is not apparent, although the bonus mangle, from the same page, must certainly be the university’s own text:

Link: Indeed, ‘Instructor or Assistant Professer: UMD Department of History’

Professer; Smoking, chewing tobacco and the use of electronic cigarettes is prohibited

Tuesday, 12 January 2016

Multimangle, # 34

This is horribly mangled:
Link: Medievalists.net, ‘Why Tolkien’s Beowulf is an “amazing book but a terrible translation”’
“a horrible, horrible, horrible translation” one that; The translation was made by Tolkien in the 1920s and intended it to be “crib notes” that was to be used

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

Multimangle, # 28

Dr Faustus sent this in for Singular or Plural?, highlighting the second paragraph’s nasty noun-verb disagreement. I’ve also kept the previous paragraph in the screenshot, which supplies a range of mangles, including the failed past participle, the nonsensical order of the first two clauses which, as it stands, expresses a chronological impossibility, and also the use of an indicative (‘is’) where a subjunctive would make more sense. The BBC’s own version of the text has now been considerably altered by further editing, but the text as originally published can be found via a Google search:

Link: BBC News, ‘China’s yuan gains IMF reserve status’
have suggest; concerns […] is; If Beijing’s wish is granted later on Monday, some analysts have suggest that by 2030 […]

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Double-take, # 202

How can any professional writer think that a singular verb might be appropriate here? (The article’s title seems short of a possessive pronoun, too.)

Link: The Sunday Times, ‘Money’ section, ‘At 95, I’m fighting the NHS to fund wife’s care’
millions of pounds has [+ title: At 95, I’m fighting the NHS to fund wife’s care]

Wednesday, 4 November 2015

You Cannot Be Serious, # 61

A hideous grammatical lapse on a page nonsensically headed ‘Security on Eurostar?’:

Link: Eurostar.com, ‘Security on Eurostar?’
We […] recommend that all valuables and important documentation is kept

Saturday, 26 September 2015

Multimangle, # 26

The stone circle alluded to here certainly predates the apostrophe, and the name applied to it may well do, but the modern signage at the site does not and apostrophes consistently appear in the name on the official website (of which more tomorrow). It is also not apparent why the name here is treated as a plural when ‘The Rollright Stones’ — equally plural to the naked eye — takes singular verb forms on the website (where this name does not appear as a subject); nor why the superfluous singular subject noun in the first paragraph on the sign is treated as if plural:


Kings Men

Saturday, 29 August 2015

Thursday, 7 May 2015

Double-take, # 151

This was spotted by John Holloway at Torpoint Yacht Harbour in Cornwall:


Perhaps the writer was a fan of the television series The Dukes of Hazzard.
hazzard for hazard

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Double-take, # 114

The verb, but not the inadequate punctuation, has been corrected since Des Pond of Slough spotted this last Friday morning:

Link: The Telegraph, ‘Rosetta Mission: What Can They Do to Save Philae?’
The Rosetta mission team is facing a race against time to save the probe, here is the options

Monday, 13 May 2013

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 5

Today's offering, taken from an email from the Telegraph about an IT glitch in its subscriber routine, contains a range of issues relating to clarity of expression, mainly connected to the failure to have the pronouns agree in number with the nouns to which they supposedly relate. Thus both the Technical Team and the subscribers are represented by the plural 'they', making it seem that it is the subscribers, not the technicians, who are running the tests. Then there's the fact that the subscribers, being referred to as 'that' rather than 'who', seem to have been stripped of humanity.

However, the star mangle occurs in the final line:


Thursday, 18 April 2013

Mangling Meaning, # 6

This piece from last Saturday's online Coventry Telegraph rather needed some grammar, punctuation, editing and proofreading. It's not clear whether (or how much of) the mangling is original to the quotation or as filtered by the writer…


Thursday, 11 April 2013

Singular or plural? # 3

The grammar in these paragraphs, from the Android version of a BBC report published earlier this week, became more confused as the text continued:


The online version shows the correct form of the verb to harmonize with 'formula' in the first paragraph, but it's still not clear how the pronoun 'them' is supposed to function in the second paragraph:

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Singular or plural? # 2

This one's been superceded as mangle of the day a couple of times, but its moment has finally come.


Recent reading suggests that we're likely quite soon to be having a lot of examples of verbs not agreeing in number.

Friday, 29 March 2013

Not Washed or Cooked, # 16

The Pope's homily at the Holy Thursday Mass of the Chrism yesterday was reproduced by the online Catholic Herald. The preamble ― presumably not written by Pope Francis, even though he alone is credited in the byline ― offered a summary and a duplicated mangle:


Spellchecking and proofreading are clearly not encouraged at the Catholic Herald. There's also a failure to harmonize quotations from the homily, resulting in a confused final paragraph:


Since 'Pope' is the only singular noun preceding the pronoun, the comment implies that some priests may become dissatisfied by the Pope's negative qualities…