Double-take, # 84

There’s nothing like getting ahead of yourself:

Link: Varsity, Coventry

© 2011–2015

Not Washed or Cooked, # 154

This heinous error can be found in the main library of the University of Warwick:

The main mangle is joined by the lower-case z in the second line, which should be capitalized to harmonize with the other classification letters shown.

refernce

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 50

Pop Spencer was recently at Joules Yard in Market Harborough, where he came upon one of those menu boards we feature from time to time:

 

He comments: ‘Not a cheap chalkboard but a professionally designed and printed advertising board. Why do pasta and casserole deserve their own apostrophe, but soups and potatoes etc. have to do without? (As a BTW their vegetarian options appear to be taking the sausage and bacon off the plate of an all day breakfast).’

One might also ask why casseroles and sandwiches have qualifying adjectives, and why ‘well filled’ lacks a hyphen.

casserole’s, pasta’s; random apostrophes

Double-take, # 83

Pop Spencer spotted in the Guardian’s G2 section last Wednesday:

Pop Spencer comments: ‘Harold Wilson died on 24th May, 1995, so I’m not sure how he managed the announcement. It’s been changed on the website, but that’s likely to be because readers are the new editors.’ It’s not, of course, possible to tell if 1996 here represents a factual or a typographical error.

The text is the subheading for an article entitled ‘Are spooks bugging politicians?’ (also different on the web version). Given the ‘beyond the grave’ echo here, spooks seems a strangely apt, if accidental, pun.

Wilson comments in 1996 (having died in ’95)

Double-take, # 82

This comes via Dr Faustus, and seems to be from a standard medical practice new-patient form. The bonus mangles suggest that the template might have been typed after lunch… Hic!

How Often; when your are drinking

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 52

We have to ask — not for the first time — why the BBC’s journalists are not required to study its grammar advice pages:

Source: BBC News, tablet edition

Dr Faustus, who submitted this mangle, knows that amount is the correct term for uncountable nouns, while number relates to countable nouns; but so does at least one person at the BBC, since the topic is addressed on its ‘Learning English’ pages… at least twice. (It’s notable that ‘Learning English’ is aimed at adults whose native language is not English, and that the number-versus-amount issue seems not to be mentioned in the ‘Bitesize’ pages targeted at British school-age learners.)

Elsewhere, schoolchildren are the intended audience. Imagine how cross Dr Faustus became when he came upon this:

Link: Fact Monster Homework Center, ‘Sentence Agreement’

As he comments with no little asperity (and accuracy): ‘Surely the whole point is that number ISN’T the same as amount?!’ Fact Monster identifies itself as part of Family Education Network, and this page is clearly aimed at children. A note at the bottom of the page states that the content is ‘[e]xcerpted from The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Grammar and Style © 2003 by Laurie E. Rozakis, Ph.D.’ (the second edition, research reveals). One to avoid, perhaps.

amount & number confusion

Not Washed or Cooked, # 153

Dr Faustus wonders why a prestigious educational establishment has no facilities for checking spelling:

Link: University College London, Information for Prospective Students, ‘Disabled students […]’

This extract suggests that UCL is also short of commas.
disbaility

Double-take, # 81

Dr Faustus sent this in because of a missing relative pronoun:

Link: Wikipedia, ‘Chivalric romance’

This mangle originates in a failure to harmonize the quotation, an error often seen in the work of some students, who merrily cut-and-paste text from the Internet into their essays without thinking to check whether the new material fits the immediate context syntactically — or to proofread the work later — and to adapt one or other if not.

It’s also notable that the plural pronoun that opens the second sentence (which is the second sentence of the entry, not just the extract) has no logical antecedent since no plural noun appears in the first sentence. Sometimes it is difficult to connect such orphaned pronouns with their subject noun. In this case, it is apparent what ‘They’ refers to, although it is strictly erroneous and also inelegant, and may require the reader to revisit the first sentence for clarification.

Writing should be accurate and coherent, with a smooth narrative flow. Readers should not have to proofread as they go to make the writing make sense.

missing relative pronoun; orphaned pronoun

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 51

Dr Faustus found this mangle on an employment application form:

Twice!

job tittle

Not Washed or Cooked, # 152

Found by Dr Faustus:

Link: The Guardian, ‘Boyhood review [sic] – one of the great films of the decade’

ambitous

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 50

Spotted by Linda Gowans:

Link: The Independent, ‘Brazil vs Netherlands World Cup 2014 [… ]’

exercised for exorcised

Not Washed or Cooked, # 151

Some lovely spelling from the Student Counselling Centre of Leeds University:

Link: University of Leeds, Student Counselling Centre, ‘Self Help Resources’

wich for which; practice for practise; split infinitive