It’s time for a review of recent blog posts just in case you’ve missed them. We call this Replay Thursday. Here are posts from Proof That proofreading blog and 60 Is The New 60 blog during the past week.
https://proofthatblog.com/2019/02/04/grammar-giggle-barbies/
https://proofthatblog.com/2019/02/05/confusing-words-of-the-week-47/
It’s time for “Confusing Words of the Week” where I take a set of two or three words that get confused and give you definitions and try to give you a memory trick to help you remember when to use which word. If you have words that confuse you, use the Ask PTB tab on the website or send an email to [email protected] and they may appear here soon!
This week’s words are:
Memory tips:
This was a picture I took of a Christmas gift for my youngest granddaughter. It highlights the improper use of an apostrophe. What exactly belongs to Barbie? Or are you talking about more than one Barbie? Perhaps you’re talking about 20 Barbies? If this had said 20 Barbies and Barbie’s accessories, then the apostrophe in the second “Barbie” would be correct because you’re talking about accessories belonging to Barbie. As it is here, the apostrophe is incorrect because you’re talking about 20 Barbies so it is plural NOT possessive.
This past weekend I spent some time on winery tours. I found several Grammar Giggles to share with you.
Resturant – should be restaurant.
Picknicking – should be picnicking. Someone got carried away with the “k’s”
We had a special pairing where I found a couple of mistakes in the menu. The first made me wonder if Herman Munster was involved because it should be Muenster.
But my favorite was an absolutely amazing bite of dessert that was a cross between a brownie and fudge. As much as I thought I had “died” and gone to heaven, it really was more decadent than decedent.
This was a recent news story. Spell check would not catch this because “belongs” is spelled correctly. However, I believe they meant “belongings” so it is the incorrect word.
It’s time for a review of recent blog posts just in case you’ve missed them. We call this Replay Thursday. Here are posts from Proof That proofreading blog and 60 Is The New 60 blog during the past week.
Although this story from The Beaverton was a little over a year ago, it really shows the dangers of relying on autocorrect:
OTTAWA – Canada is one step closer to the accidental legalization of cannibalism after the House of Commons passed a typo-ridden Bill C-45, formerly known as The Cannabis Act.
“I think no one wanted to be the one to point out the error,” MP Sara Anderson said. “We all thought someone else would do it, and then they called the vote, and here we are, all voting to legalize cannibalism.”
“It’s just one of those things.”
But Anderson also says the error might, conceivably, have something to do with a lot of MPs jumping the gun on legal cannabis.
“You know how it is,” said Anderson with a shrug. “You have the munchies, suddenly everything is about food… who can say why anything happens, really?”
The typo, which somehow crept into the House bill between the second and third reading, is expected to cost the Canadian economy up to 22 billion dollars a year in lost cannabis-related revenue but create a boom in cannibalism-related tourism.
“I guess now we’re all hoping the Senate will fix this,” Anderson said. “But I wouldn’t count on it. Some of them seem far more enthusiastic about the bill now than they were when it was about pot.”
At press time, the Green Party was calculating the carbon costs of a pound of long pig.
It’s time for “Confusing Words of the Week” where I take a set of two or three words that get confused and give you definitions and try to give you a memory trick to help you remember when to use which word. If you have words that confuse you, use the Ask PTB tab on the website or send an email to [email protected] and they may appear here soon!
This week’s words are:
Memory tips:
I’m all for a play on words in retail advertising. I smile or laugh when I “get it.” But I saw this one recently in my travels and had an issue with it. Why is there a comma after “biscuitier”? You can say “bigger and biscuitier” but would you really say “bigger and biscuitier and biscuit”? I think the comma between “bigger” and “biscuitier” is enough.
Follow