Oh the irony. Deduct points from journalists... assuming they have any points left. Or since I've been corrected on at least one other thread tonight... maybe this is grammatically correct? I would have said "poorly written" not "poor written".
Good for you - that’s exactly what I was going to say. It should have been “poorly” written.
You would be correct, not to mention more elegant...
You’re correct. That should be “poorly written” and it indeed was, lol.
You’re correct. “Poorly” is the adverb to be used for the verb “written”. “Poor” would be used only in the case of an adjective, as in “The poor English are failing grammar classes because they use poor English.
In the old days, and depending on the discipline, fluency in a foreign language was expected. In chemistry, it was German.
Yes, that “poor written” jumped right out, didn’t it?
The grammar in many articles today is atrocious, with grammar or structure in headlines being the worst! These journalists today seem to figure that as long as they get all the words they want to convey into a sentence, they’ve done their jobs. They seem to have no regard as to where those words are are placed.
Sad to say, Breitbart has some of the most poorly worded headlines.
It all depends on whether “poor” is being used to modify “written” (in which “poorly” (adverb) would have been the correct modifier) or to modify “written-English” in which case “poor” (adjective) is the correct modifier.
If they had inserted a dash between “written” and “English” it would have been clearer that they were regarding “written English” as a compound noun.
No, I believe “poor” relates to “English”, not “written”. “Poor (written) English” is correct usage. It is not bad penmanship that is addressed here, but a lack of grasp of the English language.