To be, gratuitously

Today I heard an interviewer on KQED radio say, "You're someone who has lived in the Bay Area for many years." Why not say, "You've lived in the Bay Area for many years"?

I have heard this construction in various forms quite frequently. Weak communicators seem to like the verb "to be." I don't agree with eliminating "to be" entirely, as some have suggested, but it's a good idea to think twice when you find yourself using it.

Chinas, Indias, Brazils

In describing the G-20, a financial reporter explained that, unlike the G-8, it includes "the Brazils, the Indias, the Chinas." This is synecdoche gone wild. Each of these countries has a distinct economy and is not really representative of a class of similar countries.

I hear this figure of speech in other contexts where it might be more appropriate. For example, referring to the giants of Hollywood, someone might talk about the Clark Gables, the Humphrey Bogarts, the Greta Garbos. I don't care for it in any context, but in some it's more palatable than in others.

More then 35 million

While watching a TV reporter interview a health insurance executive, I saw the following cross the bottom of the screen: "Wellpoint has more then 35 million . . ."

This is such a common error that I wonder whether it's just a typo. I suspect that a significant number of people intentionally use "then" rather than "than" for comparisons.