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.

Percent increase

Today I heard an extremely competent financial anchor say that MGM stock was up 250% from its March low. The stock was trading near 8.20, and the March low was 1.81. In other words, the current price was roughly 4.5 times the low.

The correct way to describe this situation is to say that the stock is up 350%. Many people, however, would say that it's up 450%. They forget that the word up indicates the difference between the prices, not the ratio between them. The anchor's error, however, went in the other direction.

My guess is that the anchor received written copy that correctly said that the stock was up 350%. Familiar with the usual error, the anchor assumed that the copywriter had made it. She compensated by subtracting 100 from the correct percentage, arriving at the erroneous 250%.

Same old stuff

Recently I noticed that I haven't posted to this blog in quite a while. I keep noticing things that grate on my ear, but they're mostly the same things I've already blogged about.

C'mon, folks. Make some new mistakes. :-)

Tack vs tact

Tact: social gracefulness.

Tack: the direction of a ship's movement, or, metaphorically, an approach to a problem.

So when someons says they want to try a different tact, they probably mean tack.

Mischievous

Turning on my local public radio station this morning to listen to Car Talk, I instead heard one of those insidious pledge breaks that I am so tired of. The droning voice, referring to the Car Guys, said he liked the mischievious way they answered questions.

According to the Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary (online version), that spelling and pronunciation, while they are common and go back to the 16th century, are non-standard.

It's mischievous, not mischievious.