More redundancy

[Charles C Doyle]

Yes, but that sense would have been more precise with the phrasing "in terms of number of receptions."  Or, the commentator could have said "leading receiver in terms of receptions received."

Like most other people, I am willing to guess at what speakers (and even writers) mean to say.  I was really noticing (with some amusement) the redundancy in the choice of words, not the intent of the comment.

--Charlie

________________________________________
From: American Dialect Society [ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf of Arnold Zwicky [zwicky at STANFORD.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 10:49 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 4, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Is the leading receiver in terms of yardage also a redundancy?
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Charles C Doyle <cdoyle at uga.edu> wrote:
>
>> During the Atlanta-vs.-Dallas football game tonight, the NBC commentator
>> has remarked at least twice that Jason Witten of the Cowboys is "the
>> leading receiver in terms of receptions."

i take Dan G. to be suggesting that "leading receiver in terms of receptions" is to be understood as "leading receiver in terms of number of receptions", which is *not* redundant; number of receptions is only one of several metrics for "leading receiver".

arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org